Life, as a scientist or not, is a zero-sum game and everyone must decide for themselves what they want, what they are willing to invest in it, and what opportunity costs they are willing to bear - regardless of gender. The equation describing each individual's investment and payoff schedule is complicated and unique with abilities, training, motivations, opportunities, biases, and unpredictables all playing into the mix. Satisfaction is the correspondence of expectations and payoffs with dissatisfaction springing from either lousy payoffs or unrealistic expectations. That said, if life is fair at all, it's usually only in the long run and only if one has made a long sequence of decisions that can, at best, tip the probability of "success" in one's favor. \n\nLike it or not, that is what the individual faces. No one, save tyrants and the exceptional few, can have everything they want and to assert that they can or should is to ignore reality at best and delusional at worst. I too would love to do cutting-edge science while having a high salary, a family, vacation homes, and time to enjoy all the luxuries that life can afford but, who am I kidding? I've had a very good long run doing basic research in a large institution but, being a single male, even with broad and solid credentials and experience, I had to fight time and again against the institutional distrust of the "less stable unmarried" or "not completely manageable" and differential unearned favors granted to those with family. The institution had its reasons - not all honorable, but I was the exception fighting against the tyranny of the mean and I knew it. I accepted it as part of having the privilege and support in doing what I most wanted to do. \n\nNow, when one attempts to alter the probabilities of one's success by systemic changes that favor one's self on account of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, as is the case here, then one must ask whether the institution in question would benefit, be unaffected, or be harmed by it. To say that such change would benefit or not affect the success of the institution is to imply that the existing criteria for selection and promotion are slack or inefficient and adding criteria, such as gender balance, would be neutral at worst. All institutions can do is play by the averages - if they want sustained success over time - and it's up to those who wish to alter the criteria to prove that such change would not harm the institution's record of achievement. Of course, unless you believe that science itself should add political, religious or democratic criteria to its existing standards. If you do, be clear about it.