Professions aren't protected classes. People generally don't have a grudge against "white male truckers" unless they're the morons who engage in trucker freedom convoys. It is not a valid example of social injustice.
I can't comment on the men vs women earnings gap. I do agree that the issue about men's working conditions in dangerous jobs is being largely unaddressed, other than maybe by the right who *do* talk about it but nevertheless wouldn't really push policies to address the issue. The right in the US fear-monger a lot, but they're not known for solid political platforms that improve the lives of their constituents unless you're very, very rich.
That job posting is really bad and shouldn't have been released. If diversity & inclusion is what you want... I would argue that, given two similarly qualified candidates: one who happens to be white and one who happens to be a minority, I would lean toward the white candidate *if* such a candidate has a much better record of leadership in organizations of diversity and inclusion, and who has mentored minority candidates to help them succeed as young scientists. That would be preferable versus a minority candidate who never really took leadership within diversity & inclusion organizations, who never mentored anyone, and whose academic career is tailored toward his own professional development / self-interest instead of developing young scientists. At the end of the day, candidate 1 is just more qualified to *be* a tenure-track professor, never mind a chair, and candidate 2 would be better off working in industry IMO.
Candidate 2 was actually me when I was applying for PhD schools - I didn't have a track record of mentorship or leadership positions in DE&I, so I didn't get into schools that looked specifically for that (i.e. Michigan). I ended up working in industry, lol
Edit: and I do accept that I just wasn't a great fit for the school, compared to the candidates who actually got in.