Having just returned from an in-person grant decision making meeting (all the advantages of ending several years of zoom and actually meeting real people) I must admit that the sex or gender of the proposers was irrelevant and not even mentioned. We ripped proposals apart on many issues from funding to not mentioning similar research being done elsewhere, etc. which are relevant issues. I don't even remember the genders of the PI's on proposals that got the most support.
I guess aquaculture is such a backwater we get away with being "un-woke" and can still get good results for at least this years funding.
Assuming your facts and statistics are correct, I can but agree with you. I must confess, however, to some Schadenfreude: now that the shoe is on the other foot, men rise to scream foul! A bit ironic for someone my age who actually saw discrimination or benign neglect, at best, at women in STEM.
I've often been in the position of hiring scientists, and without bad mouthing the organizations I worked for, whom I felt were trying to do the right thing, I was incredibly uncomfortable when we ran recruitment drives, specifically "demographic specific drives", rather than "talent specific drives".
I cannot speak for the candidates themselves, but I certainly felt I got the impression of a sizeable number being uncomfortable themselves with this approach. It was, for me, drawing undue attention to factors that had nothing to do with their talents as individual scientists.
There are multiple repercussions for taking this approach, outlined in the article. Time will tell if we now disenfranchise a new set of demographics by trying to correct historical wrongs (real or perceived), which they did not participate in?
DEI dogmatists all over the West are sawing off the very branch they are sitting on. Where else would they even be allowed to speak out? Saudi? Iran? China? It is truly amazing that they do not realize they are destroying the very system that allowed them to even voice their opinions in the first place.
This elitist identitarian nonsense is already driving reciprocal radicalization and increasing support for identitarians of other ilks. Hatred only begets more hatred.
We are sleepwalking ourselves into a new Dark Age thanks to such Oedipalized absurdity.
And in the US, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed when I was young, men would be now equal beneficiaries! ERA: “ equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” . Some states have it and it has protected men (and women) against such discrimination. Of course now, nobody would know what is meant by “sex” :)
I see it as a phase transition and am not surprised to see some chaos in there. I just hope that the oscillations don’t take ages and soon converge to “equity” as Lawrence defined at the end of the article.
My primary client is a manufacturing firm, desperate right now for trained and/or trainable folks in the trades. When can we expect an equity influx of skilled tradeswomen? Seriously, the jobs are demanding and rugged, but pay very well. Where are the calls for 50% female participation in trades industries?
This reminds me (from almost 70 years ago): In my K 6-12 school girls were forced to make underwear for babies while boys were doing wood work! Since I hated sewing, I learned neither :)
Having just returned from an in-person grant decision making meeting (all the advantages of ending several years of zoom and actually meeting real people) I must admit that the sex or gender of the proposers was irrelevant and not even mentioned. We ripped proposals apart on many issues from funding to not mentioning similar research being done elsewhere, etc. which are relevant issues. I don't even remember the genders of the PI's on proposals that got the most support.
I guess aquaculture is such a backwater we get away with being "un-woke" and can still get good results for at least this years funding.
Assuming your facts and statistics are correct, I can but agree with you. I must confess, however, to some Schadenfreude: now that the shoe is on the other foot, men rise to scream foul! A bit ironic for someone my age who actually saw discrimination or benign neglect, at best, at women in STEM.
I've often been in the position of hiring scientists, and without bad mouthing the organizations I worked for, whom I felt were trying to do the right thing, I was incredibly uncomfortable when we ran recruitment drives, specifically "demographic specific drives", rather than "talent specific drives".
I cannot speak for the candidates themselves, but I certainly felt I got the impression of a sizeable number being uncomfortable themselves with this approach. It was, for me, drawing undue attention to factors that had nothing to do with their talents as individual scientists.
There are multiple repercussions for taking this approach, outlined in the article. Time will tell if we now disenfranchise a new set of demographics by trying to correct historical wrongs (real or perceived), which they did not participate in?
An eye for an eye...unfortunately.
DEI dogmatists all over the West are sawing off the very branch they are sitting on. Where else would they even be allowed to speak out? Saudi? Iran? China? It is truly amazing that they do not realize they are destroying the very system that allowed them to even voice their opinions in the first place.
This elitist identitarian nonsense is already driving reciprocal radicalization and increasing support for identitarians of other ilks. Hatred only begets more hatred.
We are sleepwalking ourselves into a new Dark Age thanks to such Oedipalized absurdity.
And in the US, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed when I was young, men would be now equal beneficiaries! ERA: “ equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” . Some states have it and it has protected men (and women) against such discrimination. Of course now, nobody would know what is meant by “sex” :)
I see it as a phase transition and am not surprised to see some chaos in there. I just hope that the oscillations don’t take ages and soon converge to “equity” as Lawrence defined at the end of the article.
Fingers crossed 🤞
Equality of opportunity is on a different planet to Equality of outcome in terms of repercussions.
My primary client is a manufacturing firm, desperate right now for trained and/or trainable folks in the trades. When can we expect an equity influx of skilled tradeswomen? Seriously, the jobs are demanding and rugged, but pay very well. Where are the calls for 50% female participation in trades industries?
This reminds me (from almost 70 years ago): In my K 6-12 school girls were forced to make underwear for babies while boys were doing wood work! Since I hated sewing, I learned neither :)