Look at it this way. I make the charge that so-called "diversity advocates" don't care about diversity, that it's not a matter of prioritisation - gender is just a smokescreen. I posit they could achieve 100% female boards but then they'd stop. They wouldn't go on to try and tackle the dominance of women in teaching because they never cared about diversity to begin with: just money and power.
What evidence or arguments do you have that could convince bystanders I'm wrong? There are none. The behaviour we observe can be explained in both a complex way (yours) and a simple way (mine), so Occam's Razor applies.
With hunger this is easy. Measure the number of children sick of malnutrition or that dies of hunger per population and square miles. With forest fires you measure the number of forest fire per square miles and affected people per square miles.
So what should we use in order to measure gender disparities. What about gender segregation, ie the professions with the highest rate of gender segregation get also the highest number of resources dedicated to it. We could measure by effectiveness, looking at the historical rate that gender segregation goes down per number of resources in gender equality. We could look at gender disparities in the form of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, addressing each layers gender disparities.
The parent comments implies that money and positional power is the metric being exclusively used here to measure anything.
Yeah, to me this makes no sense. It's like saying that if you care about infant hungriness, you have to help with equal vigor both those starving in war-ridden areas and those in wealthy neighborhoods whose parents occasionally forget to give lunch money. Or that if you care about forest fires, you give the same number of fire engines to California and to Delaware.
In my opinion, if you care about a problem, you dedicate more resources to where its effects are more pronounced.