Not sure if you're serious, but if anyone's wondering, no, it wouldn't. Donor eggs are extremely expensive (thousands of dollars each). Donor sperm is practically free.
> Diversity officials promote the hiring of ethnic minorities and women
I'm genuinely curious if ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented among university faculty/staff. I would have guessed "no", but this statement implies otherwise.
>I'm genuinely curious if ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented among university faculty/staff. I would have guessed "no", but this statement implies otherwise.
Why would that matter? Did you think the goal was "equal" (what does that eve mean?) representation?
The goal is more of some people and less of others.
Yeah, they are. Very much among faculty of math/physics/engineering departments. But the reason is that much of the white male faculty were hired decades ago, when white men still dominated academia. Change is slow.
There is no "over-representation" of protected categories, only of oppressor categories. A standing joke about the Swedish equivalent of the D.I.E. drive - here it is called "Jämställdhetsmyndigheten" [1] (literally "The Equality Authority") - is that "100% equality is achieved when all departments have 100% women". They are totally blind to the fact that e.g. veterinary sciences and social "sciences" are ~95% women while being laser-focused on some areas where women are (still?) in the minority. This attitude gives lie to their claim of striving for equality and shows it to be nothing more than an ideologically driven activist organisation.
> A standing joke about the Swedish equivalent of the D.I.E. drive - here it is called "Jämställdhetsmyndigheten" [1] (literally "The Equality Authority") - is that "100% equality is achieved when all departments have 100% women".
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was once asked how many female justices sitting on the Supreme Court would be enough. Her answer was nine. (N.b. the U.S. Supreme Court traditionally has nine justices.)
It's not really a joke. In any instant, equal proportions of men and women would represent equality (by sex). But taking the long view, 100% of the positions in those fields were held by men, so 100% would have to be held by women for a while in order to redress the historical injustice. This is "equity", a step beyond mere equality, and it's the E in DEI/JEDI.
The only way to redress historical injustices is to invent a time machine to go back and prevent them. Otherwise, you're just creating new ones to reperate old ones.
> It's not really a joke. In any instant, equal proportions of men and women would represent equality (by sex). But taking the long view, 100% of the positions in those fields were held by men, so 100% would have to be held by women for a while in order to redress the historical injustice. This is "equity", a step beyond mere equality, and it's the E in DEI/JEDI.
I think this statement is going past equity straight into reparations.
Equality: Men and Women should have equal criteria for getting the job.
Equity: Women should have an easier time to counter an unbalanced gender representation
This statement: Women should have an easier time because men in the past had an easier time, even if the pendulum shifts.
I believe this is a misinterpretation of what RBG said. Here's her full quote:
“WHEN I’M SOMETIMES ASKED ‘WHEN WILL THERE BE ENOUGH [WOMEN ON THE SUPREME COURT]?’ AND I SAY ‘WHEN THERE ARE NINE,’ PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED. BUT THERE’D BEEN NINE MEN, AND NOBODY’S EVER RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.”
My reading of the quote is that is she's saying that a female justice should be not be any more surprising than a male justice, and thus that an all-female court should be no more surprising than an all-male court.
Just working out the probabilities, if women and men were selected as justices with equal probability, single-gendered courts should occur about 0.2% of the time for each gender.
That's a small number, but not a vanishingly small number. While I don't think we can say much about courts prior to ~1975 (equal gender opportunity to the court not yet being an objective), it seems reasonable to say going forward that IF we are achieving the stated goal of equal gender opportunity, we should expect that an all-female court will eventually occur.
Yes you have the interpretation right. She wasn't making a mission-statement, she was illustrating the faulty premise embedded in the question that there is some required count of women in the court that must be met in order to satisfy the feminists, as if the underrepresentation was something to ameliorate by imposing a quota rather than being indicative of a deeper general problem with how people think about equality.
Among new hires, typically not. The gender balance is close to 50/50, and hiring committees bend over backwards to find qualified URM candidates. The key word being "qualified".
As a fraction of the overall department, yes, because anybody who hired in before ca. 2000 is basically a white or Asian male with almost no exceptions. So the demographics on paper still look pretty skewed, but it gets better with each passing year.
> Women should in fact continue to push for their autonomy and freedom, and a functioning society should be keeping these men in check rather than yielding to them in any capacity.
Which works great until there are so many of these "excess" men that you can't keep them "in check". They are allowed to vote too, after all.
It looks like the concern is less their voting, but more their propensity toward domestic terrorism.
Moreover, voting to subjugate a group of people and restrict their human rights is horrific. Men are not owed girlfriends or wives, and certainly not via the ballot box. Geez.
Yes, I agree. I don’t see how that ties to the original argument in the thread, though. Presumably a full time parent with a spouse who can provide for both parent and child and who gave up a taxable wage to be a caregiver already had room and board. The room and board comment seems irrelevant to the argument given the context of the preceding comments around forfeiting a taxable wage for the full time job of parenthood.
