The boys club

[ThatOtherGirl]

Keep in mind that it was only 1993 when marital rape even became a crime nationwide (as in, all 50 states were on the same page). I don't know the age of the people involved, I don't know what's going on in this specific case, but one reason people are confused on or ignorant of the ramifications of rape instances is that they haven't been treated as rape historically.

And to this and the next post, yeah. It's a very big issue when people are quick to say "not rape."

But to go back to the roots of this, maybe "teach people about rape" would be a better phrase than "teach them not to rape."

They got married in 2012 and divorced in 2014. They are both 26 now, I think.

I do think that the "teach them not to rape" is a pretty bad way of putting it. It is really reductionist

Did she give consent?

Because the definitions is "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent".

And for the purposes of this argument, consent can both be given verbally (also using other words than "yes". "Absolutely", and "I'd love to" would also qualify as verbal consent), and non-verbally (like a nod, or a kiss, or embracing while in the act).

If not, then it is rape.

If she was unconscious, then obviously she couldn't give consent, and it'd therefore be rape.

If she was slightly buzzed, and gave consent, and regretted it afterwards that isn't rape (not saying that, that's what happened. I'm only laying out how I qualify rape).

As for "I am talking about how the woman describes the circumstance and people bend over backwards to say "that isn't rape!"".
I'm going to be absolutely clear here. I usually believe women if they tell me that they've been assaulted (I have no reason not to), however, as a matter of law, everybody is "Guilty until proven Innocent". Now that doesn't mean I believe she's lying about being raped. It means that we're going to have to be absolutely positive that the accused is our guy.

Rape is the worst crime we have in the books. It should never be treated lightly (including, accusing people of rape).

EDIT:
After reading my post I'm going to expand a bit on my qualifiers.

Coerced consent, obviously isn't valid consent either so, if he threatened her to give consent, that'd also be rape.

In the case of the woman accused of "leading the guy on" she was raped when she was 15 by a 35 year old neighbor. I don't know the details of that one, I just know it happened. That one was a while ago.

In the case of the woman raped repeatedly by her husband, she did not give consent on many occasions (or was coerced/threatened into doing so) and she explicitly told him no at least sometimes. He used physical force on more than one occasion and threatened to kick her out on the street if she didn't do what he wanted. I could give you a list of things she said happened, and my wife would know more, but I would rather not go there in this thread, pm me if you care. When the woman finally got out she talked to my wife about it a lot.

Most of the people who excused his behavior did the thing where they say "X and Y are not really rape/sexual abuse because he was her husband, and I just don't believe he would do Z." It's the only assholes rape problem: This person is not an asshole, therefore they didn't rape and this woman is just lying or over reacting to what happened.

As for how the guy himself managed to believe he wasn't a rapist, he was the kind of religious nut job that thinks a wife is closer to property than a partner. My wife was in a conversation with the pair once (before their marriage) and they were arguing if some types of sex are inherently immoral. He eventually declared that my wife and his wife were wrong to question his judgement because he was the man and in the natural, god proscribed order the man has dominion over the woman.

 

[maninahat]

I don't think I have much experience in this field, as I'm an English major and that's not really boy's club territory. I'm just saying that a lot of women have issues with this kind of crap, and I don't think they're all lying/misrepresenting their situations.

I'm an English major too. One thing I did notice was there was a shift in the proportions, the higher up you got. At a BA level, women were the majority in my classes. At MA, they were just about half.

In my job (HR), the office is about 75/80% female. In the broader hospital, its about 60%. It's perceived as a stereotypically female job in a female industry. One thing I have noticed though is that though there is sexism in the job, it is invariably aimed at my female co-workers, rather than me or the other guys.

 

[Something Amyss]

Though, as I've previously noted, I don't think it's a particularly useful way to frame the discussion to say that one group is being taught not to rape. That's not directly the ignorance at play here.

I'm still a bit puzzled as to where it came from in the first place.

The mnemonic in question neither teaches men to rape nor not to rape, and that was never the contention. That doesn't mean that it's going to be a particularly welcoming sentiment, and it was not alone (it's the easiest for me to remember because I've had to deal with resistor colour codes a lot), but that if you wondered why women might not want to be involved in technical fields, the language used might be an element, but that even raising the issue can engender hostility.

Unfortunately, the takeaway from this has not been "women may be put off by a hostile environmwnt" and is instead about a point nobody seems to have been making.

 

[Joccaren]

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?

Simple. When working as a group, behave professionally rather than casually when working with them in a group. Rather than leaning back and having boy talk and such all day, focus the talk on the project or task, and discuss in a more formal and professional manner what needs to be done and such. There's then no male sub-culture they need to break into, and it gives you good practice for interacting with corporate entities in the future anyway. Doesn't have to be full on formal, but focusing on the work and not acting full on casual like a group of friends whilst working helps. Of course, this doesn't fix everything. You naturally should still be friends when not working, and it'd be asinine to suggest you should change that to try and include women more, trying to force friendships where they don't naturally form isn't a good idea at all IMO and just leads to poor relationships between everyone, however at the same time without a group of friends in their course they're not going to want to stick around. This means that likely more women should be accepted into the course, where appropriate, to give more potential for them to form friendships with people likely more similar to them, and an intelligent group making process should be used to allow them to find a group they are comfortable with and get on well with, and can regard as friends at university, before forcing them to interact with other groups they don't have friends in; something that is necessary to do as it'll happen in the workforce, but without a friendship group to back them up whilst they're in these groups, it will just alienate them, as it does all people.

The bigger issue is the the overall pervading culture of male-centricness in many courses. Its also a harder issue to overcome, as its difficult to find the source of the issue.
It isn't exclusively the number of women in the course. 66% women is actually a pretty decent number, especially for a supposedly male-centric course. I study mechatronics engineering, and the split is 290 males, 10 females, to the first year courses. By third year, its around 145 males, 5 females. Final years its closer to 50-80 males, 2-4 females. The drop out rates are about the same, though the number of women willing to take the course is far lower. And yeah, this is just at my course, I'm not trying to say engineering as a whole is like this, however with very few women in this course, the women here are very driven and don't want to leave it. When they leave, its usually due to failing a class, like with most of their male counterparts. To me this implies that the cause for women feeling excluded, and dropping out of the course because of this, isn't due to the number of females in the course, but more to do with the culture of the course itself. In our course, its very merit driven, my university has a very laid back and inclusive culture; everyone here is friends, well, not friends who know each other or anything but if someone needs something you're going to help them even if you don't know them, because its the sort of thing we believe any decent person should do. There is the belief among our cohort that women are fully capable of performing as well as men in the course at the very least, but also in the wider industry. Its understood that its not completely thought of that way in the industry, but the women in the course aren't put off by this, and more want to prove that thought wrong.

I get the feeling in your course, there is more of a feeling of hopelessness. The attitude that women can't be as good as men in the course and industry is practically known to be false, but pervades the more 'feeling' side of things, and the women feel like they either simply won't be given the same opportunities, or simply can't perform as well as their male counterparts, and thus drop out. I could be completely wrong here, but hey.

So, what culture changes would help reduce these feelings? Practical things that can be implemented?
Well, two major things in my course are that the women always get a good role in any group assignment, if they want it. Not because we bend over backwards to give it to them, but because they seem determined to get it done, and it is believed they will do a good job on that work. In groups, this same attitude needs to be help, maybe at first by 'bending over backwards' and given the women in the group relevant and important tasks to perform, and behaving not like you're doing it because you have to, but the same way you would were you to pass it to anybody else - because you trust them to get it done.
On the university's side, a mixed group of lecturers. In my course, the lecturers are probably about a 70-30 split, FAR more than the divide in the student numbers, and enough to break the illusion that women aren't in the industry. Maybe its not representative of the industry itself, however it certainly paints the picture that women can succeed as much as the men.
If and when any presentations are occurring, attention should also very apparently be paid to female groups presentations, for now potentially moreso than to males. If the pervading attitude is that women's work doesn't matter, then even if no-one is paying attention to both male and female presentations, then not paying attention during their presentation is just going to reinforce the idea that women's work doesn't matter, rather than making it feel like they both matter equally. If attention is paid to their work, and intelligent feedback given by numerous parts of the cohort, then they'll feel like their work does matter. It requires more effort, but you're trying to change an attitude, not be actually equal. Once the attitude is changed, the equality will likely naturally evolve thanks to people's laziness and people not wanting to pay attention, at least in this department.

It won't solve all the problems, but its important to put an effort in to break the stereotypes, if you want those stereotypes to lose their power. If people see those stereotypes are wrong, they'll start to feel more included and like their effort has meaning, and likely not drop out as much.

The industry itself also needs to change, however that is NEVER, NEVER going to happen unless the recruits for that industry change. If all the recruits believe that men are better or whathaveyou, that is the attitude that'll pervade the industry for the next 30 years. If the attitude is that women are equal, then sure, when they start out the attitude won't change. Give them 5 years to get into positions of power, and the attitudes will begin to shift. If you want to enact change in an industry, you start it at the university level, not through quotas or forced cooperation that doesn't change baseline attitude, but just tries to pretend they don't exist.

Anyway, this whole thing is a complex issue that'll still take generations to resolve. Things are slowly getting better, but there are no easy or even good answers to a lot of questions, and people all have different beliefs on what things should look like when we're done. Its going to be an interesting world in 50 years, and I look forward to seeing what we've made of it as I grow old.

 

[Redryhno]

I don't think I have much experience in this field, as I'm an English major and that's not really boy's club territory. I'm just saying that a lot of women have issues with this kind of crap, and I don't think they're all lying/misrepresenting their situations.

I'm an English major too. One thing I did notice was there was a shift in the proportions, the higher up you got. At a BA level, women were the majority in my classes. At MA, they were just about half.

In my job (HR), the office is about 75/80% female. In the broader hospital, its about 60%. It's perceived as a stereotypically female job in a female industry. One thing I have noticed though is that though there is sexism in the job, it is invariably aimed at my female co-workers, rather than me or the other guys.

To be fair, that's something that happens in alot of professions and degrees. The "lower" classes often have alot of women, sometimes a majority, and then there's progressively less and less the higher you go. And there's alot of factors that go into that honestly that largely have to do with society's problems than anything against women.

 

[Silverbeard]

Honestly, it's not as hard as it seems.

Just asking them about crude humor or jokingly insult humor is probably the best course. Or, even asking about those types of joking around is just better than just assuming either way. They may not be cool with it, and they be. It honestly doesn't hurt to ask. If they bite your head off for even asking then at least you know you don't have to worry about where you stand with them, and just be professional with them and move on.

I know I've worked with some real uptight people and have wondered if they need to readjust their rod every morning. That type of humor is not for everyone, and I know some guys that don't like it since they can take it a little personally. You seem to have a good working relationship with your guy friends, so I don't think it's really needed to have the same thing with your lady co-workers. I know I don't. You can probably have the same amount of fun with them if you just try to joke around with them, or make small jokes.

I dunno. Whatever floats your work boat.

Oh that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Sure, I get along well with my male colleagues. I see them more as friends than colleagues. Not so with my female colleauges, who are colleagues first and friends second, if at all.
What I was trying to point out is the whole idea of 'the boyz club' and how it relates to workplace behaviour. I think it's obvious by now that my male colleagues and I inhabit a 'boyz club' at my workplace. This has nothing to do with us wanting to exclude women from our line of work (clinical microbiology) but everything to do with them 'not getting' who we are. Likewise I may not appreciate or understand the jokes they make, whatever those may be. In effect they inhabit a 'girlz club'.
And that brings us to the final question: Whose responsibility is it to break down the respective clubs? Should men actively modify their behaviour to make women more comfortable? Or should women accept that they may hear and be the target of the varieties of marginally or very offensive jokes that men exchange routinely?

 

[Joccaren]

Your kinda making my point for me. Men liking something 'girly' seems to set off a natural aggression for you. So you justify it as there "being something wrong with them".

Dude, there are fanatical fans for everything. I don't see how you missed all the forum posts and vids about Michel Bay ruining peoples childhoods over the new transformers and ninja turtle movies. If you need proof of transformer fans then just look at this vid. there are lots of these out there.

I don't think the overwhelming number of mlp fans are men, I think they just get all the attention since as I said before, its men liking something for women which makes people take note.

No, I wouldn't care if it was a woman posting the memes, they're just annoying. They're like Spiderman memes. They're the dregs of the internet, yet for a while, they were EVERYWHERE. Every forum I went to, every thread I read, had someone posting pony images. Were there transformer images in those threads? No. There weren't even Spiderman images until the internet decided to mock the shit out of the fanbase to shut them up.
Yes, there are die-hard fanatics of all series. The MLP ones were just very loud and omnipresent for a while, which led people to hate them. Part of it also likely came from the fact that the people on the receiving end didn't like the show or want to, yet it kept getting shoved in their face and they were told they should like it and its really good and to just watch one episode, this episode, no this one is the best...

Its the same sort of thing as CoD. Lots of people hate CoD, because for ages the dudebro male audience shoved it in your face how awesome CoD was. It was omnipresent and the biggest game, people who never gamed before bought it and got addicted, and in my time I went from being the nerd no-one talked to, to "Oh, you're good at games. You should play CoD" - even when a lot of people had played it and hated it. Its a male-centric game aimed at males, and a lot of the internet's 'gamer' population HATES it, because its so popular and talked about, and they hate the game itself - despite it actually being a decent, or more to the point competent, game that simply doesn't appeal to many people. Part of the hate also came from its popularity, much like CoD.

It ain't the male-female split in this case. There's a small bit of that, but it is in no way the main part. There's not something wrong with them because they like a female TV show, there's something wrong with them because the posted the memes everywhere for a while - or more to the point that was what was wrong with them. It was like every website was 9gag. Just, no. Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but it really was omnipresent and annoying as hell.
I mean, sure, I'll take your point... If you can provide a recent period of time where transformers memes were posted everywhere, and near 50% of the userbase of many sites had transformers avatars and mildly derailed most threads with comments about transformers. Like. It doesn't compare. Bronies are disliked not because they like a girly TV show - I like Power Puff Girls, and a lot of guys will probably be all "Hell yeah, I grew up with that shit", despite the fact its very much aimed at little girls. They're disliked for how crazy and out of control they went for a little bit, likely egged on by the internet as a whole, and the resounding popularity of the series.

 

[Nemmerle]

Maybe I do underestimate that.

Maybe, my Danish sensibilities just doesn't translate well to the rest of the world. If that's the case, then I'm sorry if I made an arse out of myself.

[...]

No I don't see that kind of people all that much. Again, maybe it's simply because I live in Denmark. And if that's the case, I don't know if I should feel relieved that those people aren't that common where I live, or if I should feel regret that those kind of people are "normal" in countries I'd previously considered civilized nations.

I don't know how much of a mono-culture Denmark is, but I suspect engaging with it on the level of countries is going to be misleading.

There are places you can go, within 'civilised' nations, where people understand nothing about mathematics, philosophy, history, science, economics or art. Where the standards of dispute resolution are dramatically different, as are the standards of offence. That's normal for that area. Sure, their country has nuclear reactors and the trappings of an economically advanced power, but they have very little to do with any of that. They specialise in some low level tasks and can live largely ignorant of the lot of it.

You know? Sure, This Guy researches how to control the energy that fuels the stars, but That Guy lifts and carries boxes for eight hours a day and grew up in a family that still believes an invisible man watches everything he does and will judge him if he likes the cute well-muscled guy.

It would, I feel, be far more surprising if the standard of ethics remained constant when almost everything else changes so radically.

That kinda trips all of us up at one point or another though

I remember flipping out at an America who thought that it was totally acceptable to be polishing a shotgun when his daughter's boyfriend first met him. Like he thought, as near as I can tell in all sincerity, that was a rape-prevention strategy. Who knows, maybe for where he lived he was right.... Unholy amounts of 'Wtf?' were experienced there.

^_^

I can see why some people would call that type of person "ignorant", but I maintain that this kind of ignorance isn't the only reason, and that the primary reason would be because these people are shitheads who I doubt would stop raping, even with every educational tool in the box.

Well, yeah. Once they're that far gone you're not going to run them through the Stop Raping 101 Remedial course. There are way too many missing basic norms and skills to do that, and many of the lessons they'll have learned instead of those norms and skills come with emotional and intellectual commitments of their own that would be very hard to divorce someone from.

Maybe, but this is more an exercise in PR (but as a concept, I agree with you).

My main issue with the "Teach men not to rape" (besides the PR, as you mentioned), is that it usually also gets brought up by feminists (not all, but enough to make it an issue), who seem to want to diminish rape into merely looking a woman in the eye (or maybe even . Those people I can't abide. Their efforts would only hurt the true rape victims.

Example of such feminists, who apparently want to diminish rape, is in the video below.

I don't really disagree there. The pool has been pissed in.

[hr]

I'm still a bit puzzled as to where it came from in the first place.

The mnemonic in question neither teaches men to rape nor not to rape, and that was never the contention. That doesn't mean that it's going to be a particularly welcoming sentiment, and it was not alone (it's the easiest for me to remember because I've had to deal with resistor colour codes a lot), but that if you wondered why women might not want to be involved in technical fields, the language used might be an element, but that even raising the issue can engender hostility.

Unfortunately, the takeaway from this has not been "women may be put off by a hostile environmwnt" and is instead about a point nobody seems to have been making.

If it did teach men not to rape, actually effectively did so, would you still find it something that ought to be removed?

That, I imagine, is where the original respondent saw a connection on at least a thematic level.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Honestly, it's not as hard as it seems.

Just asking them about crude humor or jokingly insult humor is probably the best course. Or, even asking about those types of joking around is just better than just assuming either way. They may not be cool with it, and they be. It honestly doesn't hurt to ask. If they bite your head off for even asking then at least you know you don't have to worry about where you stand with them, and just be professional with them and move on.

I know I've worked with some real uptight people and have wondered if they need to readjust their rod every morning. That type of humor is not for everyone, and I know some guys that don't like it since they can take it a little personally. You seem to have a good working relationship with your guy friends, so I don't think it's really needed to have the same thing with your lady co-workers. I know I don't. You can probably have the same amount of fun with them if you just try to joke around with them, or make small jokes.

I dunno. Whatever floats your work boat.

Oh that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Sure, I get along well with my male colleagues. I see them more as friends than colleagues. Not so with my female colleauges, who are colleagues first and friends second, if at all.
What I was trying to point out is the whole idea of 'the boyz club' and how it relates to workplace behaviour. I think it's obvious by now that my male colleagues and I inhabit a 'boyz club' at my workplace. This has nothing to do with us wanting to exclude women from our line of work (clinical microbiology) but everything to do with them 'not getting' who we are. Likewise I may not appreciate or understand the jokes they make, whatever those may be. In effect they inhabit a 'girlz club'.

Ooooooh, I see what you mean now. Sorry about that.

I think you're fine. If they don't get your humor and jokes, and vice versa, then I don't think there's a problem. I think what the OP is trying to get at is when it's super toxic and unwelcoming to (mainly) the lady folk. It can work both ways though. They probably just view you as friends and as long as you get the work done and don't make a ruckus then it's fine. If you feel like it's awkward, you might want to ask one of the women at work. Nothing wrong with just asking.

And that brings us to the final question: Whose responsibility is it to break down the respective clubs? Should men actively modify their behaviour to make women more comfortable? Or should women accept that they may hear and be the target of the varieties of marginally or very offensive jokes that men exchange routinely?

I think it's both parties responsibilities, in my opinion. It really should be an open dialogue and just find out what's acceptable and what's not. If it's not acceptable, then it should be curbed at out respect. That's not to say you can't make those jokes or whatever when they are not in the room, but it's not cool when those jokes or comments are made when they are in the room. That goes for both men and women.

I know I've walked into gigs where I know for a fact that I'm not welcome because I'm not "one of the boys" and it's made aware to me. That's not cool. I've had to "accept" that I might have to hear things that I don't like or want to hear. I tolerate it, to a point, but I don't have to like it. If it's out of line I will say something, and I fully expect to get a shit comment because of it. That's what I think the OP is trying to get at. Or just the shit talking when that person is not around to defend themselves because they're a [insert gender specific insult].

It's just a matter of respect and treating the other person how you want to be treated.

Again, it does go both ways. I just think there should be a dialogue between everyone working to see what's okay and what's not rather than assuming, or expecting someone to "deal with it" or "GTFO" if they don't.

That's just my two cents.

 

[Worgen]

Your kinda making my point for me. Men liking something 'girly' seems to set off a natural aggression for you. So you justify it as there "being something wrong with them".

Dude, there are fanatical fans for everything. I don't see how you missed all the forum posts and vids about Michel Bay ruining peoples childhoods over the new transformers and ninja turtle movies. If you need proof of transformer fans then just look at this vid. there are lots of these out there.

I don't think the overwhelming number of mlp fans are men, I think they just get all the attention since as I said before, its men liking something for women which makes people take note.

No, I wouldn't care if it was a woman posting the memes, they're just annoying. They're like Spiderman memes. They're the dregs of the internet, yet for a while, they were EVERYWHERE. Every forum I went to, every thread I read, had someone posting pony images. Were there transformer images in those threads? No. There weren't even Spiderman images until the internet decided to mock the shit out of the fanbase to shut them up.
Yes, there are die-hard fanatics of all series. The MLP ones were just very loud and omnipresent for a while, which led people to hate them. Part of it also likely came from the fact that the people on the receiving end didn't like the show or want to, yet it kept getting shoved in their face and they were told they should like it and its really good and to just watch one episode, this episode, no this one is the best...

It ain't the male-female split in this case. There's a small bit of that, but it is in no way the main part. There's not something wrong with them because they like a female TV show, there's something wrong with them because the posted the memes everywhere for a while - or more to the point that was what was wrong with them. It was like every website was 9gag. Just, no. Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but it really was omnipresent and annoying as hell.
I mean, sure, I'll take your point... If you can provide a recent period of time where transformers memes were posted everywhere, and near 50% of the userbase of many sites had transformers avatars and mildly derailed most threads with comments about transformers. Like. It doesn't compare. Bronies are disliked not because they like a girly TV show - I like Power Puff Girls, and a lot of guys will probably be all "Hell yeah, I grew up with that shit", despite the fact its very much aimed at little girls. They're disliked for how crazy and out of control they went for a little bit, likely egged on by the internet as a whole, and the resounding popularity of the series.

Somehow this image seems appropriate here.

Why yes I am mature.

Anyway, I've seen backlash before but nothing as hard as it was against pony stuff. It tends not to be hard to avoid pony images since if you see a forum thread talking about ponies and you don't like them, then why are you going into it and posting. There was a huge pony thread on the mechwarrior online site and they had to ban the anti posts from it since they tended to post gore images and such. This was a single image thread, a massive one but still just one thread. Easy to avoid if you don't like ponies. You still see random haters on mlp vids on youtube.

I would liken the discovery of mlp as somewhat of a religious experience. In other words someone who finds out about it gets really into it and wants to show other people it. If you want something else that worked similarly then look up Undertale, the fanbase for it acted similar. The difference is that the MLP fanbase mostly originated from 4chan, where images and memes are how communication takes place.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

It's even more baffling because if someone are "naturally inclined" to not take certain jobs, or just don't want them, why do so many women go into school or training for said jobs. Is it like the 80s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series, where they forgot they were turtles? Do people think they go into these courses, then some programming trips in their head and it's like "oh shit, I forgot, I'm a chick! I hate this stuff!"

Why do women have to be told so frequently what they "don't like" or "don't want" to do? I would think if there was a legitimate natural disinclination, or a legitimate disinterest, it wouldn't need to be so constantly and thoroughly reinforced. I'm reminded of a certain YouTube personality who claims men are naturally more assertive and aggressive, but has repeatedly said he and his girlfriend are trying to break her daughter of the habit of "bossing" people around. I mean, doesn't that little girl know she's naturally less assertive?

...You know, I just got the image of 50% of my Anthropology course just standing up, intoning in robotic voices 'WARNING, GENDER PROGRAMMING CONFLICT: STUDYING. REASSERTING ROOT PROGRAM: MOTHERHOOD' then marching out of the theater in single-file and heading towards the nearest nursery. Because really, if people were naturally inclined to do it then why wouldn't they do it all at once?

The weirdest thing I've found with the 'natural inclination' argument is that it's very poorly thought out. Like... what are men naturally inclined to do? Literally everything besides caring for people? What happens when a field of work like STEM and Biology has a shift in gender majority? Is that men having a sudden realization that studying people is very close to caring for them?

I dunno. The 'natural inclination' argument always feels like a cheap way of saying 'Men are just naturally superior to women, who prefer subservient roles'. I'd make a crack about that, but I can't help feel there's a few people in this very thread who genuinely believe that.

I don't think I have much experience in this field, as I'm an English major and that's not really boy's club territory. I'm just saying that a lot of women have issues with this kind of crap, and I don't think they're all lying/misrepresenting their situations.

I'm an English major too. One thing I did notice was there was a shift in the proportions, the higher up you got. At a BA level, women were the majority in my classes. At MA, they were just about half.

In my job (HR), the office is about 75/80% female. In the broader hospital, its about 60%. It's perceived as a stereotypically female job in a female industry. One thing I have noticed though is that though there is sexism in the job, it is invariably aimed at my female co-workers, rather than me or the other guys.

To be fair, that's something that happens in alot of professions and degrees. The "lower" classes often have alot of women, sometimes a majority, and then there's progressively less and less the higher you go. And there's alot of factors that go into that honestly that largely have to do with society's problems than anything against women.

...so, quick question, why do you think these lower classes have a lot of women, yet somehow it's not because society has a stick up it's arse about women (well, gender, but let's roll with it)? Because 'less women in the lower levels because of society problems' feels like a gender thing, not going to lie.

 

[Something Amyss]

They got married in 2012 and divorced in 2014. They are both 26 now, I think.

Fair enough. I was mostly just saying because it's mind-boggling to me that this wasn't considered strictly illegal in all states until I was 13 years old. Like, this is the sort of thing I would have assumed was just...common sense, but apparently not.

I do think that the "teach them not to rape" is a pretty bad way of putting it. It is really reductionist

Especially since rape education should be for everyone and is of use to the victims as well. Even if we were to go to the ridiculous straw extreme of "all rapists are men and all rape victims are women," a position I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nobody here actually holds, there's still the issue that you have limited recourse if you don't even know a crime has been committed.

If it did teach men not to rape, actually effectively did so, would you still find it something that ought to be removed?

I don't believe I ever pushed for its removal in the first place. What I spoke to was that even suggesting such a thing might be an issue can (and in my experience, frequently does) generates a hostility that shuts down discussion.

As it was, MrFalconfly immediately jumped to how this taught men not to rape and incorrectly stated that it said only "arseholes" rape. This doesn't track to what you're asking, far as I can tell. It's an interesting hypothetical, but a post-hoc one.

As it is, I didn't push for its removal. When I saw the way people reacted to the suggestion that it be changed, I stopped taking electronics courses. Gender not withstanding, I've been on the receiving end of rape. The sort of environment where rape is so vitally integral it will make grown adults yell and fight is the sort of environment I seek to avoid.

I would actually say my class roster was a strong mark against the notion that this taught men not to rape. But then, I doubt they thought they were bad boys.

That we couldn't even have that discussion is a problem. It's one that I think has been lost in all this. I think it's a sign. When memes about raping young girls are that sacred, something is seriously wrong.

It was never about teaching men not to rape. It was about a way to remember resistor colour codes. We had a bunch of mnemonics like this, and they're generally done in a funny fashion.

By the way, the original mnemonic was "black boys rape our young girls." Electronics survived handily without the racism of the earlier version, and while I don't have any numbers on me I realistically doubt it's negatively impacted the rate of rape by blacks towards young girls.

Do you think this sort of thing impacts the presence of women in certain fields? Because I reckon it does.

...You know, I just got the image of 50% of my Anthropology course just standing up, intoning in robotic voices 'WARNING, GENDER PROGRAMMING CONFLICT: STUDYING. REASSERTING ROOT PROGRAM: MOTHERHOOD' then marching out of the theater in single-file and heading towards the nearest nursery. Because really, if people were naturally inclined to do it then why wouldn't they do it all at once?

Well, that helped de-somber me a bit. Thanks. As to why, I imagine it's like software updates, being rolled out in waves.

I dunno. The 'natural inclination' argument always feels like a cheap way of saying 'Men are just naturally superior to women, who prefer subservient roles'.

Maybe, but I'm more inclined to think it's an enforcement of the status quo. Things are the way they are, so there must be a reason. I imagine most people just don't want to think about it. Denying there's a problem is literally the path of least resistance, no malice or intent to hold power over a group necessary.

 

[Redryhno]

...so, quick question, why do you think these lower classes have a lot of women, yet somehow it's not because society has a stick up it's arse about women (well, gender, but let's roll with it)? Because 'less women in the lower levels because of society problems' feels like a gender thing, not going to lie.

I never said anything about there NOT being a gender problem, just that the reasons behind them could very well have less to do with gender and more to do with somewhat basic gender roles and just general inclination.

There's certain things that males and females do better. And there's certain stigmas for each as well as things that are looked on favorably. Guys are expected to climb the ladder, women can climb the ladder if they want to, but it just gives them a better lookout more often than not, while guys are looked down as a lesser person(not a lesser man) for not. And in some professions, a guy will be looked down on or even with suspicion below a certain level. Nobody gives a shit about what genitals their college professors have, but you can be damn sure Daniel the passionate kindergarten teacher gets more than his fair share of side looks for his job choice.

Hell, I'd argue that it's more often the stick up its ass society has about dudes and gals, but the only people that care enough to make a point about it are only interested in how it affects one of them far too often. Sorry if I"m not making sense, I have work in a few hours and I haven't taken my nap yet. I'm not even sure if what I'm putting out makes sense to anyone but how I'm thinking at the moment.

 

[s0denone]

And how about all the people who claim that what he did doesn't qualify as rape? I am not talking about if he was guilty, because that was impossible to prove. I am talking about how the woman describes the circumstance and people bend over backwards to say "that isn't rape!". Because there were a couple dozen of those people.

I know another woman who was raped and the very first thing someone said to her when she tried to report it was "well you shouldn't have been leading him on." Which, shocker, she wasn't.

Ignorance about rape is a real problem. You can believe whatever you want, but people do think these things. Hell, we got s0denone up there making the "but drunk drivers!" argument in this very thread. People will insist that rape isn't rape.

Haha, what!?

I am lumped into a box of people who are ignorant about rape, because I question a law that is almost exclusive to America?

Let me put my opinion to you very plainly: If someone drinks a lot of alcohol out of their own freewill and being inebriated causes them to do things they wouldn't have done otherwise, be it having sex, vandalism, robbery or driving drunk, it is their own fault.

You can certainly make the argument that it is morally reprehensible to have sex with someone very drunk, regardless of your sex and theirs - but that doesn't make it your fault that they are drunk.

Drunk drivers aren't always held criminally responsible for their actions. If somebody genuinely did not know that they were ingesting alcohol, eg their drink having been spiked by a friend with an alcoholic beverage without their consent, and then that "friend" is purposefully duplicitous about that action then while the individual did drive drunk they're not reasonably responsible for their drunken state. This sort of thing is difficult to prove, as it basically requires an eyewitness to a) the drunk driver not knowingly ingesting alcohol throughout the entire period prior to driving and b) their drink being spiked was hidden from them.

Okay, so as a counterpoint to what I said, you bring up an insane example that I've honestly never even heard of.
I've heard of people being raped (men and women) by having their drinks spiked, in fact that very specific situation happened to my sister. I managed to intervene at a very late stage, though before actual intercourse, and that piece of shit is lucky he was alive when I was carrying her out of that building.

I am not talking about people being drugged. Let me rephrase, since that is what you responded to:

If someone willingly injests a lot of alcohol, goes drunk driving and ends up killing two people, they are liable and go to prison.
If someone willingly injests a lot of alcohol and have sex then they are being raped. What!?
And again, what if both parties are drunk? Are they raping eachother?

 

[s0denone]

Snip

So you're saying America is the world-leading nation in anti-rape laws?
I can promise you that nobody cries rape after drunkenly sleeping with someone else almost anywhere else.

I don't see any legal issue with it. As long as you give your consent to becoming inebriated (i.e. aren't drugged or somehow unknowingly injesting alcohol) then you can give whatever consent during your state of drunkenness also.

But again, just to reaffirm what you really think:
If a man is very drunk and is taken home by a woman who is only slightly inebriated or even sober and they have sex, he has been raped?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

[Edit]

Ya know what?

Fuck it.

This is a waste of time.

Back to Trails in the Sky and Senran Kagura.

 

[s0denone]

Snip

So drunk people cannot be held responsible for any of their actions while drunk? Because their judgment is impaired, regardless of that judgment being willingly impaired by themselves?

That is a very curious perspective, but fair enough. Enjoy yourself.