Yeah the picture isn't really a very good analogy for equality.
Let's say everyone is equally tall.
What if one guy took 2 boxes with him, the other 1 and the last guy none. What if we still redistributed the boxes but instead of a binary can/can't see the game they can barely look over the fence and its just a shitty way of watching the game.
Is it ok to punish the guys who brought the boxes because everyone should be equal? What if the last guy refuses to take any boxes with him because he knows the boxes other people bring are going to be redistributed anyway? Is this a system that encourages people to take boxes to see the game?
But then of course we have the scenario where someone IS actually shorter than the rest, is it ok to redistribute the boxes in that case so the small guy can see? (I mean in this case he is actually disadvantaged and its not of his own doing)
As usual the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There has to be a balance between personal responsibility and equality.
The issue I have with the whole line of argument is the begged question it presupposes.
are females less able than men at certain jobs (and vice versa), and does this mean that women should get prefferential treatment in certain areas, even when no real disparity may exist at the individual level?
eg, imagine now that the presupposition is: "Women are typically shorter than men." If we use the boxes analogy, then we need to start handing out complimentary boxes to all women, regardless of thier hight. So, when the tall woman gets her box, she can stand on it, and be well above everyone else. Is that fair for her to reap an advantage, because her gender is statistically more likely to be short?
If we instead just say "you have to be under this height to get this many boxes", regardless of gender, we solve that problem.
But then we ignore gender completely, and focus on correcting for the disadvantage itself.
If fairness is our goal, why is this about gender in the first place?