Beginning (a woman):
Then a man joins in:
Now, his point is not very clearly made, but he does mention companies, so I assume his remark is about them. After a response:
Follows the clarification:
So what he is saying — echoing my own confusion — is that the original concern ("gosh we can't find women for position X") is weird. Why should a company care that a particular stratum of its employees belongs to a particular gender / race / ethnicity? It should not (in my subjective opinion) be of any concern whatsoever, unless there are external forces (such as explicit legislation or fear of public opinion) that might have an impact on the decision. The whole idea of a company preoccupied by the gender composition of its workforce in general or by the gender of each individual candidate in particular is (in my subjective opinion) lunacy. And this guy shares with me the same inability to understand how influencing gender ratio in various positions in a company can even be a goal.
To which he is getting a pretty standard and quite predictable(*), for such exchanges, reply: declaring that gender ratios are irrelevant somehow means actively pushing for leadership to be "white dudes like you". It’s weird that the position "I don't care whether it’s gonna be a white dude or a black chick; I do care that they do their work well and bring profit to the company" doesn't even register with the opposite side.
*) Admittedly, he is asking for it in his last tweet, mentioning how his wife accepts patriarchy. That is not usually the part of other conversations I’ve seen. It’s enough to question gender ratio as an objective to get under fire.
(disclaimer: don't know nor care who the participants of that discussion are; saw a part of it as a retweet in Alex Russell’s feed, got predictably annoyed)