Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Today, 12:37 pm
Fried Egg wrote: ↑Today, 4:52 am
This is overt discrimination against those who "self identify" as men. It is a direct affront to those that adhere to the ideals of equality
No, it's an attempt to even up things that have been out of balance for centuries. Those who "self identify" as men need to grow up and look around. The hierarchy of our society is constructed to favour men. As this is (very) gradually dismantled, women continue to suffer from the disadvantage of living in a world built by men, to favour men. Women need and deserve a 'kick-start' to help them catch up, and to help them overcome the obstacles that a male-dominated society still places in their way.
If that was even true you might at least have a point but it's not. Quoting the article
that I took that image from:
For decades now, there have been more women than men enrolled in Canadian postsecondary institutions. But that isn’t enough: Many Canadian academic administrators are demanding that every program be at least 50 percent female—including engineering, despite abundant evidence that men and women tend to exhibit, on average, different academic preferences. Meanwhile, no one seems to worry about the disappearance of young men from postsecondary education, despite the fact that women now outnumber men in Canadian post-secondary institutions by a ratio approaching 60-40.
And, as I stated earlier in this thread, these measure are never temporary:
These preferential-hiring policies were originally justified as stopgaps that would supposedly be phased out over the years, as disadvantaged groups caught up. Yet they’ve become part of Canada’s permanent policy landscape, with the federal government already having set expanded equity targets for 2029.
There is nothing obvious
about this being the only practical way in which "equality" can be approached. No more obvious than the idea that you can fight fire with fire, or end violence with violence.
It looks to me that many institutions in Canada (and elsewhere) are swept up in an ideology that has little to do with equality. If it isn't stopped, it will only get worse, more discriminatory. Moreover it is self defeating:
Well, one academic who isn’t for it is Mark Mercer, a philosophy professor at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, one of the few Canadian scholars who’s candidly pointed out that academic values and EDI are often at odds with one another. Or, as he bluntly puts it, “a university that engages in preferential hiring is signalling to the world that it can’t be serious about its academic mission.” He notes that, as with some of the examples cited above, EDI programs tend to come with ideological agendas that undermine the whole idea of merit, which is dismissed as a white, male, Eurocentric value that stands in the way of social justice. And while universities are supposed to foster dispassionate inquiry, EDI doctrine tends to smother such inquiry under the rhetoric of oppression.
Even scholars who may object to all of this are pressured to play along. All applicants for CRC positions, for instance, are now required to state whether or not they’re members of “equity-seeking” race or gender demographics. Choices currently on offer include trans, gender-fluid, non-binary, two-spirit, asexual, bisexual, and pansexual, with no doubt more to come. (Applicants may decline to self-identify if they wish, though one presumes that would serve to admit one’s lack of intersectional status.)