If there is a gender bias there, and there's something I can do about it that won't be sticking my nose where I don't belong (I don't really want hairdressers telling me how to do tech recruiting), let me know, I'm glad to support it. But until then, I'm in tech: this is my field, and the one I care about improving. This is a tech forum. And the people running Lever are in tech.
Simple as that, it has nothing to do with the job perks or pay. If there were outsiders putting pressure on the tech industry and not the dockworking or hairdressing industry, you'd have an argument--but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
And the question is why is there so much emphasis on only technology to make the workplace 50/50, but not similar pressure on other industries that might be experiencing some sort of imbalance? Besides, why is it a good thing or a necessary thing that technology be 50/50? If you want to argue that we need gender balance in this one specific industry, then I want gender balance in every industry. Otherwise, I'm not on board.
When you vote, do you make yourself as knowledgeable about the political problems of every other city and country in the world as with the political problems of your own city and country? Would you refuse to vote for a particular candidate who promises to do good things for your city and your country, but is silent on improving the lot of every other city and country?
Anywho
What makes 50/50 gender balance "right"? What makes that desirable? The only arguments I'm seeing from anybody revolve around two things:
1. Diversity 2. The population is 50/50
If diversity is the aim, you have to come with some pretty convincing evidence that diversity = 50/50 male/female split.
If it's population, then you need to explain why technology has to have this split and not every industry, or at least explain why this is unique to technology.
Anyway, my argument for the 50-50 gender balance being "right" is that it's the null hypothesis. Absent specific data, one should assume that every industry should have a 50-50 balance.
This is basically 2, except that my confidence about that statement depends a lot on the existence of data that would disprove the null hypothesis. I have little data about other industries, so while I would say that, yes, every industry should have a 50-50 split, my confidence about such a statement is pretty low for almost all industries; I can easily be convinced that there are physiological or sociological factors that justify a non-50-50-split.
I have much more data about tech, so I make the same claim that tech should have a 50-50 split that I make about industry. However, I am much more confident in that statement because I've seen a lot of attempts to reject the null hypothesis that haven't panned out. I would have to see some evidence that's at odds with a lot of existing evidence in order to be convinced of a different split.
The problem is that we're turning this "50/50" split into some sort of magic number that solves diversity "problems", and we're only doing it in this one specific industry, and without any particular reason. What's the ratio of male hairdressers to female hair dressers? If I was interested in hairdressing, should I get a full scholarship to beauty school and preferential hiring treatment based on my gender and a focus on having an exact 50/50 split at the absolute best hair salons in the world? Why is this any different than any other industry? Why not equality across the board?
Somebody will come and cite pay, but there are other jobs that don't require as much education that pay quite well too. So why aren't at least focusing on those in addition to tech jobs? I bring up the dock worker example because it's a typical glass basement example that can be used.
The truth of the matter is that tech jobs are sexy right now. Lavish perks, great offices, fantastic pay, etc.... Nobody wants to advocate for equal opportunity for tough jobs and 50/50 gender ratios in those tough jobs.