I’m talking too much, but I have to respond to comments that I think are aimed at me, e.g. your comments about legal issues.
With respect, the first part of your message is a straw man argument. Has anyone argued against the reality that women have faced historical discrimination? Or for the status quo? Not me, I’m a liberal feminist. Again, it’s the extreme nature of NHMRC’s solution that’s causing so much controversy, not the fact that they’re attempting a solution. I would be in favor of NHMRC addressing the real problem, which is too few applications from women (since success rates are equal). NHMRC should first find out why this is occurring, then take steps to address any barriers. That approach would be proportionate, targeted and legal.
NHMRC have already committed to regularly reviewing their changes, in essentially the way you suggest.
I think it’s clearly important to know if NHMRC’s changes are lawful or not. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking the AHRC to make a ruling about that. Perhaps your comments were more about suing NHMRC. I only mentioned that in passing, but I think it’s a likely consequence if NHMRC’s changes are deemed by AHRC to be unlawful, given the loss of income involved.
OK, I'll try to be quiet now.