Yes, you'll see lots of dismissive comments here, and this will not be a very productive discussion. I apologize in advance to those who might think this commen

Yes, you'll see lots of dismissive comments here, and this will not be a very productive discussion. I apologize in advance to those who might think this comment is dismissive as well. But I think that one of the reasons sexism is so hard to fix is that people get into a "you're with us, or you're against us" attitude very quickly with it. Finding fault with a proposed solution does not always mean that you refuse to acknowledge the problem. Sometimes it just means that the solution would not work and / or it would create additional problems. The fact is, there is a wide variety of possible situations here, differing from field to subfield. The role that representation quotas can play is probably different in these situations: 1. A field in which there are lots of competent female practitioners, but prevailing sexism makes it impossible for them to stand out and reach the summits of recognition. 2. A field that most women would generally like to work in, but they are often turned away by prevailing sexism. 3. A field that most women are generally averse to, and would avoid even if there was no sexism whatsoever in it. (Think long-distance truck drivers.) 4. A field that is so sexist that women are only allowed into it based on good looks rather than competence. (Representation quotas are arguably counter-productive here.)