Thats not how I read it. They tried to push out the last few women, while scheming to keep them? Why hire them in the first place?
I take it at face value, Oblivious Employees/Managers thought that not paying extra for women's jackets was equality.
I take it at face value, Oblivious Employees/Managers thought that not paying extra for women's jackets was equality.
Because they were qualified applicants and the hiring manager wanted to not get sued for blatant hiring discrimination?
These folks clearly don't deserve to be taken at face value. Otherwise the "Everyone is getting jackets" could have been properly taken at value to mean that everyone, including women were getting them. So we're past believing them at face value now, great.
So why did they really make this an issue? Probably some combination of:
1. Someone was playing politics and wanted a head pat for saving money (conversely, they did not want to reprimanded for going over-budget).
2. Women are often perceived as less assertive, so they thought they would be less likely to raise a stink over a "minor issue" like a free jacket. (The really pessimistic side of me says someone thought "Women don't wear leather jackets anyhow, it's not stylish enough. Why spend money on something they won't use?")
I don't for one second believe they actually thought "equality" came into play at all.