[Taxacom] Gender equality in science

[Stephen Thorpe]

I'm not entirely sure exactly what Rob was trying to say, but I feel that a word of clarification is in order relating to my post on the subject, for I wish to leave no doubts in anyone's mind that I abhor all forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), including positive discrimination (which you can't have without negative discrimination on another group, so +ve discrimination in favour of women unfairly disadvantages men). The point of my post was not at all to try to undermine the urgent need for gender equality in science, but to draw attention to bad arguments masquerading as "research". Just think for a moment of the implications of equating "competence" with income, and linking it somehow to the concept of "merit"! That is ridiculous! For a start it would mean that women are by definition less competent than men on average, and I'm not sure that is what the authors of the study want to claim!! Everybody (more or less) starts out at the bottom end of the income spectrum and gets promoted if they are competent (at least in theory!), but by the definition above, they can't meet the competence requirement for promotion because they are on low pay and therefore by definition incompetent!

It it worth noting that Rob's comment "to which all present affirmed or were silent" is interesting as anyone who actually denied it would have been vilified and marginalised, so staying silent was the nearest safe option. Personally, I would have vocally affirmed it, with the caveat that +ve discrimination must be avoided, for it is just another form of discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. Positive and negative discrimination don't cancel out, they add!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/6/18, Rob Smissen <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] Gender equality in science
 To: "Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Monday, 4 June, 2018, 10:13 PM
 
 Esteemed colleagues
 
 It seems timely to raise again the
 words Doug Soltis spoke at the last IBC to which all present
 affirmed or were silent. I draw attention to two phrases,
 "actively work for gender equality", and "unconscious
 bias".
 
 best wishes
 
 Rob
 
 
 Resolution 2 (Gender equity): The XIX
 International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, China resolves
 to work actively for gender equity in the plant sciences: to
 facilitate equal opportunities for entry, participation and
 advancement in the field; to create environments where men
 and women work together with equal recognition; and where
 each person, regardless of gender, strives to create
 opportunities in an equitable way, avoiding both conscious
 and unconscious bias in decision-making processes.
 Resolution 3 (IAPT-China Office): The XIX International
 
 ________________________________
 
 Please consider the environment before
 printing this email
 Warning: This electronic message
 together with any attachments is confidential. If you
 receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
 copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender
 immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
 The views expressed in this email may
 not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
 to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.