No, not at all; that was never my argument. I don't think there's anything wrong. It's actually a fairly small amount of money if you think about it, and they might need more than that. I don't see anything wrong with spending that money on improving women's experiences, training and recruitment. That's not the argument I was making at all.
We should just be cognizant of that attempt to tick so many boxes, namely that it will also make a difference and that it will also be able to transform the institution. That's not going to happen by just making an effort to add more women.
We use a term in feminist research that you can't “add women and stir”. You can't add them, like you would add sugar to tea, and stir and expect a different result. That's what I'm anxious about, but on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with spending that money to improve access to training and make efforts at recruitment. I don't have a problem with that.