The boys club

[RedRockRun]

If you drink and drive, you're held responsible, just like drinking and doing anything besides sex. Actually, if a man gets drunk and has sex with a sober woman, won't people just say the drunk man forced himself on the woman anyway? Why is being drunk a get out of jail free card when it comes to sex. Do people honestly think that those who get drunk and have sex had no idea of the consequences of getting drunk? That's so incredibly condescending.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If something in an environment repels me, what I take from that is that I am not compatible with it. Importance being placed on the reason for this being my own individual characteristics and not some supposed problem with whatever field I don't feel like joining up in. Furthermore, if I am attracted to something, no amount of hardship could make me stop partaking.

My reasoning is that if women don't like a certain occupation, it is their adjustment that is required, not the world's. The fact that there are some women who make it shows that there's nothing unfair going on and simply it just coincides that fewer women really care as deeply about that field, which is a thing that is normal. There's lots of fields where the opposite is the case.

 

[Nemmerle]

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.

Picking out that something is a problem at least implies that it ought to be changed, and the only imaginable way that this could feasibly be changed largely destroys the connotation that you would be picking out - that's kind of the point of the change after all. That's not a universal rule but it wouldn't be particularly reaching on behalf of the user who respond to you.

As for it being post hoc... there's nothing that I think I can do to explain someone else's actions that isn't. I'm not them, I'm never gonna know what they were thinking at the time.

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.

I don't know. As a subjective statement about how I imagine I would experience repeated instances of such things, I imagine it would. There is a relative prevalence thing there however, not all countries use this mnemonic - indeed as far as I'm aware a minority of one does, and that not consistently - and yet female participation in these courses remains almost universally low. It is, for instance, hard for me to imagine that sort of mnemonic being acceptable in any of the schools or universities that I've been to. Heck, I'm aware of someone who was fired for making the statement that they had "a black day." (Which personally I think is going a bit too far for something that would have been better handled in one-on-one discussion.)

I would tend to agree with you that if you've attempted to have this discussion in real life, and it resulted in grown adults acting like children, something is seriously wrong there. I don't know that it would explain the difference in uptake and attainment rates, there I would tend to think that there are a bunch of different stories that can be drawn over things. For instance, one would be that the relative value of certain types of peer groups containing certain communication patterns and focuses of discussion is more valuable to one gender than the other ? and that that explains the majority of the problem... But I would agree that it's a troubling indicator if nothing else. I mean it's not exactly an expensive move to just come up with a different mnemonic and put the discussion to bed that way - people probably spend more effort fighting over not changing it than the issue itself is worth.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

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.

Well, those sound like pretty clear-cut cases.

And it's cases like this that make me distrust the overly religious.

And so far the only behaviour I consider to be an excuse (stay with me, it's not what you think I'm going to say), is when it's roleplay, and there are clearly defined boundaries, and a safeword to stop the proceedings at any point.

Ignorance?

IGNORANCE?!?

Please, stop diminishing this horrible crime.

Rape isn't something, someone does by accident because of ignorance.

Yes it is, just like being killed by another person shooting a gun can be done out of ignorance. You wouldn't call a three year old reaching into their mother's purse and shooting them with the CCW pistol a murderer, up there with the likes of, say, Ted Bundy, would you?

Sorry, but I don't think they're equal cases.

If rape is equal to premaditated murder, then an accidental discharge of a gun resulting in the death of a person would be equal to one of the parties regretting it the morning after.

Or if I'm the odd one out in this, please tell me then.

 

[one squirrel]

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.

I wasn't aware "not able to give consent" meant "not responsible for any of their actions," but then it's not exactly a surprising mistake to see be made considering it's one that people have been consistently refusing to correct for years.

If they are responsible for some of their actions, and not responsible for others (because you cannot be held responsible for things you didn't consent to), what is the criterion by which we discriminate the two kinds of actions?

Or let me rephrase the question: There seem to be things you can consent to while being drunk, and there are things you cannot consent to while being drunk, what distinguishes the two?

 

[Nemmerle]

If they are responsible for some of their actions, and not responsible for others (because you cannot be held responsible for things you didn't consent to), what is the criterion by which we discriminate the two kinds of actions?

Or let me rephrase the question: There seem to be things you can consent to while being drunk, and there are things you cannot consent to while being drunk, what distinguishes the two?

So, more or less, the question you're asking is that someone is unable to consent to driving in the same way that they're unable to consent to sex when they're both inebriated to the same degree?

There are ways of formulating that which make sense. Someone can be liable for damage regardless of their mental state with respect to alcohol and you could still get both results.

In the first case the person would be liable to the people they endangered by drink driving.

In the later case they'd be liable to themselves for the damage that they suffered.

The disanalogy between the two cases is that in the latter case someone else is also responsible. (That and one hardly takes themselves to court for recklessly endangering themselves. )

 

[one squirrel]

If they are responsible for some of their actions, and not responsible for others (because you cannot be held responsible for things you didn't consent to), what is the criterion by which we discriminate the two kinds of actions?

Or let me rephrase the question: There seem to be things you can consent to while being drunk, and there are things you cannot consent to while being drunk, what distinguishes the two?

So, more or less, the question you're asking is that someone is unable to consent to driving in the same way that they're unable to consent to sex when they're both inebriated to the same degree?

There are ways of formulating that which make sense. Someone can be liable for damage regardless of their mental state with respect to alcohol and you could still get both results.

In the first case the person would be liable to the people they endangered by drink driving.

In the later case they'd be liable to themselves for the damage that they suffered.

The disanalogy between the two cases is that in the latter case someone else is also responsible. (That and one hardly takes themselves to court for recklessly endangering themselves. )

Yes, I've thought about it a little more after posting my question, and I have to admit, I have more or less come to the same conclusion as you did about the disanalogy, but for what seems to be a different reason.

Deciding the question on whether one can consent to something on the bases of whom they would be liable to, is that possible, considering that liability is, to my poor knowlege of the english language, almost synonymous to responsibilty?

You say, in the latter case someone else is responsible, but that seems to be the conclusion. The reason would be that some actions can't take place, if one party refuses to take part.
I haven't decided yet whether I would accept that as a good reason why the not impaired party would be solely responsible for the action taken place, as this goes against my instincts. But I am seriously reconsidering my position on the topic.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Actually, according to feminists, you're already raping women if you're male and still drawing breath. You for example cybertouched me by making a post I don't 100% agree with, and according to the United Nations, that's basically the same as raping me.

[HEADING=2]Mod Voice[/HEADING]

You're treading pretty close to the line with this kind of comment. Making blanket statements about a particular group of people isn't a good idea, and as a lot of users here would identify themselves as supporting the feminist cause, you're potentially going to cause trouble with a comment like this.

You may want to re-read the section of the Code of Conduct that covers "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling".

Thanks a lot.

 

[Phasmal]

In regards to women fitting in, in a male only (or near to) workplace, I agree that women face challenges and that an appropriate measure of professional courtesy should be afforded in order to welcome them into the workplace.

Good? Good.

Now, what I consider a far more interesting part of this discussion, what courtesy is afforded men, when a woman is introduced to their group?
Will their efficiency diminish? Will the group dynamic suffer? Will their satisfaction with their job suffer?
For example, with the recent discussion on whether women should be drafted as well, some argued that women do not belong on the battlefield in boots - because male soldiers will go out of their way to protect or "save" them, at the cost of their own lives.

I get the feeling that few want to ask these questions, or even care. Broadly speaking, "women are more important" when it comes to these topics, not necessarily because they agree with the sentiment, but because that's where our moral needle is at, by default. Be as it may, whether people agree with the previous statement or not, men's perspective is absolutely an important aspect to consider when it comes to bringing any kind of diversity to male "dominated" workplaces.

I think the argument in these cases is not "women are more important" but "women having the freedom to join the military is more important than whether or not men like it".
Say if some men's satisfaction with their jobs did suffer because women entered their workplace, are we supposed to say "Sorry ladies but men don't like it, I guess you should all go home"?

Perhaps I've missed something, but isn't women's right to get jobs in industries they want to a more important concern than if men might not be keen on having women around?

(I have a distinct feeling of opening a can of worms but whatever).

 

[Phasmal]

Say if some men's satisfaction with their jobs did suffer because women entered their workplace, are we supposed to say "Sorry ladies but men don't like it, I guess you should all go home"?

What if the answer is "yes?"
What if the same thing also happens to men, where if men try to enter an industry where they are unwelcome, the women can kick them out?

Perhaps I've missed something, but isn't women's right to get jobs in industries they want to a more important concern than if men might not be keen on having women around?

What of the business owner's rights have the right to operate their workplace at maximum efficiency? Should he be forced to have his company suffer?

Speaking as someone who often works in a female dominated industry, I don't think that men should be unwelcome or 'kicked out' and neither do I think it should happen to women in male dominated industries.

And as for business owners... if they can't operate a workplace 50% of the human race interacting with the other 50%... maybe they should reassess how they do business.

But, that's just my opinion, I'm not really interested in getting into a long debate, especially not about this. I have a feeling it would bum me out.

 

[Fappy]

Holy hell, this thread is a hot mess. How the fuck did the topic of consent come up? Oh yeah, it's thread about women. Guess that was bound to happen with this crowd.

I work in software, which is notorious for its boy's club environment. Most of the women I know in the more techy positions had to fight tooth-and-nail to stand out among their male peers. It just kind of sucks that they have to work so much harder to get recognized, I guess. Not sure what the solution is outside of getting more women involved in the field.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I have to question, what does "very macho guys who talked about very manly things and were full of bravado" means, were they offensive to her, did they make sexual comments against her or did they just... well.. talk like men?

This was over a year ago, but from what I gathered it wasn't that they were harassing her, in fact as I mentioned, most of them totally ignored her. As for the type of guys, they were very forward, crass, and their subject of conversation solely fit into the realm of sports, babes, and cars.

I'm not saying they're at fault for enjoying crass humor (And I mean crass, she loves offensive jokes, just not crass ones), sports, attractive women or cars. What I am saying is that the fact that was all my girlfriend saw when she was there made her feel totally out of place, and that she was constantly on the outside of the group. If this keep happening in a field you're interested in, you're going to be a lot less inclined to remain in it. She didn't try more, but from the other groups she met in this week she didn't think it was worth the risk.

Also what does "dismissive" mean, did they laugh at her for doing the course (in front of her) or did they just did not particulary care for her? Finally what do you mean by "incredibly condescending manner and she constantly felt talked down to" did they talk to her like a baby or seen she's having difficulties and is always alone and tried to help her? Because people sometimes choose to see things the way that is opposite to how it really is and you make the men there sound like scumbags while they can be just regular people and your friend over exaggerated.

Just to be frank, there seems to be a lot of women in this thread who are just "seeing things the opposite of how they are".

I get the desire to try to see the best in people and assume that they're not as bad as portrayed. Disagreements are rarely as simple as "The person who's complaining to you is the good guy, and the other person is Satan". That being said she hasn't had this problem before. She just doesn't go around to every potential place of work and feel like everyone's condescending her. There was something about this particular place of work that made her feel unwanted and unvalued.

I'm not saying that the men are absolute scumbags, just that at least some of them were probably sexist and that was influencing how they treated her. There seems to be a mentality on this site that someone is either sexist as fuck, or not sexist even in the slightest, and there's no area in between. Just because someone isn't actively campaigning against a woman's right to vote doesn't mean they they have equal respect for both genders. That being said, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convince you that they're sexist, especially not without explicit details.

Once again, it was over a year ago, so details aren't going to be easy to dig up, but the gist was that they acted like painting was below them, and they talked down to her like she didn't have the slightest idea what she was doing, even though they were aware that she had been painting for her entire life.

The important thing here though isn't who is a scumbag and who isn't, or whether or not anybody's sexist, or even if everyone there was simply innocently being misunderstood. What's significant is that she was driven away solely because of the environment, and that she felt strongly unwelcome there. It wasn't that she didn't have any interest in the work (While it's not her main career direction, she would absolutely love working for a company like Weta). If that happens consistently to women around fields like this, I'd say that's a problem. And judging by the women posting in this thread, it sounds like it is far from an fringe occurence.

----

Not going to dig up your other post to quote it, but you mentioned being in Computer Science or IT in another post, and I'll just add my own experience to it. From all that I can gather, the majority of people I've seen in my program are friendly and nice to women. That being said, the people who aren't really aren't. I had a TA who in front of the entire class decided to go on a rant on how how all the women go into the "artsy-fartsy" areas of CS like HCI or Computer Graphics [footnote]Which is cute, because aside from maybe Cryptography I'm not sure I've seen a more math heavy domain of computer science[/footnote] instead of those that require critical thought. In the middle of a tutorial. To the horrified looks of all the women present. He's definitely not the only person I've seen though. That being said, most of the women I know in computer science have had a good experience in it (Though that is quite a small sample group you're looking at). What I think is the biggest problem isn't the drop outs, it's getting people in it in the first place. Something that I think will change as more women are interested in video games

 

[Gorrath]

If they are responsible for some of their actions, and not responsible for others (because you cannot be held responsible for things you didn't consent to), what is the criterion by which we discriminate the two kinds of actions?

Or let me rephrase the question: There seem to be things you can consent to while being drunk, and there are things you cannot consent to while being drunk, what distinguishes the two?

So, more or less, the question you're asking is that someone is unable to consent to driving in the same way that they're unable to consent to sex when they're both inebriated to the same degree?

There are ways of formulating that which make sense. Someone can be liable for damage regardless of their mental state with respect to alcohol and you could still get both results.

In the first case the person would be liable to the people they endangered by drink driving.

In the later case they'd be liable to themselves for the damage that they suffered.

The disanalogy between the two cases is that in the latter case someone else is also responsible. (That and one hardly takes themselves to court for recklessly endangering themselves. )

If I may, I can offer a better example than drunk driving, since that's not a consent issue. Friend of mine is drunk off his ass, I tell him there's no way he's driving and take his keys. I offer to drive him back to my place since its close and he needs to sleep it off. He gives up his keys and crashes at my place.

1) Have I stolen his keys since he cannot consent to giving them to me?

2) Have I kidnapped him (or unlawfully detained him) by driving him back to my place since he cannot consent to me taking him anywhere?