This may not be intended as an endorsement of something, but I guarantee you that it will be read as such by some non-negligible fraction of people who are not me.

Using your framework, affirmative action would seem to imply that there is something qualitatively different about female leadership, the reason you think we’re in this mess in the first place.

I do, however, cede to Helen on alchemy, and I think that goes a long way toward explaining what David III wants me to flesh out. It isn’t just that men predominate in debate, it’s that they dominate it. The form itself has become gendered (this is especially true where debate shades into PoR-style pugilism). Women who have been told their whole lives that they, as girls, are better at compromise and bringiing people together — which is to say, women brought up within the educational mainstream — are more likely to be uncomfortable with such an environment even if they are attracted to it, and decide that they’d “rather just watch” (which is an attitude toward debate I’ve seen expressed by plenty of women, primarily underclassmen, and never by men). Getting over the discomfort often takes the form of feeling known and valued before getting on the floor — hence having something concrete to point to.

And as long as we’re getting into particular Union careers: Helen benefited from running against another woman who had distinguished herself primarily through debate, and her reputation had suffered worse than Helen’s for it. And as for “the last male secretary” — I don’t want to dredge that up again, but it’s worth pointing out that his administrative experience was considered irrelevant to debate. The distinction is the problem, far more than its gendered nature — I agree with Leah on this.

Also, I do think Dara needs to answer Helen and flesh out this sentence “But even to get the acknowledgment, women have to get noticed and taken seriously, which is tricky in an environment where they’re underrepresented.” a lot more.