3 ms·
I have to read a lot between the lines here so correct me if I misunderstand what happened. You ran a workshop, in the academic field, which tends to hire more
by raziel2p 3y ago
I have to read a lot between the lines here so correct me if I misunderstand what happened. You ran a workshop, in the academic field, which tends to hire more women than men these days (your words). Your workshop still managed to be male dominated, despite being in a female-dominated field, and women complained about that?
- olalonde 3y ago> which tends to hire more women than men these days (your words) They said there was a "pro-female bias in hiring", which does not necessarily mean it's a female-dominated field. In fact, it's often the male-dominated fields that have pro-female bias because there is often a desire to increase the female ratio.
- peteradio 3y agoAcademia is still male dominated in many fields by a wide margin but the latest hiring may be heavily biased towards female and yet it has not made a significant dent (my interpretation).
- dash2 3y agoYou are indeed mistaken. The field isn't female-dominated. The claim was not that academic hiring hires more women, but that it is biased in favour of hiring women, which isn't the same. And even if it hired more women, that wouldn't make it female-dominated - a stock is not the same as a flow.
- raziel2p 3y agoThen how does it relate to the original argument? Why does it matter that academia "already" has a pro-female bias in hiring? OP was talking about a workshop and speakers. Workshops and hiring are two different things, no?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dash2 3y agoI think it's bad to discriminate. The people who wrote to me wanted me to have speakers not because they were good, but because they were women.