11–20 of 29 posts
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
Everyone alive today has 50% female ancestors and 50% male ancestors. Regardless of your gender identity, your ancestry is equally balanced in terms of gender privilege.
Biasing for/against people today is just a new injustice, it doesn't retroactively fix the injustices of the past, and the individual being discriminated against wasn't alive or working during the time or place when people matching their demographic would have been advantaged.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
This makes no sense. Everyone alive today has 50% female ancestors and 50% male ancestors. Regardless of your gender identity, your ancestry is equally balanced in terms of gender privilege. Biasing for/against people today is just a new injustice, it doesn't retroactively fix the injustices of the past, and the individual being discriminated against wasn't alive or working during the time or place when people matchi…
But it does help compensate for the injustices of the present. Culture is inertial: hundreds of years of tradition doesn't go away overnight, even if we no longer approve of it.
Euronews reports that the 2023 WebSummit survey found “more than 50 per cent of the 500 female participants saying they had experienced sexism in the workplace”, whereas “just six per cent of the male participants disagreed there was gender equality and 14 per cent said they neither agreed nor disagreed”. (The WebSummit website is awful, but if you really want a direct source: [1] links to Google Drive.) I wonder how much that effect is in play in the comments here.
[0]: https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/02/11/four-in-five-men-in...
[1]: https://websummit.com/blog/women-tech-workplace-gender-bias-...
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
We want to have a just system for the living.
What should be taken away from this study? They found in two tiers no notable difference, and a slight advantage to women in the other, with the effect growing over time. Then they state that this is all correlation, and we don't know about a dozen or two different variables such as whether the grant process self selects for more men to apply (and thus fail). No conclusion that men are disadvantaged may be drawn, the…
Research on this topic is rare, so when some is available people are very interested.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.
So the MRAs telling me feminists want to go beyond equality and advantage women over men are right!? I have been constantly told that was just a straw-man argument.
Gender equality is a vastly more popular position than privileging one over another. Openly stating that your goal is create gender inequality is an easy ticket to make your movement unappealing.
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.