The boys club

[Redryhno]

Getting along with people you don't know every well can be difficult.

At the same time, that doesn't change with gender. And I say that as someone who is anti-social like crazy

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the experiences of the individual. Go from somewhere with next to no men to a place were half or more of the employees are male, and it can be a bit of a culture shock. And vice versa. I spent so much time being part of boys clubs I just get really awkward when having to work together with a large number of people of my own gender. For instance, what's considered 'straight forward' in one group, may be called 'blunt' in another.

Hell, I know something similar happened to me around high school since I'd largely spent the majority of my time with girls up to that point before multiple lunch periods broke us all up to me being alone for my lunch(long story short, growth spurts happened about four years early for me and I was in alot of achy pain to play with guys my age before then).

And honestly I think it may have alot more to do with that than alot of people want to admit that are singing the same song. Personality clashes are most definitely a thing and I've always been of the opinion that it is not the established group that needs to radically change to accept everything about someone if the newbie doesn't want or doesn't feel comfortable changing themselves a bit.

 

[Gorrath]

Right, I find nothing disagreeable in anything you say here with one exception. There are people who will and do claim that if a person drinks any amount of alcohol, the law should clearly say that they cannot consent to sex. I have been told on this very website that if I drink a beer and have sex with my wife, she's a rapist, I cannot in any way consent and the law should read exactly that way, my feelings on it be damned.

I will not claim this is in any way how things work nor is it a majority of opinion but there is a growing proportion of people who are pushing for consent laws that are understandable in essence but have serious practical problems and implications. I don't know how many times I've heard people say something along the lines of, "Well if you drink a beer you can't sign a legal contract, so you can't consent to sex either!" Not only are they wrong about contract law, they are unwittingly pushing for definitions of sexual consent that make it harder to have consensual sex with your spouse than negotiate a corporate merger (facetious for humorous effect!)

See, I don't see any indication of growing support for such. I am sure occasionally people make the claim, people say stupid things, but I pay a lot of attention to these things and I have somehow not managed to notice this growing movement. What I have noticed is a lot of people complaining about or concerned about said movement.

Frankly, it seems like a real echo chamber effect. Everyone is telling everyone else that people are making these sorts of assertions all the time so everyone thinks it is happening when it really isn't.

Well to be less vague, I am specifically referencing the so-called "affirmative consent" laws. Not only is there growing support for such laws among a portion of the populace, in some places they are being proposed to the legislature. In order to avoid rewriting a bunch of stuff I've already said against them, my responses to LifeCharacter sum up my feelings on them, which the tl;dr version is; they are a fine idea in essence but I see serious practical problems when it comes to application.

My issues may be totally unfounded if these laws are passed and precedent is set that courts will have a very high bar to find someone guilty under them. My issue mostly revolves around the idea that gaining verbal consent for every change in what two people are doing in the heat of a sexual encounter is not a practical expectation a significant amount of the time. In other words, being given permission to have penetrative intercourse does not entitle one to touch someone's hair, and so a person could be given enthusiastic verbal permission to have penetrative intercourse, have it not cross their mind that this does not entitle them to any hair touching, and then be on the bad end of a sexual assault charge because they were totally allowed to have intercourse but not touch the other person's hair at any point in that process. I know that sounds asinine but I think it's a valid concern given the way these proposals are worded. These affirmative consent laws would of course apply to everyone, even people who've been married three decades and even for things most people would consider innocuous when placed in that context. I appreciate fully what these laws are trying to accomplish; I fear that they will be far too wide reaching.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Right, I find nothing disagreeable in anything you say here with one exception. There are people who will and do claim that if a person drinks any amount of alcohol, the law should clearly say that they cannot consent to sex. I have been told on this very website that if I drink a beer and have sex with my wife, she's a rapist, I cannot in any way consent and the law should read exactly that way, my feelings on it be damned.

I will not claim this is in any way how things work nor is it a majority of opinion but there is a growing proportion of people who are pushing for consent laws that are understandable in essence but have serious practical problems and implications. I don't know how many times I've heard people say something along the lines of, "Well if you drink a beer you can't sign a legal contract, so you can't consent to sex either!" Not only are they wrong about contract law, they are unwittingly pushing for definitions of sexual consent that make it harder to have consensual sex with your spouse than negotiate a corporate merger (facetious for humorous effect!)

See, I don't see any indication of growing support for such. I am sure occasionally people make the claim, people say stupid things, but I pay a lot of attention to these things and I have somehow not managed to notice this growing movement. What I have noticed is a lot of people complaining about or concerned about said movement.

Frankly, it seems like a real echo chamber effect. Everyone is telling everyone else that people are making these sorts of assertions all the time so everyone thinks it is happening when it really isn't.

Well to be less vague, I am specifically referencing the so-called "affirmative consent" laws. Not only is there growing support for such laws among a portion of the populace, in some places they are being proposed to the legislature. In order to avoid rewriting a bunch of stuff I've already said against them, my responses to LifeCharacter sum up my feelings on them, which the tl;dr version is; they are a fine idea in essence but I see serious practical problems when it comes to application.

My issues may be totally unfounded if these laws are passed and precedent is set that courts will have a very high bar to find someone guilty under them. My issue mostly revolves around the idea that gaining verbal consent for every change in what two people are doing in the heat of a sexual encounter is not a practical expectation a significant amount of the time. In other words, being given permission to have penetrative intercourse does not entitle one to touch someone's hair, and so a person could be given enthusiastic verbal permission to have penetrative intercourse, have it not cross their mind that this does not entitle them to any hair touching, and then be on the bad end of a sexual assault charge because they were totally allowed to have intercourse but not touch the other person's hair at any point in that process. I know that sounds asinine but I think it's a valid concern given the way these proposals are worded. These affirmative consent laws would of course apply to everyone, even people who've been married three decades and even for things most people would consider innocuous when placed in that context. I appreciate fully what these laws are trying to accomplish; I fear that they will be far too wide reaching.

In that case I think you are grossly misinformed as to what affirmative consent means and how laws created around the principle work. Because "gaining verbal consent for every change in what two people are doing in the heat of a sexual encounter" is not at all suggested or required.

Here is what affirmative consent actually means, in two sentences: "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

In addition, in judging cases of rape under affirmative consent law: "The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented."

So, basically, affirmative consent means:

1. You should take reasonable steps to ensure consent before engaging in sexual activity.
2. Even if consent has been given it may be taken away (that is the meaning of "Affirmative consent must be ongoing", it does not mean you have to check every few minutes).
3. In order for a rape to be prosecuted it must be demonstrated that the accused did not take reasonable steps to determine consent.

Those quote are part of the actual California law based on affirmative consent, by the way, that has been in place for a year and a half, and none of the concerns you have brought up have ever been a problem.

The whole key here is the word "reasonable". Your hair touching example is not assault by the law. Because that would be insane, and the principle works by looking at circumstances on a case by case basis. Do you really believe that you, having firmly established that the woman wants penetrative sex, did not go to reasonable lengths because you didn't explicitly ask if you could touch her hair? Do you really believe anyone thinks that?

 

[Gorrath]

In that case I think you are grossly misinformed as to what affirmative consent means and how laws created around the principle work. Because "gaining verbal consent for every change in what two people are doing in the heat of a sexual encounter" is not at all suggested or required.

Here is what affirmative consent actually means, in two sentences: "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

In addition, in judging cases of rape under affirmative consent law: "The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented."

So, basically, affirmative consent means:

1. You should take reasonable steps to ensure consent before engaging in sexual activity.
2. Even if consent has been given it may be taken away (that is the meaning of "Affirmative consent must be ongoing", it does not mean you have to check every few minutes).
3. In order for a rape to be prosecuted it must be demonstrated that the accused did not take reasonable steps to determine consent.

Those quote are part of the actual California law based on affirmative consent, by the way, that has been in place for a year and a half, and none of the concerns you have brought up have ever been a problem.

The whole key here is the word "reasonable". Your hair touching example is not assault by the law. Because that would be insane, and the principle works by looking at circumstances on a case by case basis. Do you really believe that you, having firmly established that the woman wants penetrative sex, did not go to reasonable lengths because you didn't explicitly ask if you could touch her hair? Do you really believe anyone thinks that?

I'm actually well aware of the way the laws read which is the very basis of my objection, because reasonable is left wholly up to interpretation. There are parts that are good ideas, such as being clear that a lack of resistance does not equal consent but then this is already true of existing rape law anyway, so it serves as merely a clarification of what already exists as precedent.

Now do I think it's reasonable that hair touching be something that is something you have to reasonably ask about? No, it is ludicrous. But that's precisely why I employed it as an example. I also think it's asinine for people to be arrested on assault and battery charges for lobbing a ball of paper, or a boy throwing a snowball, or a paper cup, or a paper clip. That's why I mentioned, specifically, that my opinion of those laws will depend a great deal on the precedent that's set when they are enforced. I see no reason to think that ludicrous cases won't lead to at least arrests if not convictions, since we already see appalling arrests and charges over assault and battery. There are reasonable grounds to think problems will arise from enforcement of these laws and since you could already be found guilty of rape or sexual assault for doing things these laws were meant to prevent under the previous laws, I do not particularly see them as useful either.

I also have a serious worry about the way these laws will be used in a country that already has a huge problem with the way it prosecutes and defends the accused. There is a very common tactic of adding minor charges to major ones when there isn't enough evidence to get a conviction on the larger charge. Can't get the person on rape? Hit them with sexual assault under affirmative
consent laws and convince them to plead down. Sure you can't actually prove they did anything wrong but threaten them enough knowing they have little to no access to good defense council and watch them plead their life away. I'm short on time on my end but if you google "percent of cases that end in guilty plea bargain" you'll see what I mean.

With California's law in particular, one of the things that grabs me is that assault charges are to be decided by the "preponderance of the evidence" and not "reasonable doubt." The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that, when the co-author of the law was asked how a defendant could prove they received consent, her response was, "Your guess is as good as mine."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/oct/30/california-consent-law-students/

A law the requires only a preponderance of evidence instead of reasonable doubt where it's not even clear to the co-author of the bill how a person could prove they actually got consent? Am I really being totally unreasonable in my hesitation to accept these laws as good?

 

[Nemmerle]

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.

Ah, I think I might have expressed that poorly. Liability is about legal responsibility, which tends to track damage more than state of mind. Because, otherwise people could induce altered states of mind and use that to do whatever they wanted with the defence that they were not responsible when they did the thing.

The impaired person has induced an altered state of mind. They're liable to themselves for the harm they suffer as a consequence. They cannot, in that altered state of mind, give consent however. The person with an unaltered state of mind is also responsible for harming them.

If we imagine it one step removed; split the aspects of responsibility and impairment out a bit: If the impaired person took a non-impaired person; a child say; who could not meaningfully consent to a place where such actions were likely to take place, and an unimpaired person then proceeded to exploit that situation, they would both be responsible with respect to the party that could not meaningfully consent.

Zooming back in to the original case, it just so happens that the person who can't consent and the person whose impaired actions expose them to harm are one and the same.

The harm they're liable to themselves for is their own business, to whatever degree they intend to make it so. If they want to zero that account, it's really no-one's business but their own - there's no-one else there that they can be responsible to or whose business that most internal of matters can be. The harm that was done to them beyond that, however, operates like any other harm.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I can't add much to the discussion so I will just give my anecdote to the discussion.

I'm a, well the closest term I guess, a Software engineering and design student. The titles in my country are a bit different from the titles I see in the US, direct translation doesn't work well. But irrelevant. It's a tech branch, computers, programming, math and shit. My year is practically full with guys. During the first year there were maybe 10 girls, 200 guys. My group of friends isn't the type that talks dirty jokes or sexist things. Pretty much any discussion we have between classes or when we go on a coffee is politics, technology and science. Sometimes one friend and I talk about video games. We never tried excluding anyone. Pretty much everyone who wants to talk about those things is welcome. At first it was just me and a friend, soon few other joined. But it was only guys. Despite being friendly with the girls, they always kept themselves in their small groups.

After the first semester 2-3 of them moved on to other fields because they realized this isn't what they want. After the first year few dropped out because they couldn't make it. By year 3, we have 2-3 girls. And all but one stopped coming to classes because they don't have anyone to hand out with, at least that's what one of them said. The one that's coming is part of a group of guys and she seems to be enjoying her time.

I can't speak for the rest, but my group is in no way a boys club. Everyone who is interested in the topics we like is welcome. The thing is, the girls weren't really interested in that. What can we do? Change what we like talking about? To make someone feel welcome? I don't see why I should do that. We didn't do anything to make them feel unwelcome.

People always separate themselves in groups. That's not a problem when you actually have a lot of people and can form groups. But when you're in a field that is mostly the other gender, I think it's a bad thing to start splinting up your group into even smaller groups and exclusively groups of your gender. After the first year, some people will always leave, go to other fields, drop out... your small group will get even smaller. Unless you're the lone wolf type, you will have a shitty time if you isolate yourself.

Reading the posts and seeing the US flag on the posters profile makes me think that the US is some kind of pocket dimension where sexism is worse than in war torn countries. I'm not sure who the hell is able to join your colleges, but in my country colleges are considered to be some of the most liberal (real liberal, not the safe space hug box everything that challenges my views is worse than Hitler type of liberal) places. When I read some of the posts, I can't even imagine that shit happening on my college. Are some of you guys sure that you aren't just exaggerating by a huge margin to make your point come across? Literally giving yourself the flu in order to avoid sexism?

 

[Beliyal]

I can't speak for the rest, but my group is in no way a boys club. Everyone who is interested in the topics we like is welcome. The thing is, the girls weren't really interested in that. What can we do? Change what we like talking about? To make someone feel welcome? I don't see why I should do that. We didn't do anything to make them feel unwelcome.

Hello neighbour

This is interesting because our two countries share a lot, so we're practically talking about very similar cultures. Two of my friends are in similar professions and their colleges were also almost entirely devoid of women.

Your group is definitely a boys club. Your entire college and profession, actually. However, this isn't the fault of anyone specifically going to that college. No one from your college did anything to drive women away and I believe when you say that you treated those women who were there with respect.

Women aren't interested in those professions because our culture discourages it from the very start. How many girls are introduced to and pushed towards technology from a young age? To science? To video games? To programming? In my experience, very little of them, next to none. Our countries don't have the basis for an egalitarian society because we are still locked in strict gender norms. I'm sure you are aware of what ideals are pushed on women in our countries. Some women will break from those ideals, but then they will be faced with lives filled with problems and barriers. I've been through this and I'm still going through this. It's not an easy living when you get denied jobs because sexists think women can't hold a shovel (I've been on the brink of giving up, after so much frustration about something I cannot possibly change. I certainly won't get that job if I call the employer a sexist prick. Reporting such behavior doesn't help either). It wasn't easy for me to find female friends throughout my life because so little of them shared nerdy interests, and every time some of them did, they traded those interests at the first sign of social rejection and mockery.

Personally, I'm not bothered with social rejection, but an average person is. So a lot of women have given up on interests and hobbies that brought them undesirable consequences. This is something that I've seen and discussed with other women multiple times. We are sick and tired of being groomed for certain roles and then punished the moment we deviate from those roles. Some women give up and I can't blame them. But they shouldn't have to give up because society finds it weird that a woman is fixing a car or programming a video game. As a side note, this also affects men, just to make that clear. A man interested in fashion or dancing or anything even remotely viewed as "feminine" will get societal scorn and sometimes even abuse and violence. And they will give up too.

This is why this issue is so difficult to solve. It doesn't start the moment someone enters college and is then treated as an inferior because of their gender. It starts when we are all very young and continues, in subtle and not so subtle ways, throughout our lives. Many women will make a choice at one point; they will choose to push against society and the backlash, or they will choose to conform to the norms imposed on them.

A lot of people give up on college, so that's not the issue. The real issue is that only 10 women have entered it in the first place. Do women as a gender really have such little interest in technology? No. We get discouraged along the way. Not all of us, but enough of us to be visible in huge disparity in numbers.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I can't speak for the rest, but my group is in no way a boys club. Everyone who is interested in the topics we like is welcome. The thing is, the girls weren't really interested in that. What can we do? Change what we like talking about? To make someone feel welcome? I don't see why I should do that. We didn't do anything to make them feel unwelcome.

Hello neighbour

This is interesting because our two countries share a lot, so we're practically talking about very similar cultures. Two of my friends are in similar professions and their colleges were also almost entirely devoid of women.

Your group is definitely a boys club. Your entire college and profession, actually. However, this isn't the fault of anyone specifically going to that college. No one from your college did anything to drive women away and I believe when you say that you treated those women who were there with respect.

Women aren't interested in those professions because our culture discourages it from the very start. How many girls are introduced to and pushed towards technology from a young age? To science? To video games? To programming? In my experience, very little of them, next to none. Our countries don't have the basis for an egalitarian society because we are still locked in strict gender norms. I'm sure you are aware of what ideals are pushed on women in our countries. Some women will break from those ideals, but then they will be faced with lives filled with problems and barriers. I've been through this and I'm still going through this. It's not an easy living when you get denied jobs because sexists think women can't hold a shovel (I've been on the brink of giving up, after so much frustration about something I cannot possibly change. I certainly won't get that job if I call the employer a sexist prick. Reporting such behavior doesn't help either). It wasn't easy for me to find female friends throughout my life because so little of them shared nerdy interests, and every time some of them did, they traded those interests at the first sign of social rejection and mockery.

Personally, I'm not bothered with social rejection, but an average person is. So a lot of women have given up on interests and hobbies that brought them undesirable consequences. This is something that I've seen and discussed with other women multiple times. We are sick and tired of being groomed for certain roles and then punished the moment we deviate from those roles. Some women give up and I can't blame them. But they shouldn't have to give up because society finds it weird that a woman is fixing a car or programming a video game. As a side note, this also affects men, just to make that clear. A man interested in fashion or dancing or anything even remotely viewed as "feminine" will get societal scorn and sometimes even abuse and violence. And they will give up too.

This is why this issue is so difficult to solve. It doesn't start the moment someone enters college and is then treated as an inferior because of their gender. It starts when we are all very young and continues, in subtle and not so subtle ways, throughout our lives. Many women will make a choice at one point; they will choose to push against society and the backlash, or they will choose to conform to the norms imposed on them.

A lot of people give up on college, so that's not the issue. The real issue is that only 10 women have entered it in the first place. Do women as a gender really have such little interest in technology? No. We get discouraged along the way. Not all of us, but enough of us to be visible in huge disparity in numbers.

When I said my group isn't a boys club, I meant it more like "we don't make it that way". The group doesn't reject girls. But it is one when you look at the wider picture.

I agree with everything you said. I believe that part of problem can be explained with "male and female have different interests", but not with those numbers. Only a small part of it. The rest is the social pressure "forcing" people into their roles and what we like. I know all too well about the social pressure and backlash since I'm gay, yet I can't be myself when I have to hide it even from my parents and closest of friends.

But I managed to convince a really smart neighbor to enter the field and start studying it. She's loving it and doing great so change comes, slowly. It helps when people around you show support, but as you already said, we don't live in countries where that happens. Even your family shows disapproval when you start breaking the norms and roles they force on you.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I'm actually well aware of the way the laws read which is the very basis of my objection, because reasonable is left wholly up to interpretation. There are parts that are good ideas, such as being clear that a lack of resistance does not equal consent but then this is already true of existing rape law anyway, so it serves as merely a clarification of what already exists as precedent.

Now do I think it's reasonable that hair touching be something that is something you have to reasonably ask about? No, it is ludicrous. But that's precisely why I employed it as an example. I also think it's asinine for people to be arrested on assault and battery charges for lobbing a ball of paper, or a boy throwing a snowball, or a paper cup, or a paper clip. That's why I mentioned, specifically, that my opinion of those laws will depend a great deal on the precedent that's set when they are enforced. I see no reason to think that ludicrous cases won't lead to at least arrests if not convictions, since we already see appalling arrests and charges over assault and battery. There are reasonable grounds to think problems will arise from enforcement of these laws and since you could already be found guilty of rape or sexual assault for doing things these laws were meant to prevent under the previous laws, I do not particularly see them as useful either.

I also have a serious worry about the way these laws will be used in a country that already has a huge problem with the way it prosecutes and defends the accused. There is a very common tactic of adding minor charges to major ones when there isn't enough evidence to get a conviction on the larger charge. Can't get the person on rape? Hit them with sexual assault under affirmative
consent laws and convince them to plead down. Sure you can't actually prove they did anything wrong but threaten them enough knowing they have little to no access to good defense council and watch them plead their life away. I'm short on time on my end but if you google "percent of cases that end in guilty plea bargain" you'll see what I mean.

With California's law in particular, one of the things that grabs me is that assault charges are to be decided by the "preponderance of the evidence" and not "reasonable doubt." The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that, when the co-author of the law was asked how a defendant could prove they received consent, her response was, "Your guess is as good as mine."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/oct/30/california-consent-law-students/

A law the requires only a preponderance of evidence instead of reasonable doubt where it's not even clear to the co-author of the bill how a person could prove they actually got consent? Am I really being totally unreasonable in my hesitation to accept these laws as good?

First of all, the "preponderance of the evidence" thing applies to discipline in a university setting, not for being charged with sexual assault. That is the standard for that sort of discipline, so of course that is the standard which this particular law requires. If you don't like standard that is fair. I think it is really stupid myself, student conduct hearings in general are a joke, but that has nothing to do with affirmative consent as a concept.

Second, you have been arguing for a system in which the unique circumstances of the situation are taken into account. This law is specifically written so that is the case and now you are complaining about it. You can't have it both ways, you can't have it take circumstance into account without being to a large degree up to interpretation. It cannot be done.

As far as battery for lobbing a paper ball at someone, that is simple battery by the technical definition of the law as it is intentionally insulting contact. That is the reason why it can be acted on, because it is the actual law as written. No one is stretching the definition of that law to make that charge legitimate, no one is making a ludicrous judgement call. You don't like that law that is fair. But that has again nothing to do with the ludicrous judgement calls you fear under affirmative consent laws and how they are written. In fact, it is the extremely precise, zero interpretation required or allowed wording of the battery laws that make those charges stick, as opposed to the up to interpretation "reasonable action" approach affirmative consent law uses.

In affirmative consent laws there are allowances to disregard insane things like your purposed case of hair touching, in battery laws there are not allowances to disregard insane things like throwing a paperclip.

I'm out of time so I can't address the rest of what you said, but here is the real thing: Sex with someone without their consent is rape. Outside of whatever legal shenanigans we are so concerned about affirmative consent should be the standard. Can we all agree on that? Why in the world do our rape laws not reflect that? Do we do this anywhere else in law? I am serious, I honestly don't know. Do we do this with theft? Or drug charges?

 

[Beliyal]

But I managed to convince a really smart neighbor to enter the field and start studying it. She's loving it and doing great so change comes, slowly. It helps when people around you show support, but as you already said, we don't live in countries where that happens. Even your family shows disapproval when you start breaking the norms and roles they force on you.

Yeah, that is a huge problem; lack of support. Hell, even my very liberal parents still cling to this type of thinking often. It's just how things were for the longest of times and it's difficult to remove that from society. It definitely helps when we speak out about this, especially when we're affected, but then again, without support and with the possibility of societal backlash, sometimes it's almost impossible to speak out about it.

Things will change eventually. They are already better than before, but we still have a long way to go. Hopefully newer generations will get better education and support.

I've successfully introduced some of my female friends to gaming, where they were previously pushed off because they just perceived it as a boring thing "for guys only" which showed me how much of our interests and hobbies are influenced by outside thinking, rather than our own personal interest. It's not that these women were incapable of being interested, it's just that they've never come across this subset of the media in a way that showed it could be appealing to them, rather than something that's not made for them.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Philosophy was pretty bad. Ten years ago.. haven't looked into it now, but it was pretty much expected 10 years ago that women make up about 5% of the people that got a degree majoring in philosophy. I think there are particular social disinclinations towards studying philosophy however. A philosophy major was traditionally treated as only having a marginal entrance requirement lower than psychology, and a lot of people who majored in philosophy came from more privileged economic backgrounds.

Psychology provided far more employment opportunities and future further education synergy. Dip. Museology after an Arts (History) degree had an oddly equal distribution, but that might be an Australian-centric thing given Australian government and the population are big supporters of museums in general across a wide number of discourses, and it USED to be seen as a pretty stable, publicly funded sector.

 

[Redryhno]

I've successfully introduced some of my female friends to gaming, where they were previously pushed off because they just perceived it as a boring thing "for guys only" which showed me how much of our interests and hobbies are influenced by outside thinking, rather than our own personal interest. It's not that these women were incapable of being interested, it's just that they've never come across this subset of the media in a way that showed it could be appealing to them, rather than something that's not made for them.

The thing is, we're just getting to where the internet generation is getting into the professional world, it's still going to be something like another decade to change it if it actually is something everyone holds.

And even then, there's only so much encouragement can do. I mean, liberal are still HEAVILY female dominated despite people mostly encouraging people to stay away from them. Could just as easily just be simple personality clashes that happen because guys interact with their friends differently than girls do with their friends.

It's still somewhat early to be complaining that there's not enough women in tech because they were pushed out of it still in my mind is all I'm saying.

 

[Beliyal]

It's still somewhat early to be complaining that there's not enough women in tech because they were pushed out of it still in my mind is all I'm saying.

Well, I think it's for the best to start complaining the moment we realize there's an issue, instead of waiting for the issue to become even worse. The longer we wait and allow for the status quo to continue, the harder it will be to eliminate it from the culture.

Also, I wouldn't exactly classify it as really early because technology has existed for quite some time and women weren't really allowed to participate at first. Once they did, it was perceived as too weird for a woman to show interest in anything technical, be it earliest cars or a spaceship. Of course, programming and video games are newer. But basically, STEM fields were always male-oriented and we still live with the consequences of the early designation of those fields as "masculine."

Luckily, things are definitely moving in the right direction, however slowly. We recognized the problem, there are means to change stuff, and we know how important it is to address this from the earliest age. I mean, as one example, I've lived through gaming being pretty niche to becoming a world wide huge industry that attracts all sorts of people via a huge variety of platforms and genres. This includes people who previously never considered tackling this as a hobby; this accessibility to technology is definitely positive in my opinion and will probably do a lot of positive things for future generations.

 

[Redryhno]

It's still somewhat early to be complaining that there's not enough women in tech because they were pushed out of it still in my mind is all I'm saying.

Well, I think it's for the best to start complaining the moment we realize there's an issue, instead of waiting for the issue to become even worse. The longer we wait and allow for the status quo to continue, the harder it will be to eliminate it from the culture.

Also, I wouldn't exactly classify it as really early because technology has existed for quite some time and women weren't really allowed to participate at first. Once they did, it was perceived as too weird for a woman to show interest in anything technical, be it earliest cars or a spaceship. Of course, programming and video games are newer. But basically, STEM fields were always male-oriented and we still live with the consequences of the early designation of those fields as "masculine."

Luckily, things are definitely moving in the right direction, however slowly. We recognized the problem, there are means to change stuff, and we know how important it is to address this from the earliest age. I mean, as one example, I've lived through gaming being pretty niche to becoming a world wide huge industry that attracts all sorts of people via a huge variety of platforms and genres. This includes people who previously never considered tackling this as a hobby; this accessibility to technology is definitely positive in my opinion and will probably do a lot of positive things for future generations.

Personally I'd rather not complain at all. But that's just because complaints have just always seemed to me to be entry-level change, like the equivalent of a child crying about a toy they can't have, as opposed to asking how to viably make it happen without blame being attributed as often as it is.

But it is honestly sorta early I think. Women have been encouraged in the past, yes, but you've got alot of women that just didn't cut it for whatever reason, be it theirs or someone else's problems with it. We're only just now getting ot the point where it might actually be a realized ideal. Family is still something women just go for more often despite many privileges being given to them to allow them to pursue their career as well, if you'll remember(talking about the U.S., so forgive me here for not taking in other countries since I don't really know enough to comment on anything else).

And we still have majority women in the complaints department(liberal arts) for whatever reason. And a minority in SO many professions that involve physical labor. But we don't complain about those. It's always STEM and other prestigious jobs that are the subject of these discussions that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth is all. If we're going to talk about how to get women into the boys club, why aren't we talking about the places that still actually have the mentality perceived to be with these professions? Why is it these professions that should already accept women due to the multitudes of advantages women have in getting into them the only thing we bring up? Why don't we ever talk about a shortage of women plumbers or day-laborers?

Also, exactly what is so terrible about a status quo being in place? That's something I've never quite understood in these discussions, people always complain about the mere concept of a status quo being in place when a status quo has largely been what's enabled us to get here to begin with with a solid foundation.

 

[Beliyal]

Personally I'd rather not complain at all. But that's just because complaints have just always seemed to me to be entry-level change, like the equivalent of a child crying about a toy they can't have, as opposed to asking how to viably make it happen without blame being attributed as often as it is.

Complaining is sometimes the only thing you can do to relieve yourself of stress. And sometimes, when a lot of people join in, things can move forward. Of course, complaining isn't the only thing people do. Most people who speak about this also look at viable ways of changing things. I personally don't like blaming either, because there's no one specifically to blame. There isn't a single person or group that made things the way they are, so there's no point really.

But it is honestly sorta early I think. Women have been encouraged in the past, yes, but you've got alot of women that just didn't cut it for whatever reason, be it theirs or someone else's problems with it. We're only just now getting ot the point where it might actually be a realized ideal. Family is still something women just go for more often despite many privileges being given to them to allow them to pursue their career as well, if you'll remember(talking about the U.S., so forgive me here for not taking in other countries since I don't really know enough to comment on anything else).

Well, women didn't have a good head start. For the majority of our history, women didn't even have access to education. This type of disadvantage can't be solved easily. Most of us come from homes where our mothers were taught that women have a certain place, and their mothers were told women have a certain place and so on. Of course, I have to note, things are evidently better now.

Family is definitely important to a lot of women, but a lot of women also get heavily pressured into it. The older I get, the more pressure I suffer from society that tries to tell me how important it is for me to have children, when I've never been interested in having children. It's just not for me. I know many women who feel the same and who face the same type of shaming and pressure from society. We get asked if we're sick or get told we are sick for not wanting or having kids. We get shamed for this choice, but at the same time, women who do have children have it a lot harder to finish education and get stable and well paying jobs. This discrepancy is really weird.

And we still have majority women in the complaints department(liberal arts) for whatever reason. And a minority in SO many professions that involve physical labor. But we don't complain about those. It's always STEM and other prestigious jobs that are the subject of these discussions that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth is all. If we're going to talk about how to get women into the boys club, why aren't we talking about the places that still actually have the mentality perceived to be with these professions? Why is it these professions that should already accept women due to the multitudes of advantages women have in getting into them the only thing we bring up? Why don't we ever talk about a shortage of women plumbers or day-laborers?

This is an interesting topic because on one hand, this again plays into the gender norms and stereotypes, but on the other hand people often ignore women who advocate for this to change. So, basically, women are taught and conditioned to be averse to any physically demanding tasks (and we're not encouraged to do them and to train or build our bodies, because it's considered unattractive and threatening; many women will not opt to be social rejects) and this shows when it comes to choosing a profession. I'm an archaeologist, we do a lot of physically demanding stuff and a lot of women I've worked with had no problems with being told they aren't allowed to shovel all day. They found it relieving. I found it infuriating. I just see no point in banning something based on gender, rather than distributing work based on who is capable for what. I am fully capable of doing physical tasks, while some men aren't. Why wouldn't we switch what we're doing? At the same time, whenever I've said this, people had weird reactions, like I suggested something unseemly.

This often happens when women do advocate for more women to work in traditionally unattractive professions. And women do really do that. I once had a good source for this exact issue, but it's 4 am and I can't find it, but basically women have always been fighting for their right to work in stuff like sanitation, mining, military and a whole plethora of professions that we don't consider high profile or safe. I think STEM gets picked up more often simply because it's more attractive to talk about. But women have been at a disadvantage in a lot of fields and they've been speaking about it, regardless of the attractiveness of the profession. Personally, I'd like to see more female plumbers, and just generally a more mixed and balanced workplace. Like, some people have bias against men who work in kindergartens and I've always found this discriminatory and bad. I know men who are awesome with children, while I can't handle any kid in any situation. Society would, of course, appoint me in the childcare job, which would be a complete disaster.

Also, exactly what is so terrible about a status quo being in place? That's something I've never quite understood in these discussions, people always complain about the mere concept of a status quo being in place when a status quo has largely been what's enabled us to get here to begin with with a solid foundation.

Of course, there's some status quo that's beneficial. Like, it's a status quo that we perceive murder or child abuse as bad things. That's something that we should definitely hold on to.

On the other hand, there's status quo that infringes on people's rights. If something about our society is a status quo that holds 50% of the population back in professional work, that's something worth examining. A lot of shitty practices have been a status quo for a long time (like slavery), but we've gotten rid of them because they are unethical and inhumane.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Why don't we ever talk about a shortage of women plumbers or day-laborers?

Funny you should mention that, because people totally do:

Plumbers:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-money/a-female-plumber-makes-it-in-a-mans-world/article18654878/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/more-female-plumbers-they-suffer-worst-pay-gap

Construction:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/training-blueprint-aims-to-get-more-women-into-construction-34302076.html
http://www.womenintoconstruction.org/whoweare

That's 2 minutes of searching, and I just took the first two out of a bunch of results for each

I imagine we in particular don't largely talk about it because this is a website for a hobby highly related to the science and tech world. That's simply the area that we care about more

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the experiences of the individual. Go from somewhere with next to no men to a place were half or more of the employees are male, and it can be a bit of a culture shock. And vice versa. I spent so much time being part of boys clubs I just get really awkward when having to work together with a large number of people of my own gender. For instance, what's considered 'straight forward' in one group, may be called 'blunt' in another.

I still don't think that's a gender issue. I can go between two groups of men or women and get the same result. It's a culture shock going between my circle of frends, where the women will happily tell you to suck their dicks, to the more business end of my life, where women rarely express any sentiment on oral sex, let alone use it in a derogatory fashion.

I generally feel less culture shock going from a group of men to a group of women than I go going from a group of RPG players to a group of sports fans.

 

[NPC009]

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the experiences of the individual. Go from somewhere with next to no men to a place were half or more of the employees are male, and it can be a bit of a culture shock. And vice versa. I spent so much time being part of boys clubs I just get really awkward when having to work together with a large number of people of my own gender. For instance, what's considered 'straight forward' in one group, may be called 'blunt' in another.

I still don't think that's a gender issue. I can go between two groups of men or women and get the same result. It's a culture shock going between my circle of frends, where the women will happily tell you to suck their dicks, to the more business end of my life, where women rarely express any sentiment on oral sex, let alone use it in a derogatory fashion.

I generally feel less culture shock going from a group of men to a group of women than I go going from a group of RPG players to a group of sports fans.

My experience is that women, on average, are more diplomatic in a professional setting. They care a lot about how you say things. On the other hand, men are more about what you say. On average. There are always exceptions. If any woman is going to say things like 'suck my dick', it's most likely me. ... Some women think I'm scary...

 

[Redryhno]

Why don't we ever talk about a shortage of women plumbers or day-laborers?

I imagine we in particular don't largely talk about it because this is a website for a hobby highly related to the science and tech world. That's simply the area that we care about more

Problem is that I've seen alot of people in various "what do you do for a living" threads say there's more than a few on this site that have nothing to do with the science or tech world. And my problem is that the only people that raise a fuss about this are a part of the science and tech world. Or at least claim to be. This is the internet, I've more than my fair share of liars for pity/credibility points.

Just that it's pretty much always the same people from the same background that complain(previous post for my thoughts on that) and it just starts to grate on me that nobody else comments on this, leading me to believe it's not anywhere near as prevalent as people want to make it out to be, the ones talking the most about it have no clue what they're talking about but act like they do anyways, or much like I was saying, aren't a part but are too busy reading Ellen Pao's blog posts(or some equivalent) so they believe they know everything.

There's shit in it, I have no doubt, but I honestly wonder how much of it is because of someone's insecurities getting the best of them(or something similarly a personal problem) and how much of it is some kind of conscious or unconscious desire to see no more women in the professions is all.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Problem is that I've seen alot of people in various "what do you do for a living" threads say there's more than a few on this site that have nothing to do with the science or tech world. And my problem is that the only people that raise a fuss about this are a part of the science and tech world. Or at least claim to be. This is the internet, I've more than my fair share of liars for pity/credibility points.

Sure, not everybody here is involved in science or tech, but from the threads you mentioned, the vast majority are. Not to mention the vast majority of the news stories posted here. The Escapist is never going to run an article on the employment issues inside the trade and construction fields. It's just too far off.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you're trying to say here though. You have a problem that the only people that raise a fuss are part of the science and tech world? Should the people raising a fuss be those not in the tech world? Or is it that people that are from different fields should be bringing attention to the issues they face too?

There's shit in it, I have no doubt, but I honestly wonder how much of it is because of someone's insecurities getting the best of them(or something similarly a personal problem) and how much of it is some kind of conscious or unconscious desire to see no more women in the professions is all.

Again, not sure what exactly you're getting at here. The desire to see no more women in which professions, and insecurities over what? Their own capabilities?

If it's insecurity over their own ability, the existence of discrimination in an industry can breed insecurity like nothing else. How are you supposed to know if your lack or recognition is because your ideas were bad, or because of your gender or race. There's a fair number of women who'll ask their male colleagues to present their ideas because they have a better chance of being accepted then.

I imagine that's something that makes it more frustrating. Not that you assume that whenever an idea is rejected it's because you're a woman, but the fact you always have to wonder if it is. If you assume it's never because you're a woman and it turns out your boss is sexist and it frequently is, you'll have a much lower view of your own worth or capabilities than you should. That can lead to any number of things, from quitting because you don't think you're suited to the work, or doing worse work because your self-esteem's lower than it should be.