There's an important issue here that's been overlooked. A few sociopath VP's act like sociopaths-- exactly what you hired them to do-- and all men are labeled as sexist, rapists, etc.

The assumption itself is highly discriminatory and completely contradicts the stated goal.

Why do you believe that diversity and meritocracy are mutually exclusive? There are lots of ways companies can and do try to encourage more diversity in their workforce, and few of those approaches involve hiring unqualified people just to fill a quota. Arguments that diversity MUST come at the expense of meritocracy come across as a more subtle way to argue that the status quo represents the natural order of things. Or in other words, the argument is that there are more men than women in tech because men are better suited to it, not because of any non-skill based issues causing a gender imbalance. Because if there were other issues, surely addressing them could improve diversity without making things less meritocratic.

It's not possible to be a "meritocracy" based simply on hiring "the best" without accounting for all the institutional problems when it comes to sexism and sex discrimination that give men the ability to more easily be "the best" than women.

Being able to "ignore" labels is a perfect example of the kind of privilege men have access to in our society. And the fact that these comments from from a username that is reference to a penis / sexual act is just another layer to tech's issues creating a tolerant space for meritocracy to thrive.

By definition, you can't have a meritocracy without having diversity. In a meritocracy, someone needs to determine the "merit", or at least define the rules which will determine it. And as long as that someone is human, the merit will be affected by their thoughts, emotions, beliefs and understanding of the world, which are in turn determined (or at the very least affected) by the world around them.

You do not need diversity to have a meritocracy in 100m sprint. Diversity may help to get closer to meritocracy in other fields, but in some fields the criteria are so difficult to determine that even with diversity it may be virtually impossible within a single company. The good news is that the market corrects this: the industry misjudging opens an opportunity for other companies to hire more effectively by judging correctly. If you believe that the industry is undervaluing group X, then you can hire more effectively by hiring group X.

> You do not need diversity to have a meritocracy in 100m sprint.

I'm not sure that Jesse Owens would agree with you.

The only reason why it seems that we don't is because there are rules which determine the winner, and those rules reflect the worldview of those who have set them. Even today the athletic sprint is not full "meritocracy", as women compete separate from men.

One more note: I've put the word meritocracy in quotes because 100m sprint has nothing to do with meritocracy. That term means that the most capable ones rule, while in athletics those with best results certainly don't rule, even if they reap other rewards.

No meritocracy exists in tech at any level and claims to the contrary so strangely come predicated on a level of social and cultural privilege that, for some shocking reason, those without that very seriously considered and measured (stop laughing) merit so often seem to lack.

It exists... it's just rare. I've seen it work first hand in most of my career at trading firms of all sizes.

Though, after leaving the field from extreme burnout (definitely something to be said there), I haven't seen anything that even remotely matches the meritocratic systems in the finance world. It's kinda bittersweet.

I'm actually saying basically same thing in the middle part of my response. But meritocracies sometimes need to take a hard look in the mirror and admit cognitive biases and tweak the dials accordingly.

Your post actually argued we should introduce cognitive biases, and hire unequally.

Framing doing that as supporting gender equality is the Orwellian doublespeak that people are starting to object to -- you can support diversity without supporting hiring on the basis of race, gender, etc.

> But meritocracies sometimes need to take a hard look in the mirror and admit cognitive biases

Getting closer to a meritocracy implies weeding out cognitive biases already.

You need to get over this infantile faith that tech is a meritocracy. It’s not, and it never has been. That’s a comforting and self-serving myth we keep telling ourselves.

I'm curious. Which professional sector is a meritocracy? From what I've seen, and I may not have seen enough, nothing is a true meritocracy, or really even approaches it. P.S. I'm not trying to be snarky. I really do want some examples (outside of certain sports, I guess) of actual meritocracies. I can't think of one =[

I would argue pure meritocracies become bureaucracies. No need to know the person, just put in their merits. Everyone knows their pay grade and everyone knows what it takes to get to the next level. However, how effective are bureaucracies, well just look at government.

Where did I say that it was? I'm saying a meritocracy is a goal.

You also gave nothing to back up your assertion, but again, I'm talking about priorities.