I think his point is that if there is overwhelmingly more X than Y then Y may feel disadvantaged as it's not seen as 'their place' to be there and feel like they need extra support.archiebawled said:That doesn't seem relevant - "mostly consists of X" doesn't mean "only X allowed".dversion said:Could I ask a question? What is your profession and, if you could answer with all honesty if you opened a group for your profession, what percentage of the active members would probably be men?
I was just talking on another thread about how I think that one-sex-only groups are a bit counter productive. Having said that I was just going to point out that there's male-only things as well as female-only things - in either case it's usually in a field where the other sex tends to hold the majority of the field. I've seen social care training for men only, for example. I don't think it's a double standard, it's merely that it doesn't make as much sense to have a men only group for sectors where men are having no trouble getting into it, just like it wouldn't make as much sense to have a woman-only support for sectors where women are stereotypically seen as better for the roles.
Besides, OP, it's hardly a double standard that "had a man done the same thing there would have been a lot of negative feedback" when it sounds like she did get a lot of negative feedback. I just hope that your profession is as equal as you seem to think it is and she hasn't just been bullied out of it by a lot of guys wondering why on Earth the 5% of women in your career might need some extra encouragement to keep at it.
But yeah, either way I don't think it's an ideal situation to split up genders (I suppose I'm just being a bit "why can't we all just get along? :'( ") but I do get the point behind them.