comment: >
  
  What does this even mean?
context: Background on why this matters:
  Defense minister in Germany has for the past 20+ years been the least attractive cabinet job. It's where you'd park party officials that deserved a job due to seniority or for representing some regional or political wing of the party. No competency required, just shuffle money around and waste resources while the Bundeswehr slowly rots away - not like anyone would need it anyway in the time of NATO.
  Lambrecht is old, unqualified for the job and has demonstrated that she has zero interest in actually doing it. The reason she got it is that she's been accomplished in the party for decades and that SPD needed a minister that's female and from the region of Hesse, so she fit the bill.
  Who'll be her successor? That's unclear. SPD has Lars Klingbeil, who would like the job, but unless another man resigns, they'd break the gender parity they commited to. FDP has Strack-Zimmermann who has been vocal about wanting to do it, but then some other FDP minister would have to go to keep the party balance in the coalition. Either way, there will have to be some shuffling around in the cabinet. Let's hope it's quick. >
  
  To think about "gender parity" when you have a war at your door is huge nonsense . 
  Russia has threatened NATO several times.Put it  the most competent military minister you have >
  
  Put the most competent minister, even when there's no war. "Gender parity" is sexism with extra steps >
  
  That is a very one-dimensional way of viewing gender issues. >
  
  Competence should be the most important thing regardless of gender. If it means that there are more women or more men then being in a certain role then that shouldn’t matter. Not sure why this is frowned upon. Equality of opportunity should be the gold standard, not equality of outcome. >
  
  And if there are systemic disincentives to competence on the basis of gender, what should be done?