Gender differences in Dutch research funding over time

[zdragnar]

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, they say.

Is this study worth building on? Why are people finding it interesting enough to vote it up to the front page?

What am I missing?

[ars]

There an ongoing desire to know if the different between men and women in the sciences is due to innate differences, or due to society causing a difference.

Research on this topic is rare, so when some is available people are very interested.

[User3456335]

It sounds like you're a bit too invested in the issue if you're literally shaking.

[apienx]

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.

[bodiekane]

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 matching their demographic would have been advantaged.

[Manuel_D]

> Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMH

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.

[TulliusCicero]

I think it's pretty obviously a bad thing to discriminate in this way. Maybe it's understandable to experience some overcorrection, but that doesn't mean it's good.

[algorias]

Overcorrecting is a bad thing. It means that you're explicitly and knowingly discriminating by gender, with a flimsy justification about the guilt of our ancestors.

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

There's a difference between demanding fairness and demanding vengeance.

[misja111]

Where do you see the overcorrecting taking place here? Maybe I missed something, but all I can find in the article about the measures that were taken is this:

"From that point onwards, several measures were implemented to counter gender inequality in research funding. First, panelists in the TP got implicit bias training. At first, these trainings were given face to face, whereas nowadays all panelists watch a video that addresses implicit bias before they start with their evaluations. Second, the wording of the grant calls and instructions for panelists and reviewers changed. Van der Lee and Ellemers found that the majority of the wording was masculine, which led them to argue that the policy goal of NWO (achieving gender inequality) was not reflected by the instructions that those involved in the grant evaluation."

[ars]

If you want to overcorrect for a particular person who was discriminated against, that's one thing. But to overcorrect with people who did not themselves experience any discrimination, they are just in the same socially-popular category is itself discrimination and is just as bad.

[mc32]

The dead are not alive and the live are not dead.

We want to have a just system for the living.

[wolverine876]

In what way do you see this program overcorrecting?