3 ms·

Because studies have shown that people who think they are evaluating conference papers (or pretty much anything else ever) on technical merit alone often are no

Because studies have shown that people who think they are evaluating conference papers (or pretty much anything else ever) on technical merit alone often are not doing anything of the sort, and are reinforcing their existing gender biases through their selection process. Two quick examples off the top of my head: - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/ - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109#aff-... It's not some kind of man-hating reverse discrimination, it's an attempt to correct very real and very pervasive institutional inequalities.

pifflesnort 13y ago
> It's not some kind of man-hating reverse discrimination, it's an attempt to correct very real and very pervasive institutional inequalities. Your position also assumes that the parties performing evaluations have existing gender biases -- itself a form of stereotyping, discrimination, and bias. Evaluating papers anonymously solves the problem you claim, while avoiding any issues with quotas or "man-hating reverse discrimination".
- karmajunkie 13y ago
  It only solves the problem if women submit papers at close to the same rate (or even a proportional rate) as men, which is not the case. That is, of course, ignoring the yardstick—who gets to decide what has merit? The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe.
  - pifflesnort 13y ago
    > The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe. What does this have to do with evaluating papers? Why would we divert ourselves from a technical mission to pick up an unrelated social cause? > The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe. The place to worry about correcting structural discrimination isn't at the point where it's already happened. That correction would be artificial and as such, detrimental to furtherance of our art and science. The time to correct structural discrimination is long before anyone is submitting papers to present research they've already done.

pifflesnort 13y ago

> It's not some kind of man-hating reverse discrimination, it's an attempt to correct very real and very pervasive institutional inequalities. Your position also assumes that the parties performing evaluations have existing gender biases -- itself a form of stereotyping, discrimination, and bias. Evaluating papers anonymously solves the problem you claim, while avoiding any issues with quotas or "man-hating reverse discrimination".

karmajunkie 13y ago
It only solves the problem if women submit papers at close to the same rate (or even a proportional rate) as men, which is not the case. That is, of course, ignoring the yardstick—who gets to decide what has merit? The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe.
- pifflesnort 13y ago
  > The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe. What does this have to do with evaluating papers? Why would we divert ourselves from a technical mission to pick up an unrelated social cause? > The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe. The place to worry about correcting structural discrimination isn't at the point where it's already happened. That correction would be artificial and as such, detrimental to furtherance of our art and science. The time to correct structural discrimination is long before anyone is submitting papers to present research they've already done.