Oicur has a point that the intuitive that JQ is talking about here is simply reporting back why there wasn't equal representation. IE only 20% of applicants were female so that's why only 20% of those being interviewed are female.
That's not how I read it. Look at the statements;
"Captain Georgina Sutton, has been working hard to recruit more women in traditionally male-dominated fields."
"it has had a policy in place to aim for an even split between male and female candidates for interviews and shortlisted for jobs."
"Incentives and quotas have helped reverse this situation,"
Those are statements of action. Support of quotas etc.
There are only 2 possibilities. People are 'working hard' to simply write reports on the gender balance of applicants, which seems a rather strange turn of phrase not to mention entirely pointless activity when they have no control over the gender balance of applicants;
Or they are 'working hard' to artificially increase the number of women represented at interview and shortlist level. ie, exactly what they said they are doing.
I don't believe for a second this is a passive program.
I agree with rennurpp.
I am not against females becoming pilots, I'm against unfair practices that give them (or any group, males included) an advantage when they may not be the best person for the job.
If they are equally qualified, (experienced) equally talented no problems. A quota system is not a fair system.