[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.

[ThrowawayTestr]

You're making the mistake of thinking discrimination is bad. You need to understand that sometimes discrimination is good, but only when it's towards men.

[wizzwizz4]

> it doesn't retroactively fix the injustices of the past,

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-...

[polski-g]

> say they had experienced sexism in the workplace

This doesn't necessarily mean there actually was any, just that they think there was. Maybe they got treated the same as anyone gets treated in the workplace: badly.

[wizzwizz4]

Maybe. Let's say there are broadly two hypotheses:

A: Women are systematically discriminated against in the workplace (sexism).

B: Women are systematically more inclined than men to perceive that they themselves are experiencing sexism.

(In the real world, we're going to have some mixture of the two, plus other factors, but simplified models are often useful.)

Systematic discrimination by gender in the workplace is well-documented. https://noidea.dog/glue is one example present in tech that's also applicable to research. At the level of this simplified model, A is true: that suggests that the 2023 WebSummit survey's results are a proxy for the level of actual discrimination.

Taking a step back… is this simplified model sufficiently-valid? From the page linked earlier:

> And they say "Look, you're great at communication. Your soft skills are outstanding. We just don't think you're an engineer. Consider becoming a project manager instead?"

> Kripa Krishnan, the legendary director of cloud product operations at Google once said that while she'd experienced some industry prejudice for being female and some for having an accent, it was nothing compared to the prejudice she experienced for being a TPM.

> The even more interesting part was that, when managers were asked to choose someone to do thankless work, they asked women 44% more than they asked men.

---

Back to the original paper, I'd suggest that the relevant question is: what proportion of the qualified female population becomes an applicant, versus the qualified male population? If there's a higher bar for female would-be-applicants, leading to a lower-than-otherwise applicant pool, I'd expect a meritocratic multi-stage programme to pick proportionally more female applicants for the first stage, and then – having compensated for that bias – the proportions to be equal for follow-on stages. If I'm reading the paper right, that is what is observed:

> For the Veni tier, all models find significant differences between the succes rates of male and female applicants. The models also show a trend over time, where male applicants gradually have lower success rates and female applicants gradually have higher success rates. For the Vidi and Vici tier, no gender differences are found.

[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.

[zdragnar]

This is the same thinking behind affirmative action and DEI in hiring initiatives in the US. Positive discrimination is necessary to balance out negative discrimination, or so the thinking goes.

In American academic circles in particular, "equality" is out and "equity" is in.

[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?