The boys club

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Hey folks.

So, this came up in my University's professional development class and it was a 'surprise' for some people but it clearly is a phenomenon that isn't limited to film studies. Let me break it down for you.

120 students in first year, around 40 girls.

80 students in second year, about a dozen.

35 students in third year, 3 girls.

The instructor who had us think about this says there is a 'boys club' culture around film. Specifically in camera department, where guys tend to team up and never let others in. We've been trying to clean up the jokes around set lately but the problem is still that a lot of women are not staying in our classes and its indicative of the larger issue. Add to that there is some stupid stigma against the career driven woman in our class[1] and it makes me wonder what can be done to make a lasting, positive change.

I don't give a shit about the labeling, lets just acknowledge there's a problem.

How do you include women into the discussions and creative process without them feeling they have to 'become one of the boys' to do it?

This is applicable to every single industry, hobby and community really. Everyone deserves to succeed based on merit and not feel they have to behave like someone they're not in order to hold a job.

I expect I'll be called an SJW, laughed at and ignored by a lot of people. I'm no warrior but positive social change is always something worth speaking out for. This is just what I've witnessed through my post-secondary experience.

[1] (she's not bitching you idiots, she's a director who knows what she wants and yet you think you know better. >.<)

I really think that this is going to be a long and painful process before this stops being a problem.

For some reason, some guys feel very weird about the fact that a woman is in their field and doing stuff with them. I understand that it's been a "boy's club" for a long time, but times have changed and they really need to stop making it harder on everyone.

I know for me, I'm really used to being the only girl in a tech crew for sound. I'm used to hearing dirty jokes that it really doesn't bother me anymore, and honestly I think a good chunk of them are funny. I mean, I'm not opposed to a good dick joke.

I know a few times I've been mistaken for the girlfriend of someone in the band, and then watch as they trip over themselves apologizing.

I don't think I'd call it the "last vestige of male productivity", but some times I think it is given how unwelcomed I've felt at gigs. It's really stupid. I have some horror stories.

That said, there are guys out there that do say something when someone is being a dick and saying some real sexist shit. Again, it's going to take some time, and it's going to be super painful. Also, I don't want for guys to interact with woman stiffly and feel like they have to censor themselves otherwise they get shit canned. If the woman on a job is okay with dirty jokes, tell them. If not, don't tell them when she's around. You know, common decency.

I view it as if someone doesn't like it when you smoke around them, you don't. It's also about not being a dick and for some reason it's "okay" when it's something like this. Unfortunately, I've had to work hard to get into the "boy's club", and it's dumb that I know I'm not the only one. I'd like to think that one day we'd all wake up and start treating each other with respect, but then again I'd also like to wake up one day and see a husky pouring a proper Guinness at my beck and call.

So yeah, it's slowly happening, but it's going to get worse before it gets any better. Thankfully, there are dudes that are trying to help out. So, yay! :D

Redlin5:
I don't give a shit about the labeling, lets just acknowledge there's a problem.

Here's a fundamental problem with trying to 'solve' this, you're assuming there IS a problem. Is is actually a problem, are people legitimately being driven away because of how people inside already act, or are they simply choosing not to partake in this industry (you said it yourself that first year was 120 students down to 35 by third year. While 91% of women left so did 75% of men). And even if people who aren't of a certain mentality and/or fortitude aren't making it in, is that due to the fact there is a problem in not letting people without what is lacking in, or is it a key to succeeding in the industry?

I work summers in a factory processing turkeys. I work specifically in the slaughter section, where there isn't a single women to be found save federal inspectors who come by one every few hours. It's physically demanding work, it stinks and you have to deal with pretty ugly sights constantly. Not a single women has even APPLIED to try and work in the section for the past 4 years, and I'm the only student worker, male or otherwise, who didn't quit either in his first summer or simply not come back when the contract came to an end.

This is something that ticks me and everyone else in my section off. Whenever someone complains about there not being enough women in "X", it's always (unless being used as a point against such complains, or ironically) either a glamorous, idealized, or otherwise comfy job, typically high paying. It's never the low paying, gritty jobs that keep your food on your table, your lights on and you toilets running. These jobs are done to the near exclusivity by men, yet you don't see anyone seriously making complaints about that.

Here's the short of it if we're being honest, the Norwegian Paradox has long made clear men and women overall want to do different lines of work, and no ammount of programs for schools or affirmative action is going to change that. Men and women act differently, think differently, overall want to do different jobs and as a result overall do different jobs. It's hard coded into us to want to do different things, which is why you'll never have parity for the gender ratio in many lines of work. People can say it's a result of socialization, but as reality has shown over the past 50 years (and hell, the very unethical experiment which started the debate in the first place itself showed if one actually looks at its results) that is definitively not the case.

Boys clubs! I've been part of many of those as 'The Girl'. Still am, actually.

Things that annoy me about boys clubs:
-Obviously sexual conversations. Not so much because they're offensive (though some of them totally are), but because the subject alone excludes me. I mean, I appreciate beautiful women, but my taste tends to be different from the average heterosexual male (for instance, I prefer cute over sexy and to me, a good outfit part of the appeal). I prefer topics we can all talk about, or atleast subjects where I'm not not the only one being excluded.

-Being treated like a fragile, special snowflake, despite having a very similar if not identical skillset. For instance, I know I'm short. I'm shorter than the average woman and obviously much shorter than the average man. I might ask someone taller to grab something from a shelf I can't reach. (And it's totally okay to joke about that, I do it all the time!) However, my obviously girlish height and figure have absolutely nothing to do with my tech or gaming skills. Don't offer help unless I really look like I need it!

-The gatekeepers. Not all boys clubs have them, but just one of them can really sour the atmosphere.

-It just kinda sucks not having much common ground with other members of the group. Of course both me and the men always share atleast one big thing (the job/hobby), but it's the small things that can be just as important. Like, I don't know, comparing tea flavours during break, talking about how unflattering this season's clothes are or being able to borrow a tampon when caught by surprise. Of course, the things are minor, but like I said: small thingsdto matter, they just sorta build up over time into something important.

The only way to change that is to artificially suppress natural behaviours, which is very unhealthy and could lead to actual problems.
And don't let us pretend that women don't do the same, there is even an anti feminist website where men are not allowed to join, which is absolutely their right and imo every group should have the right to democratically decide who can and who can't join. Also no matter how much some people hate to hear it, men and women are different, sexual dimorphism, unlike cultural appropriation for example, is real.

So, how about having more women in coal mining? And I mean the actual coal mining, not doing some paperwork or whatever. Oh but we don't talk about that, only the good jobs and pleasent things for our princesses.

Zontar:
Here's a fundamental problem with trying to 'solve' this, you're assuming there IS a problem. Is is actually a problem, are people legitimately being driven away because of how people inside already act, or are they simply choosing not to partake in this industry (you said it yourself that first year was 120 students down to 35 by third year. While 91% of women left so did 75% of men). And even if people who aren't of a certain mentality and/or fortitude aren't making it in, is that due to the fact there is a problem in not letting people without what is lacking in, or is it a key to succeeding in the industry?

There's a pretty significant disparity between men and women dropping out of a certain program as time goes on, as well as anecdotes from people actually involved in such a thing explaining how they feel about the whole boys' club aspect of it, but sure, the problem is just that women are just don't have the mentality and fortitude that's necessary. Naturally, we will be ignoring that the mentality they need is one that assumes women to be less competent (or bitchy if they dare think they can ever have authority over a man) and the fortitude is against putting up with said mentality.

This is something that ticks me and everyone else in my section off. Whenever someone complains about there not being enough women in "X", it's always (unless being used as a point against such complains, or ironically) either a glamorous, idealized, or otherwise comfy job, typically high paying. It's never the low paying, gritty jobs that keep your food on your table, your lights on and you toilets running. These jobs are done to the near exclusivity by men, yet you don't see anyone seriously making complaints about that.

You mean people advocate for jobs they actually want?

Here's the short of it if we're being honest, the Norwegian Paradox has long made clear men and women overall want to do different lines of work, and no ammount of programs for schools or affirmative action is going to change that.

The only thing the "Norwegian Paradox" has shown is that Norway isn't a completely egalitarian utopia where no sexism ever exists ever.

Men and women act differently, think differently, overall want to do different jobs and as a result overall do different jobs. It's hard coded into us to want to do different things, which is why you'll never have parity for the gender ratio in many lines of work. People can say it's a result of socialization, but as reality has shown over the past 50 years (and hell, the very unethical experiment which started the debate in the first place itself showed if one actually looks at its results) that is definitively not the case.

And I'm sure the persistent idea that you and many others tout out as absolute facts of nature without any hard evidence that men and women are just hard coded for certain jobs has nothing to do with disparities when it comes to those certain jobs.

Zontar:

Redlin5:
I don't give a shit about the labeling, lets just acknowledge there's a problem.

Here's a fundamental problem with trying to 'solve' this, you're assuming there IS a problem. Is is actually a problem, are people legitimately being driven away because of how people inside already act, or are they simply choosing not to partake in this industry (you said it yourself that first year was 120 students down to 35 by third year. While 91% of women left so did 75% of men). And even if people who aren't of a certain mentality and/or fortitude aren't making it in, is that due to the fact there is a problem in not letting people without what is lacking in, or is it a key to succeeding in the industry?

The problem is you're assuming there ISN'T a problem, because not only are women dropping out at a higher number, fewer of them are opting to take the class. That does say something about the atmosphere here, something that you're ignoring... It's not about physical demand, or difficulty, it's about attitudes, and one big key part of the issue is that women are dismissed and ignored in basically all fields, but especially male dominated ones. Women's contributions are played down, men have an institutional insecurity about having a woman be better at anything than them, female opinions are dismissed as less worthy. These are all things that really happen in a lot of fields, especially technical fields. What we have here is an environment that's hostile to women, because if only 9% of the women are making it to third year, but 25 percent of the men are... That doesn't happen for no reason.

One of the major things is that women constantly have to prove even the most basic things, enduring long strings of test questions that men don't experience. There's a lot less trust that a woman is competent at a job, especially a technical one, and even more so in a male dominated field. I'm a rather talented computer person, I know a lot of things necessary for repairing computers, I can recover crashed hard drives rather simply. No one ever believes I can do that because I'm perceived as a woman, thus automatically less competent and capable.

This isn't just a case of lack of interest, or difficulty of the job, it's a hostile environment. Plain and simple, if it wasn't there'd be more women to start and more would stick with the program.

Basically this:

Musou Tensei:
The only way to change that is to artificially suppress natural behaviours, which is very unhealthy and could lead to actual problems.
And don't let us pretend that women don't do the same, there is even an anti feminist website where men are not allowed to join, which is absolutely their right and imo every group should have the right to democratically decide who can and who can't join. Also no matter how much some people hate to hear it, men and women are different, sexual dimorphism, unlike cultural appropriation for example, is real.

So, how about having more women in coal mining? And I mean the actual coal mining, not doing some paperwork or whatever. Oh but we don't talk about that, only the good jobs and pleasent things for our princesses.

That's honestly a load of bollocks about a mile deep. Sexual dimorphism has absolutely nothing to do with career choices, or availability of career building tools that are available to a specific gender. Making dirty jokes isn't "natural" for one thing, because plenty of men are very uncomfortable with that situation, it's not just women who feel this way. More over, men being exclusionary of women when teams are formed are more about cultural insecurities, like having the woman on the team surpass a man, thus making that man somehow less of a man. That's not a natural event, it's something that's drilled into the psyches of little boys from a very early age by society, just like how little girls are driven hard on a societal level to seek motherhood instead of careers in the work force. The whole argument about it just being nature is really hollow on the most basic levels.

Also there are women who take up coal mining, there are women who work in sewage treatment, there are women who work with decaying corpses as part of forensic science. Most people don't even consider these lines of work as a potential career path, that's not just something limited to women. Further more, there is basically a list of jobs that women are allowed to have by society, jobs like veterinary work, nursing, secretarial work, and the like. These ideas are pushed by society because women are seen as weak and inherently less competent and capable, not by some mysterious force of nature.

LifeCharacter:
There's a pretty significant disparity between men and women dropping out of a certain program as time goes on, as well as anecdotes from people actually involved in such a thing explaining how they feel about the whole boys' club aspect of it, but sure, the problem is just that women are just don't have the mentality and fortitude that's necessary. Naturally, we will be ignoring that the mentality they need is one that assumes women to be less competent (or bitchy if they dare think they can ever have authority over a man) and the fortitude is against putting up with said mentality.

There are so many assumptions in this paragraph I don't even know where to start.

First, we don't know a single damned thing about why anyone left.

Second is that we don't know if that stems from any possible "boy's club" mentality or just the line of work involved (I know that at the very least for STEM it is the latter that gets rid of a full 50% of people in the first year of a four year program).

Third is you seem to assume "do we know that women aren't more likely to not be up for the task" with stating as fact that women are inferior (guess that means men are inferior to women due to men overall not being better at child care).

I simply stated (correctly I might add) that we don't know WHAT is driving out women at a higher rate then men from this line of work, and that we don't know it's an inherent problem or something which needs to be fixed.

You mean people advocate for jobs they actually want?

Yes, people are selfish twats who only see a problem in gender representation when it's in nice easy white collar jobs instead of hard, dirty blue collar jobs, and we should treat the problem of gender representation in both equally due to the fact that it shows hypocrisy on the part of most of those making such complains.

The only thing the "Norwegian Paradox" has shown is that Norway isn't a completely egalitarian utopia where no sexism ever exists ever.

Actually the Norwegian Paradox shows that even being literally the most egalitarian nation in the world where literally not one single nation can claim to be more so, where there are countless programs to teach everyone in school that they can succeed in any line of work they want, and have affirmative action programs to try and make parody happen, it still doesn't happen because men and women are different at the biological level and we don't want to do the same jobs when looking at us at the society level. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are just that, exceptions.

People can deny this all they want, but reality trumps ideology.

And I'm sure the persistent idea that you and many others tout out as absolute facts of nature without any hard evidence that men and women are just hard coded for certain jobs has nothing to do with disparities when it comes to those certain jobs.

Nope, has literally everything to do with the fact that both society and academia have repeatedly shown that to be the case, including the unethical experiment which started the whole "nature vs nurture" debate that ironically disproved its own hypothesis by showing gender is hard-coded into us, and repeated studies have shown that overall what fascinates and grabs the attention of men and women starts at far too young of an age for socialization to be a significant factor.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:

The problem is you're assuming there ISN'T a problem, because not only are women dropping out at a higher number, fewer of them are opting to take the class.

You're going to have to actually explain where the problem is. We don't know a single thing about what drives this, only assumptions about what causes this, which means saying "it's a problem" is an assumption, one without a foundation. I'm not saying "there is no problem", I'm simply pointing out that you and everyone else in this thread saying there is a problem have done nothing to actually support that claim, and look like you're saying "there being fewer women IS a problem" instead of saying "there is a problem causing fewer women to be in this line of work" (which, even if that where true, would still require someone to actually prove the claimed problem is actually a problem).

One of the major things is that women constantly have to prove even the most basic things, enduring long strings of test questions that men don't experience.

I've seen this point brought up before by people, but I've never actually seen anyone state where this comes from outside of the claim itself.

There's a lot less trust that a woman is competent at a job, especially a technical one, and even more so in a male dominated field.

I can't speak for every field, but given how things have been going down in the tech industry where it has become a norm for frivolous discrimination lawsuits to be filed ever time an incompetent women gets fired the same way an incompetent man would, or the fact many lines of work openly have lower qualification requirements for women then it does men, this seems like a problem that has less to do with open discrimination and instead have problems stemming from "Affricative Action Syndrome", where people assume that because someone benefited form an Affirmative Action hiring program (that may or many not have been why the person in question was able to get the job over others) that people as a result perceive that it was because of an unfair advantage that had nothing to do with qualifications that led to the hiring in the first place.

It's something a lot of people don't like to talk about since it basically means anyone who benefits from Affirmative Action has to deal with people not thinking they're as capable as everyone else even if they are actually qualified. Of course that plays into a larger issue for another thread.

This isn't just a case of lack of interest, or difficulty of the job, it's a hostile environment. Plain and simple, if it wasn't there'd be more women to start and more would stick with the program.

And you know this to be a fact how? How do you know it's because of a hostile work environment that is keeping women from trying to get in (especially since they wouldn't know about it in the first place) and the reason they're dropping it at a higher rate then men do has to do with the work environment being hostile and not, like in STEM, from the work simply being not what they're interested in or capable of doing (since we see that the vast majority of men don't want to do it or can't do it after entering either)? You're making an awful lot of assumptions without anything other then small anecdotes and a worthless web comic.

You don't stop because you can't. The only thing that ever seem to change is whether people want to hurt those they think are inferior or think it cute and want to coddle and humour them. It's not even a boys club thing, even if you're in a career that is 90% woman you're still considered inferior. The men get the best placements, the men get assumed to be more competent, the men get openly fast tracked to be in charge and this isn't even seen as a problem. The men get their career choice questioned on the basis that they shouldn't want to do a "womans" job because it's a lower position. You get put in group with a guy and it seems like they'll either get pissy about the girls being a bunch of "overly controlling cunts" if they aren't the leader by default or go off and do everything on their own because they don't expect the woman to actually do anything.
The worst part is it's not even men from the top oppressing woman. The woman seem to agree that their inferior trash not suited for leadership as well. You can't have girls in charge because the girls will "get bitchy with each other and be unable to do their job impartially" and because you "need someone who knows what they are doing". People only want woman in jobs if it is one you want someone non threatening, "pleasant" and "caring".
Oh and fuck woman for not doing physical labour or dangerous jobs that most "wouldn't hire a bitch for" anyway but fuck woman if they apply for those as well because then they're "taking jobs from men" and if they do get hired to met the "gender quota" all the men unfortunate enough to be saddled with them will have to pick up their slack. The idea of gender equality is just nice lie that gets striped away the instant you get out of school.

DementedSheep:
if they do get hired to met the "gender quota" all the men unfortunate enough to be saddled with them will have to pick up their slack.

That probably stems from the fact that having gender quotas does lead to people being hired because of their gender and not because of their abilities. Which is probably why when the EU tried to force a 40% corporate boardroom membership quota for women there was an outcry from women working in the industry. Which makes sense because if someone genuinely thinks you're an affirmative action hire being present not because of your abilities but because of what's between your legs you aren't going to be taken seriously.

The idea of gender equality is just nice lie that gets striped away the instant you get out of school.

I think you're mixing up "equality" with "parity". Having the same opportunities will not lead to the same results. There are things that women are inherently better at then men and things men are inherently better at then women, and we are hard wired to try to exploit these traits we have other the other due to the fact not doing so led to death before we created civilization (and even for thousands of years after we did so).

You'll be hard pressed to find a job that naturally gets a 50/50 split because with the way men and women think and what we take interest in you're unlikely to find anything that grabs our interest that works with our abilities equally on the societal level.

I also have to wonder where your little rant about men and women both seeing women as inherently inferior comes from, because it sure doesn't stem from prolonged periods in North American English or French society, or West European mainstream society either.

Having worked in areas of the civil service with a near 50/50 gender split (although there was probably a slight majority of women), there do seem to be certain career paths that attract specific genders. There's a tendency for men to get statistics related jobs, while HR is a blatant girl's club. There was a group photo of the HR department of the organisation I work, 20 or so people in the photo, all women. Learning and development also seems to be dominated by women.

Zontar:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
The problem is you're assuming there ISN'T a problem, because not only are women dropping out at a higher number, fewer of them are opting to take the class.

You're going to have to actually explain where the problem is. We don't know a single thing about what drives this, only assumptions about what causes this, which means saying "it's a problem" is an assumption, one without a foundation. I'm not saying "there is no problem", I'm simply pointing out that you and everyone else in this thread saying there is a problem have done nothing to actually support that claim, and look like you're saying "there being fewer women IS a problem" instead of saying "there is a problem causing fewer women to be in this line of work" (which, even if that where true, would still require someone to actually prove the claimed problem is actually a problem).

I just did explain what the problem is, in two different posts no less. In part we have societal expectations and grooming that points people at career paths, this in part creates atmospheres of gender exclusivity. There's also societal concepts that gender is a key defining factor in competency, which does actually go both ways. Men are automatically seen a s poorer choices in many care roles like nursing, or child care, if they're not seen as an outright treat. On the other hand there is a tendency to see women as less competent at complex technical lines of work, like in IT, cinematography, and automotive service(mechanics).

O

Zontar:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
ne of the major things is that women constantly have to prove even the most basic things, enduring long strings of test questions that men don't experience.

I've seen this point brought up before by people, but I've never actually seen anyone state where this comes from outside of the claim itself.

It's a pretty consistent experience women have in male dominated fields, more over men have much the same issues in female dominated fields. We're not talking about isolated anecdotes, but rather common complaints in single gender dominated fields, expressed by those who aren't dominate gender in their field. Seriously ever listened to a male nurse bitch about how he's treated as a nurse? It sounds almost exactly the same as complaints you get from women in cinematography.

Zontar:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
There's a lot less trust that a woman is competent at a job, especially a technical one, and even more so in a male dominated field.

I can't speak for every field, but given how things have been going down in the tech industry where it has become a norm for frivolous discrimination lawsuits to be filed ever time an incompetent women gets fired the same way an incompetent man would, or the fact many lines of work openly have lower qualification requirements for women then it does men, this seems like a problem that has less to do with open discrimination and instead have problems stemming from "Affricative Action Syndrome", where people assume that because someone benefited form an Affirmative Action hiring program (that may or many not have been why the person in question was able to get the job over others) that people as a result perceive that it was because of an unfair advantage that had nothing to do with qualifications that led to the hiring in the first place.

It's something a lot of people don't like to talk about since it basically means anyone who benefits from Affirmative Action has to deal with people not thinking they're as capable as everyone else even if they are actually qualified. Of course that plays into a larger issue for another thread.

I can't speak to the validity of the lawsuits being filed by women who get fired in the tech industry, so I can't speak to the claims of the discrimination cases being "frivolous". You do make a valid point about affirmative action, but I've never encountered a tech job where gender trumped qualifications, especially provable experience. If it were the case I'd probably have a full time job in one of the many tech jobs I've applied for over the years. Also you can't put all the blame on affirmative action, affirmative action came about in the first place because of perception of lesser capability on the part of the parties that receive it's favor to begin with.

Zontar:

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
This isn't just a case of lack of interest, or difficulty of the job, it's a hostile environment. Plain and simple, if it wasn't there'd be more women to start and more would stick with the program.

And you know this to be a fact how? How do you know it's because of a hostile work environment that is keeping women from trying to get in (especially since they wouldn't know about it in the first place) and the reason they're dropping it at a higher rate then men do has to do with the work environment being hostile and not, like in STEM, from the work simply being not what they're interested in or capable of doing (since we see that the vast majority of men don't want to do it or can't do it after entering either)? You're making an awful lot of assumptions without anything other then small anecdotes and a worthless web comic.

It's not like gender bias fields exist in a vacuum, where people enter the training portion and suddenly find they're unwelcome. This sort of atmosphere is already well known about, if a profession is a 'boy's club' that's something that's pretty well known to start with, so women generally expect to have a more difficult time. The same is applicable if a field is known to be a 'girl's club' too, where men can expect to face an uphill battle just to get an education. A lot of people stop pursuing STEM fields, especially advanced ones, because it's not their passion, even if they are fully capable, that doesn't explain a disparity in advancement amongst women in those traditionally male dominated fields though. Also these aren't "small anecdotes", this is a widely reported phenomenon on both sides of the gender divide, in some highly competitive environments the men openly admit to excluding the women just to improve their own chances fo success. The comic was meant to illustrate a point, it's a rather well known point too, very commonly reported from both sides.

In all honesty it looks like you're also demanding academic studies, something that after a bout of insomnia I'm not up to doing, it's honestly not my job to do your research for you. Especially when you didn't supply any contrary evidence of your own. I just can't be bothered honestly, so I'll leave the data mining to people who are better at it than me anyways.

You know what is really funny to me? I know its going to be posted in here just based on the title that these areas are at equilibrium. Most of the people who will say that its at its natural state will then elsewhere say that there's unrealistic societal standards put upon men that effects how they carry out their lives. Body issues from the media? Can't effect women, but what about these unrealistic standards of being buff that makes me feel inadequate and depressed? A culture hostile to people based on their gender? Sure, the military likes to call people "women" as an insult but there's no misogyny there, but what about the fact that I can't work with children without many people suspecting that I'm a child predator? Most of the time they'll bitch feminists not addressing issues that effect men (and that is a legitimate issue) and then turn around and say that women are completely unaffected by culture, the media, etc but men are. It can't possibly effect women whatsoever but men face oppression and unrealistic standards eveywhere.

Redlin5:
How do you include women into the discussions and creative process without them feeling they have to 'become one of the boys' to do it?

Create a culture in which neither masculine or feminine values are condemned or particularly valued? Don't do creepy shit that objectifies people based on their gender? Don't create a standard where they're expected to be best buddy pals with everybody nor condemned for it, where people are valued for their skills contributions and not their personality, appearance, beliefs, etc?

This is applicable to every single industry, hobby and community really.

And not just to women either. Men are stigmatized in many careers and hobbies. Men who teach at the elementary school level are stigmatized as likely paedophilic creeps, both by men and women, even their colleagues. Men who are participate in hobbyist sewing are considered emasculated by both men and women, which to men makes them unworthy of respect and to heterosexual women makes them undesirable. I don't mean to go "But Men!" here but I figure it'll happen and that it should be done properly rather than the knee-jerk nonsense that I usually see.

Musou Tensei:
So, how about having more women in coal mining? And I mean the actual coal mining, not doing some paperwork or whatever. Oh but we don't talk about that, only the good jobs and pleasent things for our princesses.

You know I know a woman who worked as a coal miner for three years and treated subpar because of her gender. I know another women who has worked on oil rigs for over a decade and isn't given respect based on her gender as well. We know its on the basis of their gender in both instances because these women are transgender and didn't have to deal with this bullshit prior. Those three years of coal-mining were post transition in a new location where nobody knew that she was trans after she already had four years of experience. Similar story with the woman who works on the oil rig.

A funny thing, if you ask transgender men about their experiences a lot will say that the opposite occurred to them and that they're held to higher esteem post transition. I know one woman who has worked in programming for twenty years prior to her transition and post-transition she was consistently bombarded with people questioning her capabilities, even often coming from people with not even a year or two of experience themselves. Likewise, I know a trans man who says that his competency is questioned post-transition about a tenth as much it was pre-transition.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
-snip-

You know, for some reason I'm reminded of an observation I've made.

The worst thing you can call a man is that he's a woman because that means he's weak.

The worst thing you can call a woman is that he's a man because that means she's unattractive.

People like to play the "men and women both deal bullshit" card to pretend like things are equal but its very, very obviously different bullshit. If sexism weren't invoved then it'd be the same bullshit.

I've studied screenwriting and visual expression (basically all-around video production) and there was a roughly equal gender representation (initially there were more girls, but a handful ended up quitting), however the audio production side was more of a sausage fest. Anyway, in our enlightened social group we don't discriminate. Cleaning up our jokes? That's what an SJW would say! Though it's true maybe sometimes girls would have to "sink" to our level, but that's like once in a blue moon.

Then again this is a small sample. For another sample I can use my two cousins' (born in 1998 and 1999, picked the same class a year apart) ICT-classes. In my older cousin's class there are no girls and in the younger one's there are two. Why? There is nobody in the system to push girls away from IT, and the schools definitely try and promote all career paths gender-neutrally, perfectly available for everyone - and have been promoting for at least a decade. Obviously this means IT just isn't attractive to girls in general, and at least one reason for that is exposure as a kid. Now they're increasing IT in elementary schools, while everyone has been familiar with mobile devices for some years now (and most kids play Minecraft). What will those ICT-classes look in 5 years? All hurdles and attitudes-possibly-feeling-like-hurdles have been removed. I bet the ratio of girls will increase... to maybe 15%. Right now the idea of a girl in IT is very faint to nonexistant to the possible students themselves. It's in the attitudes, and while some idealist might say we could make everything work - Bioware-style - evenly between genders, I don't think it will happen lastly because of the individuals themselves. Though maybe we might get close.

So, boys clubs. Let's say a boys club happens and the big divide in gender ratio is there. What image will the girl or two or three relay to others (other girls)? 1) They were just as bad as you can imagine. 2) They always behaved around me/us. 3) I had to adopt their mindset. 4) I could bring some semblance of balance to their antics. 5) ??? 6) We got along just fine. The last one is my favourite. Everything's fine and you're welcome there too. As plainly as possible.

Though in the end I'm just fine with some boys clubs. I'm a sports fan after all.

Reply to NPC009 post 4

but because the subject alone excludes me.

So...it's because the subject excludes you, it's something you don't want to talk about? I'm speaking here as a lone wolf type of person. I keep to myself. I don't feel what you feel when that group of guys sitting at the table next to mine are talking football, something I have zero interest in.

I prefer topics we can all talk about, or atleast subjects where I'm not not the only one being excluded.

Clarification please? Do you mean you WANT other people to be excluded, just so you're not the only one?

It just kinda sucks not having much common ground with other members of the group.

Yes it does, but I don't complain about the other people for not having common ground. I recognise that the problem lies with me. In my life, I'm the one guy I know of at work who enjoys anime (there was a girl a couple months ago who watched it too but her contract expired). To my knowledge, no-one else at work watches anime. Everyone else has their own tastes and interests, and I understand WHY I don't even bother trying to get to know them. What would I talk about with them? They share nothing with me and I share nothing with them.

The reason I'm responding here is that quite often, I hear people complaining about other people and moaning about other people...and very rarely do I hear of any sort of recognition that one has responsibilities towards that problem.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
In part we have societal expectations and grooming that points people at career paths, this in part creates atmospheres of gender exclusivity.

I know it's already been brought up, but the Norwegian Paradox had the "Paradox" part of its title exists due to the fact that when we do remove those societal expectations and actively remove grooming the divide still exists.

It's hard to argue "X is the result of Y" when "Y" is removed and "X" remains the same.

It's a pretty consistent experience women have in male dominated fields, more over men have much the same issues in female dominated fields. We're not talking about isolated anecdotes, but rather common complaints in single gender dominated fields, expressed by those who aren't dominate gender in their field. Seriously ever listened to a male nurse bitch about how he's treated as a nurse? It sounds almost exactly the same as complaints you get from women in cinematography.

I actually do know a male nurse (went with him to collage) and his only complaints regarding his co-workers is they have nothing to talk about since none of them share his interests. Which isn't something you can change without going into totalitarian territory no sane person would tread.

I can't speak to the validity of the lawsuits being filed by women who get fired in the tech industry, so I can't speak to the claims of the discrimination cases being "frivolous". You do make a valid point about affirmative action, but I've never encountered a tech job where gender trumped qualifications, especially provable experience. If it were the case I'd probably have a full time job in one of the many tech jobs I've applied for over the years. Also you can't put all the blame on affirmative action, affirmative action came about in the first place because of perception of lesser capability on the part of the parties that receive it's favor to begin with.

I'm not putting all the blame on affirmative action. But it does hold a fair deal of it when the very real perception many have as a result of it does lead those who are in the groups who benifit from it are not taken as seriously as those who don't.

The history of affirmative action is a long and complicated one, and one I feel is a half measure implemented to solve a problem years after the point it can be solved, but that's a topic for RnP instead of off topic.

in some highly competitive environments the men openly admit to excluding the women just to improve their own chances fo success.

It can't be that openly admitted, since we both know modern feminism would have a field day like no other if someone, even someone in an irrelevant position, where to make such a statement openly. Plus there's the fact that a lot of the cases on such issues that make it to media attention because of the fact there are claims of gender bias in promotions tend to end with a failed case. I know you said yourself you aren't familiar with tech lawsuits on the matter, but quite a few have been filed in recent years either for a women being fired or passed up for promotion, and virtually all of them end in a case where the defendants proved the firing was justified or the man who was promoted instead had that promotion warranted.

The media response to such cases is likely the single largest thing keeping women out of tech in the US: not the reality of the industry but a false image painted of it.

MarsAtlas:
A culture hostile to people based on their gender? Sure, the military likes to call people "women" as an insult but there's no misogyny there

Actually the military loves to call people animals, usually something along the lines of a rodent or bug or something else undesirable. That and they love insulting your mother. Nothing get's under a man's skin like insulting his mother.

The worst thing you can call a man is that he's a woman because that means he's weak.

The worst thing you can call a woman is that he's a man because that means she's unattractive.

If those are the worst things you've ever seen a man or woman be called, I have to envy you, because there are whole art-forms that revolve around the use of insults that put those to shame.

You want to really get under a man's skin you don't call him a woman, you mock his inability to satisfy a woman, or you insult the women in his life he cares about. Insulting a man's mother, wife or daughter will do more then any insult against him ever will. Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

I'm remembering a Star Trek Original Series episode. Scotty is in a bar, and someone is badmouthing Captain Kirk. He doesn't do anything about it. However, once they badmouth his ship? Oh, that's when the fists start flying.

RikuoAmero:

Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

I'm remembering a Star Trek Original Series episode. Scotty is in a bar, and someone is badmouthing Captain Kirk. He doesn't do anything about it. However, once they badmouth his ship? Oh, that's when the fists start flying.

That actually happened in real life once (and is probably one of the few realistic moments in Trek). Didn't happen to me while I was in the service, but my father was involved in a bar brawl (well, a community centre brawl, but you get the idea) during a joint exercise where that very thing triggered a Canadian/Australian vs British/American smack-down.

A million dollars in property damage and everyone having 3 weeks shore-leave revoked later, well let's just say the colonies rebelled successfully.

Crazy idea...ask the women why they left. Hell, ask everyone. We can presume to know why people stop doing things, but it may not always be what we think. Ending sexism isn't having everything be half men half women, just letting people not be limited on what they do or want to do based on their sex (or gender). The thing of it is, men and women stereotypically want and prefer different things, and even without ANY sexism, things will naturally filter out un-evenly. We cant, or at least should not force people to do what they don't want to just to fill some quota of sexes. Some activities are just inclined towards masculine people, and masculine people will be more inclined to do them, and men more often are more masculine than women even without any macho BS.

Huh. I'm lucky to have never had that problem in what I'm studying, since the ratio of men to women is pretty even. That being said, almost everyone is either white or maybe asian, so it's not as if we're perfect.

The main thing that can be addressed is to make the workplace a less hostile place to be, but whether women will feel accepted as part of the community is another matter. I would say that it become more welcome as more women are accepted, but that does mean that the first few women who go into the field will have to be tough. Apart, from I don't know. I've never really thought about this, I'm sorry to say.

Zontar:

Insulting a man's mother, wife or daughter will do more then any insult against him ever will. Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

Doesn't even have to be the navy either. Commercial boats, houses, cars, anything that you've worked on and might be proud of counts.

MarsAtlas:
/snip

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime:
/snip

I just wanted to say that the view from different perspectives is pretty interesting.

Redlin5:

How do you include women into the discussions and creative process without them feeling they have to 'become one of the boys' to do it?

Here's your problem with this line of thinking. Everyone has to be at least a little bit that they don't want to be to fit in most places. I'm not an overly social person, I'm the guy that'll be seemingly rude to a cashier by ignoring them because I'm already going through what else I need to do while I'm out, it's not out of any malice towards them, but they aren't important at that point anymore. And I don't really work well in teams because they've largely always been way too damn slow and more interested in hanging out than getting the shit down with.

And since I got out of my family's kitchen and got into school and actual jobs, I largely had to become one. There's a huge amount of communication in any professional kitchen that nobody realizes until they look in. And I don't particularly like it, never have, and I doubt I ever will, but I go with it because I wouldn't have a job to begin with if I didn't. It honestly sounds alot like what you're describing here.

Everyone has to become one of the boys and be accepted into pretty much any team setting, whether or not you're one of the boys to begin with. Shy guys get just as much shit as girls that don't become one of the boys in those situations.

Hell, this is all ignoring the MANY professions where guys have to act and look a certain way otherwise they're labelled as some kind of weirdo with female dominated professions(we all had that one coach that was ugly as sin that had that gaze that lingered a bit too long in school after all that was routinely shit on by the girls around whether or not he was actually interested). And yet nobody ever wants to talk about the "Girls Club" involved there, where you can get shit scheduling because you weren't buddy buddy with everyone there.

I'm honestly open to thinking there might be a problem, but you've got to admit that the majority of the time as well, the people that complain the loudest are often the ones least willing to compromise pieces or parts of their personality that others feel are hampering the dynamic.

As for the question, the minority should probably change for the majority, at least at the start before they're accepted. People are much more willing to accept differences once trust is established and someone has shown they're willing to be different for the sake of themselves and others than someone unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit. Hell, even the minority in this situation voicing dislike and offering alternatives or explaining why they dislike it would go a helluva long way. But overall, I largely just think that it's not on the majority to change when they don't know the minority has problems to begin with.

Saelune:
Crazy idea...ask the women why they left. Hell, ask everyone. We can presume to know why people stop doing things, but it may not always be what we think. Ending sexism isn't having everything be half men half women, just letting people not be limited on what they do or want to do based on their sex (or gender). The thing of it is, men and women stereotypically want and prefer different things, and even without ANY sexism, things will naturally filter out un-evenly. We cant, or at least should not force people to do what they don't want to just to fill some quota of sexes. Some activities are just inclined towards masculine people, and masculine people will be more inclined to do them, and men more often are more masculine than women even without any macho BS.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but they already do that, asking I mean, and while not every woman leaves for the same reasons, there have been enough telling stories about the environment and being stifled by professions that don'tseem to want them there, enough to make asking about whether or not the environment is actively chasing people of a certain demographic away, a valid question, if maybe not one with a clear cut answer.

As someone who worked in a massively male dominated field in security and switched to a female dominated field in Social Work, specifically in child services, I can tell you that plenty of women left the former, and men the latter, because they felt unwelcome or faced unique hardships because people judged them based on their profession and their co-workers made them feel unwelcome.

50/50 should indeed not be our goal, but the OP doesn't seem to be about trying to attract more people that weren't interested into a field, it was specifically talking about people that wanted to get into the field but left for various reasons.

A lot of the women I knew in security, and the men in social work left because they felt they were being frozen out by a group that was dominated by a single gender, creating a culture that seemed to go out of its way to exclude them, from women facing harassment and flat out being denied jobs they were physically capable of doing in security, and men being frozen out of specific sectors or talked about negatively by female co-workers in social work. While we shouldn't assume that everyone that leaves a field does so because they were chased out or made to feel unwelcome, or assume that the mistreatment is universal or that everyone in the field is guilty of it, but there are enough stories of people in various fields or trying to get into them, of facing discrimination and hardship solely because of their gender, that I believe it is worth consideration.

There is likely more than one reason that each gender dominated field is the way it is, each field likely having different factors that influence why it attracts one gender over the other: physical, cultural, sexual, psychological, a "boys/girls club" mentality is something I would say is pretty easy to see as at least one potential explanatory factor, and fixing it likely won't create a 50/50 gender split in many fields, but its worth looking into if it is actively chasing away people interested in a given profession.

EternallyBored:

Saelune:
Crazy idea...ask the women why they left. Hell, ask everyone. We can presume to know why people stop doing things, but it may not always be what we think. Ending sexism isn't having everything be half men half women, just letting people not be limited on what they do or want to do based on their sex (or gender). The thing of it is, men and women stereotypically want and prefer different things, and even without ANY sexism, things will naturally filter out un-evenly. We cant, or at least should not force people to do what they don't want to just to fill some quota of sexes. Some activities are just inclined towards masculine people, and masculine people will be more inclined to do them, and men more often are more masculine than women even without any macho BS.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but they already do that, asking I mean, and while not every woman leaves for the same reasons, there have been enough telling stories about the environment and being stifled by professions that don'tseem to want them there, enough to make asking about whether or not the environment is actively chasing people of a certain demographic away, a valid question, if maybe not one with a clear cut answer.

As someone who worked in a massively male dominated field in security and switched to a female dominated field in Social Work, specifically in child services, I can tell you that plenty of women left the former, and men the latter, because they felt unwelcome or faced unique hardships because people judged them based on their profession and their co-workers made them feel unwelcome.

50/50 should indeed not be our goal, but the OP doesn't seem to be about trying to attract more people that weren't interested into a field, it was specifically talking about people that wanted to get into the field but left for various reasons.

A lot of the women I knew in security, and the men in social work left because they felt they were being frozen out by a group that was dominated by a single gender, creating a culture that seemed to go out of its way to exclude them, from women facing harassment and flat out being denied jobs they were physically capable of doing in security, and men being frozen out of specific sectors or talked about negatively by female co-workers in social work. While we shouldn't assume that everyone that leaves a field does so because they were chased out or made to feel unwelcome, or assume that the mistreatment is universal or that everyone in the field is guilty of it, but there are enough stories of people in various fields or trying to get into them, of facing discrimination and hardship solely because of their gender, that I believe it is worth consideration.

There is likely more than one reason that each gender dominated field is the way it is, each field likely having different factors that influence why it attracts one gender over the other: physical, cultural, sexual, psychological, a "boys/girls club" mentality is something I would say is pretty easy to see as at least one potential explanatory factor, and fixing it likely won't create a 50/50 gender split in many fields, but its worth looking into if it is actively chasing away people interested in a given profession.

I'm not saying blatant sexism is never the reason, but it isn't always the reason either, and if we treat it either such way then we wont ever truly fix the problem. Too many people who supposedly fight to end sexism do so in hostile or even ironically sexist ways that it doesn't fix anything and its tiring when people are so quick to assume there is some sort of conspiracy.

Sometimes water works to put out a fire, but sometimes its an electrical fire and water will only worsen things. Knowing how to deal with the issue and the real cause is just as important as fixing it.

Zontar:

Redlin5:
SNIP

SNAP

Pretty much this, I work at the local grocery store around the year, I'm pretty much the only guy there, during the summer we might have 2 more, but for every guy we have there's two women. And during the fall and winter I work at the local fish processing factory as well, fresh salmon is shipped here from a local breeder, we cut, gut, wash, clean, weigh and ship the fish forwards, and we have only 1 woman here, and between 7-12 men.
It's a dirty and exhausting job, so yeah of course not everyone wants to do it. But it's still a job and it needs to be done. And the pay is really good.
This is why I will never take anyone seriously when they complain that there are more men than women in the X line of work, or vice versa. Personally I think men and women are 100% capable of working in whatever field they want, but they just don't want to.

Zontar:
Actually the Norwegian Paradox shows that even being literally the most egalitarian nation in the world where literally not one single nation can claim to be more so, where there are countless programs to teach everyone in school that they can succeed in any line of work they want, and have affirmative action programs to try and make parody happen, it still doesn't happen because men and women are different at the biological level and we don't want to do the same jobs when looking at us at the society level. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are just that, exceptions.

Norway being the most egalitarian nation is not the same thing as Norway being a completely egalitarian nation. That the rest of the world is worse does not make Norway perfect in this regard. When the time comes when everyone alive in Norway was not only sent through these school programs and affirmative action, but were raised by people who were sent through them, then we can start thinking about Norway being truly egalitarian. Until then, it seems a bit odd to assume that the minute you institute some school program the entirety of society, young and old, will stop being sexist.

People can deny this all they want, but reality trumps ideology.

It certainly does, but that won't stop people letting their ideology warp reality.

Nope, has literally everything to do with the fact that both society and academia have repeatedly shown that to be the case, including the unethical experiment which started the whole "nature vs nurture" debate that ironically disproved its own hypothesis by showing gender is hard-coded into us, and repeated studies have shown that overall what fascinates and grabs the attention of men and women starts at far too young of an age for socialization to be a significant factor.

Is this that one experiment where they took newborns and tested them without any control over how they were actually being treated outside of the experiment? Where people assumed that newborns simply live completely indifferent to the entirety of the world and are operating completely on inherent attention-priorities that have been coded in since birth?

Zontar:
Actually the military loves to call people animals

I don't know which military you're talking about. Casual homophobia and misogyny is a staple of the american armed forces. Its stronger in some branches than others and its more heavily concentrated in the (older) higher ups than the younger members. Hell, half of the recruiters I've encountered quite enjoyed lobbing misogyny and homophobia, albeit its hard to tell if they mean it or are merely using it to (successfully) appeal to potential recruits.

If those are the worst things you've ever seen a man or woman be called, I have to envy you, because there are whole art-forms that revolve around the use of insults that put those to shame.

You do understand that these are mutually exclusive insults, right? You can't insult a man by saying that he's a man.

You want to really get under a man's skin you don't call him a woman, you mock his inability to satisfy a woman

You mean challenging his presumably heterosexual sexuality, which occurs when you call them gay or even *gasp* a woman?

or you insult the women in his life he cares about.

Thats not an insult. At least, not to him. Sure, its infuriating but its not a personal attack on one's sense of self.

Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

Again, not a personal insult.

LifeCharacter:
Norway being the most egalitarian nation is not the same thing as Norway being a completely egalitarian nation. That the rest of the world is worse does not make Norway perfect in this regard. When the time comes when everyone alive in Norway was not only sent through these school programs and affirmative action, but were raised by people who were sent through them, then we can start thinking about Norway being truly egalitarian. Until then, it seems a bit odd to assume that the minute you institute some school program the entirety of society, young and old, will stop being sexist.

I think it's odd you assume that a society that would have such programs operating for about 30-40 years (depending on the specifics) would be one where we should assume everyone not raised by those raised in such a system are automatically sexist. I also have to wonder how such systems being in place so long many of those being influenced by the system who are younger of age where in fact raised by those raised under the system in question has somehow not led to any noticeable change in things. Adding another 20 or 30 years is unlikely to change things more then the past few decades have, especially when we remember that many of the things that are stereotypically more catching of interest for men and women isn't arbitrarily dictated by society but a natural outgrowth of our biology.

I also find it hard to believe that a system couldn't show any change after 30-40 years but somehow 60-70 year will, especially since the mentality behind the theory that drives it should have made a single decade be all it takes to at least show SOME change.

The Norwegian Paradox is titled as such for good reason: it is a paradox to the idea that moving towards an egalitarian society will lead to a 50/50 ratio in the work place, all evidence shows the contrary as people will naturally gravitate towards certain lines of work, not only when society does not socialize them to but actively works to prevent such socialization. Which isn't a surprise given how it's nature, not nurture.

It certainly does, but that won't stop people letting their ideology warp reality.

Exactly, which is why the nature vs nurture debate still rages on despite the fact the very work that started it all proved is it nature, and all subsequent work that has survived the riggers of falsification and peer review have as well.

Is this that one experiment where they took newborns and tested them without any control over how they were actually being treated outside of the experiment? Where people assumed that newborns simply live completely indifferent to the entirety of the world and are operating completely on inherent attention-priorities that have been coded in since birth?

No this was the experiment where a pair of twin boys had one of them accidentally have his penis cut off, and the response by the doctor was to use him as a Guinea pig to prove that gender is socialized, which resulted in him giving him a sex change operation shortly after birth and his being raised as a girl while his brother was raised as a boy.

Despite the fact that he refused to be identified and treated as a girl by age 9 (without being told of his birth state initially), his depression over his forced body change and eventual suicide, somehow the complete failure of the experiment and the fact it proved that gender is nature, not socialized, it somehow sparked a debate on the matter and has led to people genuinely believing that gender is a social construct when all evidence shows it's hard-coded into us.

Which isn't a surprise. After all if gender was actually a social construct then trans people could choose to not be trans. But such statements would be moronic to the highest degree.

You know, I think it would be a good time to point out that my sister went to college for engineering and was the only woman in a class of almost a hundred people. Even when we were just scouting out the college with other students the other prospective students and her future colleagues were lobbing all sorts of unveiled bullshit at her because of her gender. She was commonly sexually harassed by many students while others would either just watch and do nothing or ignore it. I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

more often than not women are told to do " boys things" out of pc sjw narrative of take back " x "

and not out of any passion

many industries rely heavily on passion and dedication to drive them,

so they see things like science and such as too competitive and they opt out for easier less competitive classes.

its not a war on women at university,
its women choosing to pick something they are comfortable with instead of doing what their feminist overlords tell them to do

MarsAtlas:
I don't know which military you're talking about.

Canadian military, though in my time in the service I worked with a few of you Yankees and didn't notice anything. Unless it's part of weeding out the weaklings who can't handle a few words (something American society has a problem with, so I wouldn't put it past them that it would be enough reason alone) I can't say I noticed anything unusual in that regard. Your soldiers may be narcissistic, but can't say much else that's negative form the ones I've worked with.

You do understand that these are mutually exclusive insults, right? You can't insult a man by saying that he's a man.

Last time I checked outside of some parts of the fringe left no one used called a woman a women as an insult.

You mean challenging his presumably heterosexual sexuality, which occurs when you call them gay or even *gasp* a woman?

No more so then calling a straight women a lesbian or a man would, but real insults in that regard, the type that aren't thrown around as casually (because they're more likely to start a real fight) is insults about impotence. That's where the real insults start.

Thats not an insult. At least, not to him. Sure, its infuriating but its not a personal attack on one's sense of self.

I have no idea what gave you that impression, but for heterosexual men attacking the women they care about is viewed as a worst slight then attacking they themselves is. It IS a personal attack on one's sense of self when that sense of self holds up that person higher then yourself. Men overall do not care what other men call them as insults unless it harms their reputation. What we do care about, however, is the women in our lives being insulted. A mother, wife or daughter being insulted are fighting words for many.

Again, not a personal insult.

You've obviously never served in a Navy.

MarsAtlas:
I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

wulf3n:

MarsAtlas:
I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

Especially given the fact no one, not the teachers nor the students, will look into it to confirm she actually has it.

And how does one even intentionally give themselves the flu?

Zontar:

wulf3n:

MarsAtlas:
I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

Especially given the fact no one, not the teachers nor the students, will look into it to confirm she actually has it.

And how does one even intentionally give themselves the flu?

Dunno about you, but I personally go to the nearest Children's Hospital and break into the ICU and rub the most infected child I see all over my face. Chances are Im gonna get something out of it!

Fiz_The_Toaster:
I.
That said, there are guys out there that do say something when someone is being a dick and saying some real sexist shit. Again, it's going to take some time, and it's going to be super painful. Also, I don't want for guys to interact with woman stiffly and feel like they have to censor themselves otherwise they get shit canned. If the woman on a job is okay with dirty jokes, tell them. If not, don't tell them when she's around. You know, common decency.

This does raise an obvious self-effacement: Specifically, how is one to know that a woman would be 'okay' with dirty jokes? I'd think that the only way to make a deduction would be to actually make a dirty joke and gauge the reaction- but by then the joke has already been made and if the woman in the example is not okay with such jokes then it's too late to take it back.
So... how is one to know?

In my own case for example, I work in a laboratory. Most of the women at my workplace are well-educated and many are much older/ have more field experience than I do. As a guy, I admit that I feel very uncomfortable talking with any of them. I feel like I need to constantly watch what I say or I'll end up annoying any number of them. I act much differently around the other guys at my lab; we'll routinely mock each other's appearance, job competency and indeed any number of things without a second thought and no-one holds even the slightest grudge.
I'm sure you'd think that I'm interacting stiffly with my female colleagues and I'll confess that that's probably true- but I don't know what else to say and I'd rather not stir anything up.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked