Honest question here:
Not necessarily about the gender quotas at hand, but about equality either way. Which would you consider equality? Giving the same amount to everyone? Or having everyone ending up the same standing, but give more focus to the less fortunate. (Because honestly, people aren't born equally. ie. People with disabilities or born to lower class families.)
You're asking the wrong question. Let me answer a different question than the one you're asking: "The scenario on the right is a better result than the scenario on the left."
But this has
nothing to do with equality.
The scenario on the right is better because everybody gets what they want. All three of them get to watch the game. That's a desirable result. "Equality" is irrelevant. I don't care if their results are "equal." I don't care if they were "given equal measures of opportunity." Equality is irrelevant. Getting what they want is what matters.
For example, imagine the situation without any boxes. Only the guy in blue is tall enough to see the game. The other two can't see the game. So you slap a blindfold on the tall guy so he can't see the game anymore either. Congratulations, you've made them "equal!"
No, that's
bad. Nobody being able to watch the game might be "equal" but it's not a desirable result. It's the opposite of a desirable result. You have made the situation
worse by making it equal. Now, don't misunderstand: it's not always the case that equality is bad. In that image on the right, all three have equality of result, and that's fine, because the result they have is the result they want. Equality is not "bad." It's
irrelevant. The desired result is for everybody to have what they want. Focusing on equality is completely missing the point.
Your elementary school teachers did you a grave disservice by taking gum away from the one guy who brought it. One guy out the whole classroom having what he wants is
better than taking it away so that you can all be "equal" in your dissatisfaction.
quotas
In addition to equality not being a desirable goal, your boxes and ballgame visual metaphor is a poor analogy for the quotas discussion. Look at those images you linked. The tall guy you took the box away from, he can still see the game after his box has been taken away. That's not the case in a job quota scenario, because the people you take jobs away from to give to somebody else, no longer have those jobs.
In this case, you have created
no value by this redistribution. You've simply
rearranged it. It's hand waving. It's illusion. It's silly. Let's say you have 10 jobs and 20 people. 10 men, 10 women. If 6 men and 4 women get the ten jobs, you have ten unemployed people. If you fire one of the men and hire one of them woman you
still have ten unemployed people. You haven't improved the situation. Oh, but you've made it "more equal." And if you've convinced yourself that "equality" is a desirable result, you might sometimes miss the fact that you're creating no value.
Equality is not a desirable goal. Arranging for people to have what they want is a desirable goal.
"Make more pie."