When all finish first everyone finishes last

Is there a lack of gender diversity in the workforce? Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau seems to think so.

On November 5^th last year, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau revealed his political cabinet, which for the first time in political history was comprised of 50% women. When asked to reflect on the gender quota of his cabinet, Trudeau simply responded "it's 2015."

In similar gender parity efforts, Trudeau has recently been accompanied by the Australian multi-billion dollar oil company BHP Billiton, with the chief executive Andrew Mackenzie announcing his goal just last month to have half of the company's workforce occupied by women in 2025. Mackenzie voiced that he wishes to make "inclusion and diversity a greater priority." That sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Not to me it doesn't.

And yes, before you ask, I am indeed a straight white male. Upon reading this you may be thinking, "why should he get a say in what women do? He's just another narrow-minded sexist emerging from the shadows following the recent Trump presidency!"

Well this is precisely the problem. Due to my sexuality, gender and skin colour, my opinion has been nullified. All in the name of fighting prejudice.

Now I am not attempting to argue that there are too many women in these fields, as there clearly aren't many at all. My issue is instead this notion of fighting prejudice with prejudice, through this apparent confusion displayed by Trudeau, BHP and others in regards to the difference between equality and equity.

And what exactly is the difference you might ask?

Well imagine a race. Imagine that you are an athlete who has trained for months to enter this one race, win the prize money and buy yourself a new car.

In one scenario, your hard work pays off, you win the race and you take home the cash. This is equality.

Now imagine, that upon winning the race, instead of receiving your prize money, the money is divided equally amongst everyone who entered, even to those who came last and hadn't trained at all. This is equity.

You see, equality is based upon merit. Place each runner at the same starting point, and let nature take it's course. Those who run the fastest, will win the race. The beauty of this is that in the case of society, assuming that there is no discriminatory legislation in the workforce, those who study and work the hardest will reap the most reward. This is a classic libertarian argument for free-market capitalism. Laissez-faire, if you will.

Equality means to ensure everyone begins from the same starting point, while equity strives to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. In the case of Trudeau and BHP, their desire is to intervene with the race in order to ensure they achieve their desired outcome: the outcome of equal gender representation in positions of power.

Now on the surface, this seems to be a well intended proposition. If women are indeed discriminated against, why shouldn't they get a fair chance? Isn't that what equality is?

Well, yes and no. If there is indeed prejudicial discrimination occurring against someone within the workplace, of course it should be eradicated.

However in this case, no prejudice been found.

What has instead been found, is merely a different amount of men and women in the field - an inequity of gender. Though this need not be the result of sexism.

Take nursing for example, a field notoriously dominated by females, with a well known disparity between the amount of male and female nurses.

Now imagine if an agreement for gender parity was signed in that field, where employers may find themselves forced to pick from a smaller pool of potentially less skilled male nurses, purely on the basis of their gender.

This is the dictionary definition of sexist behaviour.

And yet in the name of "inclusion", these propositions for gender equity in the workplace would see that employers devalue the one factor that is truly indiscriminate: merit.

No longer would employers choose their most experienced and most viable candidate, but rather they would be forced to choose their employee on the basis of their gender, or their skin colour, depending on what the perceived notion of equality is popular at the time. This in effect removes the incentives for whoever isn't within the designated minority group of the month, as their efforts will only be undermined by their skin colour or gender. All ironically in the name of squashing prejudice.

And if inequity of gender truly does highlight discrimination in all industries that are male dominated, shouldn't Trudeau and Mackenzie also be urging for more female truck drivers? Or more female trash collectors?

To no surprise, both Trudeau and Mackenzie remain silent on that one.

Now this article is not in any way trying to suggest that women do not belong in politics, or in leadership roles, or any other position for that matter.

Rather, I am proposing that when we see industries which are dominated by men, or conversely by women, we should not suddenly assume the world has regressed into sexism.

In fact, we should see inequity as a good thing. Almost every career aspiration made by individuals is an effort to strive towards inequity, to stand out above their peers and become the most appealing candidate for the job. This is what creates progress. Take that away and what motivation does one have?

And if we truly wish to remove sexism in employment, we should not view individuals as merely a microcosm within their larger gender identity. We should view them precisely as they are: individuals.