The boys club

[NPC009]

I find the numbers interesting, but I already knew reliable data is rare if not impossible to find, because of both the the crime (which is often not reported out of fear) and the system (which has no clue how to deal with this sensitive issue). And like I said, I'm not American and have no experience with American college culture beyond was is shown on TV (both fact anf fiction). It's kind of hard to imagine that both rape and false accusations of rape are so common students worry about these issues on a daily basis, during what should be normal interactions with other students. Maybe the fear is justified, maybe it's not, I just don't know.

 

[sumanoskae]

I think part of the problem is that we have become ensnared by a rapidly growing narrative that everyone is presumed guilty of sexism/racism/etc until proven innocent, and you are only innocent if you follow the narrative.
Consider the OP. We have no debate about whether or not the group was a "boy's club" (defined as being unwelcoming to women), we instead are asked "how can we fix it without making women feel uncomfortable?"
Plus, there are always going to be men and women who treat members of the opposite sex differently. Women and men are biologically very different in a lot of ways. It's when we get into individuals and personality traits that we begin to see more nuance in how people are treated and how they react to treatment.

I've never heard a compelling argument for biological difference; when humans are so impressionable, how would one even go about proving a link between gender and personality?

There are obviously PHYSICAL differences, but none are so extreme as to necessitate radically different lifestyles.

 

[Batou667]

There are obviously PHYSICAL differences, but none are so extreme as to necessitate radically different lifestyles.

I can think of one: child bearing.

 

[LawAndChaos]

I've never heard a compelling argument for biological difference; when humans are so impressionable, how would one even go about proving a link between gender and personality?

Well a closer analysis of testosterone, estrogen, Oxytocins and Venopressin would be a good start.
A lot of evidence of these chemicals influencing personality is mostly anecdotal; nothing's for certain so I'll concede I don't have a HUGE argument for the concept of gender influencing personality, but here's the crux of the issue:

If gender has nothing to do with personality, why is there a disparity in this field between women and men? Because if we assume it's a social construct, that construct, that atmosphere that is "driving women away," is purely based upon the personalities of the men within the group who are behaving in a manner that they have concurred is acceptable among themselves.

So then, how is this a gendered issue as opposed to a personality issue, presuming gender is disconnected from personality? If we assume gender is a social construct, then how is a woman's or man's gender an issue at all? In fact, if gender is a social construct, why does gender even matter on a biological level?

See everyone wants to have that "gender is a social construct" thing, but considering that gender roles are even prevalent in nature, albeit much more simplistic due to the primitive nature of animals, gender roles do have some basis in biology.
It is the social angle of gender roles that begins to take that initial biology and expand on it.
(pink used to be a boy's color, but feminism changed that, which is why we have the boy's blue and girl's pink today.)

There is a problem with trying to erase the importance, the meaning, of binary gender; without one, there is no other. If there is no gender, then there is no distinction between male/female. Because then there IS no male or female.

We don't reproduce asexually.

The notion of humans being impressionable is so "classical conditioning" I feel that it's reductive to state outright "humans are so impressionable" (which I would assume you are stating that humans are so easily manipulated or influenced. I suppose if I don't believe I'm influenced I'm more influenced or something?)

There are obviously PHYSICAL differences, but none are so extreme as to necessitate radically different lifestyles.

Well women are on average less physically strong than men, so we can assume unless a woman is dedicated enough to hit the gym to get out of the "average" group they are unlikely to do hard physical labor on a regular basis. They can get pregnant and bear children, which means they might have to take some time away from whatever job they have during those difficult months.

That's all I really have atm, but those are some pretty major ones, I think. Women can't do sports outside of women's division sports, they can't do hard labor jobs unless they can build themselves above average women to meet the required levels of exertion, and unlike men they can get pregnant.

Oh I forgot to mention, part of what makes interaction between a man and a woman as opposed to two men different? Hormones, sub-cultures, personality, context, setting.

 

[sumanoskae]

There are obviously PHYSICAL differences, but none are so extreme as to necessitate radically different lifestyles.

I can think of one: child bearing.

If and when you have children, which right now is likely not for at least 20 years or so and historically didn't become a factor for at least 13, give or take. Before the act of having a child the differences are negligible.

 

[sumanoskae]

Well a closer analysis of testosterone, estrogen, Oxytocins and Venopressin would be a good start.
A lot of evidence of these chemicals influencing personality is mostly anecdotal; nothing's for certain so I'll concede I don't have a HUGE argument for the concept of gender influencing personality, but here's the crux of the issue:

If gender has nothing to do with personality, why is there a disparity in this field between women and men? Because if we assume it's a social construct, that construct, that atmosphere that is "driving women away," is purely based upon the personalities of the men within the group who are behaving in a manner that they have concurred is acceptable among themselves.

So then, how is this a gendered issue as opposed to a personality issue, presuming gender is disconnected from personality? If we assume gender is a social construct, then how is a woman's or man's gender an issue at all? In fact, if gender is a social construct, why does gender even matter on a biological level?

Because biological gender is not the same thing as the social roles we apply TO members of that gender. It's a misnomer to assert that gender has nothing to do with personality; gender is, at the very least, part of our culture, and that culture influences who we are. My argument is just that these things are malleable, not set in stone.

Culture is cumulative and self-reinforcing, and gender roles are a self fulfilling prophecy. One need only look at the way human respond to an idea - if they're appealing or useful, they spread like wildfire. The problem is that humans see their ideas as part of them, part of who they are, and when that idea is threatened with new information that reveals it's weaknesses, humans will fight and even lie to themselves to protect it.

My favorite example of this is the rise of the Zulu empire, and how the violent practices of one tribe changed how African people fought war forever.

Telling some people that there is no such thing as an "Ideal man" or "Ideal woman" creates a similar sensation to telling a devout Catholic that there is no God.

See everyone wants to have that "gender is a social construct" thing, but considering that gender roles are even prevalent in nature, albeit much more simplistic due to the primitive nature of animals, gender roles do have some basis in biology.

The problem I see with this argument is that it asserts that animals do not have "social constructs". This is not the case - many animals display complex social behavior, so complex that there is almost no way they were just born encoded with it. Humans are just animals that are especially smart, after all.

It is the social angle of gender roles that begins to take that initial biology and expand on it.
(pink used to be a boy's color, but feminism changed that, which is why we have the boy's blue and girl's pink today.)

There is a problem with trying to erase the importance, the meaning, of binary gender; without one, there is no other. If there is no gender, then there is no distinction between male/female. Because then there IS no male or female.

We don't reproduce asexually.

I don't see why we as a culture NEED a definition of male and female other than the physical one. What benefit does it grant?

The notion of humans being impressionable is so "classical conditioning" I feel that it's reductive to state outright "humans are so impressionable" (which I would assume you are stating that humans are so easily manipulated or influenced. I suppose if I don't believe I'm influenced I'm more influenced or something?)

I was making the point that humans are so responsive to outside influence in their formative years that it would be almost impossible to distinguish what they LEARNED from what they were born with. This doesn't mean they don't ANALYZE that information, just that they are sensitive to it's presence.

Well women are on average less physically strong than men, so we can assume unless a woman is dedicated enough to hit the gym to get out of the "average" group they are unlikely to do hard physical labor on a regular basis. They can get pregnant and bear children, which means they might have to take some time away from whatever job they have during those difficult months.

That's all I really have atm, but those are some pretty major ones, I think. Women can't do sports outside of women's division sports, they can't do hard labor jobs unless they can build themselves above average women to meet the required levels of exertion, and unlike men they can get pregnant.

Oh I forgot to mention, part of what makes interaction between a man and a woman as opposed to two men different? Hormones, sub-cultures, personality, context, setting.

There is nothing about this fact that biology explains better than sociology.

Women are also generally more dexterous and resistant to pain than men, but you don't see taking up boxing more often than men. You could argue that the reason women are generally weaker than men is because of the fact that they aren't encouraged to take on tasks that build those muscles.

More importantly, there is disparity WITHIN the gender as well. It's not like ALL men are equally strong, nor all women equally dexterous. I have plenty of male friends who are scrawny, but that doesn't stop them from TRYING to live up to the standards of masculinity. If biology held more sway over men than culture did, the ones who were unsuited for typically "manly" things would just ignore them and think nothing of it.

Regarding pregnancy, it's true that here we have a complex physical process that is unique to women, but it's also a process that they don't go through on a regular basis. It helps explain WHY certain social trends came into existence, but it doesn't show up until later in life - it doesn't change who you are when you're born.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Because biological gender is not the same thing as the social roles we apply TO members of that gender. It's a misnomer to assert that gender has nothing to do with personality; gender is, at the very least, part of our culture, and that culture influences who we are. My argument is just that these things are malleable, not set in stone.

Culture is cumulative and self-reinforcing, and gender roles are a self fulfilling prophecy. One need only look at the way human respond to an idea - if they're appealing or useful, they spread like wildfire. The problem is that humans see their ideas as part of them, part of who they are, and when that idea is threatened with new information that reveals it's weaknesses, humans will fight and even lie to themselves to protect it.

So you are saying the discrimination is present and real then, reinforced by our gender roles in society that reject the notion of women's presence in specific fields and male-dominated fields?

Does this statement also mean you believe that we should erase the concepts of masculinity and femininity from society?

Telling some people that there is no such thing as an "Ideal man" or "Ideal woman" creates a similar sensation to telling a devout Catholic that there is no God.

Well seeing as the terms "ideal man" and "ideal woman" are purely based in subjective opinion, I think it's safe to say everyone has their "ideal man/woman." So yeah, you can't exactly go up to someone and say "you have no idea of what you want in a man/woman" or "you don't know your own aspirations as a man/woman."

The problem I see with this argument is that it asserts that animals do not have "social constructs". This is not the case - many animals display complex social behavior, so complex that there is almost no way they were just born encoded with it. Humans are just animals that are especially smart, after all.

But if it's not biological, how did they develop these social constructs in the first place? I would concede the possibility that it was through adaptation to their environment, but those roles still contribute to their survival as a species. So we should erase our gender roles because we have advanced such as a species that we no longer need them?

I don't see why we as a culture NEED a definition of male and female other than the physical one. What benefit does it grant?

Well if that's true does that mean I can tell all those genderfluids to fuck off with their bullshit? Does it also mean that we can abolish those gender specific legal double standards, like "if he cheats it's his fault, and if I cheat it's his fault" or "you can't hit a woman even if she is assaulting you" or "if a woman is beating a man he deserves it, but if a man is yelling at a woman we gotta stop that shit?"

I was making the point that humans are so responsive to outside influence in their formative years that it would be almost impossible to distinguish what they LEARNED from what they were born with. This doesn't mean they don't ANALYZE that information, just that they are sensitive to it's presence.

That doesn't mean they can't reject any of that information either. With age and development comes a more critical mind, exposed to different thoughts and opinions from all sides. So most certainly it might seem indistinguishable from what they were born with, but it is not as if their development left them completely static mentally.

There is nothing about this fact that biology explains better than sociology.

Sociology is really the only thing that matters nowadays, isn't it?

Women are also generally more dexterous and resistant to pain than men, but you don't see taking up boxing more often than men.

This doesn't stop women from doing it.
Also, not many would likely enjoy taking up boxing because, I dunno, the large possibility of head and brain injuries that would potentially follow?

You could argue that the reason women are generally weaker than men is because of the fact that they aren't encouraged to take on tasks that build those muscles.

Women on average are weaker than men.
A man and a woman both work out at the same rate, and build muscle at the same rate. A woman will top out on their muscles before a man does, primarily in the upper body. This is basic sexual dimorphism.

And yes, they might not be encouraged to take on tasks to build those muscles, but at the same time even if they did, they would only rise above "average" women and men, but not men who dedicated time to working out as they do.

And there ARE women that build muscles and take on those tasks to build them. They are not common for some reason, but I don't see how it's our society that's to blame. I mean, they will most likely be met with some social stigma for going against standard gender roles and choosing to build muscles, but if they really want it, would they not build muscle anyway?

Yes, society can influence people; people want to be accepted by society, so they conform to gender roles. But I feel that's more a case that we should ease up on societal pressure rather than erase gender roles entirely.

More importantly, there is disparity WITHIN the gender as well. It's not like ALL men are equally strong, nor all women equally dexterous. I have plenty of male friends who are scrawny, but that doesn't stop them from TRYING to live up to the standards of masculinity. If biology held more sway over men than culture did, the ones who were unsuited for typically "manly" things would just ignore them and think nothing of it.

Well then the standards are what need to change, not the roles themselves.

Regarding pregnancy, it's true that here we have a complex physical process that is unique to women, but it's also a process that they don't go through on a regular basis. It helps explain WHY certain social trends came into existence, but it doesn't show up until later in life - it doesn't change who you are when you're born.

Well I feel that part of this discussion is that women are in different fields for reasons. This is potentially one of them. While pregnancy is not something that happens regularly, the process itself is a nine-month long process that begins at conception. As a result some women might be less inclined to pursue a career that demands their attendance on a regular basis, especially if they want to someday have children.
This could also be a big part of what contributes to gender roles; women need to stay out of physical confrontation because they are key to our continuing existence as a species; women are just more valuable than men are.

It's the reason why some argue that males are considered the disposable gender.

 

[Batou667]

If and when you have children, which right now is likely not for at least 20 years or so and historically didn't become a factor for at least 13, give or take. Before the act of having a child the differences are negligible.

Given that the majority of a person's life occurs after the age of 20, it almost sounds like you're conceding that the ability to bear children is significant.

We also need to consider the cultural impact of the *ability* to bear children regardless of whether an individual female chooses to do so or even has the ability to do so. I'd argue that for the majority of human history gender roles have been directly linked to whether or not you're expected to spend the majority of your adult life pregnant and/or nursing - boys would be guided towards the role of protector, provider, aggressor, etc, while girls would be primed to be home makers, primary caregivers, responsible for domestic duties and so on. Not because of some overarching political decree on the objective relative worth of males and females, but simply because it was a workable and sustainable arrangement. Simple pragmatism has guided most of human development. It's only relatively recently, with the luxury of increased leisure time and reduced labour, that we have the ability to sit around assigning sociopolitical meaning to every last facet of human culture.

Let's not forget the hormonal aspect of personality too. Even if we supposed that a gender-neutral upbringing would result in male and female children of equivalent aptitudes and interests, I think we'd inevitably see a shift as soon as they entered puberty. The role of testosterone alone would cause a divergence in physicality, attitude to risk taking, etc.

 

[Schadrach]

If we're low-balling it, we're looking at 1.5%

Since you cite Wikipedia and reference one of the studies from the Rumney report, let's look at one of the conclusions of that paper:

Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies.

So when you're "lowballing," you are still doing so on an issue with difficult to determine numbers, reporting bias, and poor methodology. Given the challenges explicitly mentioned in such studies, it's unlikely to favour even the number claimed here.

Ironically, this never seems to prevent feminists from quoting the lowest results reported in studies and claiming that number as absolute truth.

Reread the bit you quoted about Rumney. Rumney basically throws his hands up and admits between differing methods and differing definitions there's no real way to know what the actual number is. Studies tend to clump around ~10% and ~20%, with a couple lower (including the 2% that I've seen feminist sources quote as though it were a hard and fast truth) and a couple higher (including one going as high as 90%). One "survey of the research" report suggests 2-8%, but they outright disregard any study arriving at a result over 10% when looking at the available research which angles the number low.

The best we can do is say that false accusation happen somewhere between nearly always and almost never. Partly depending on how you count it, partly depending on how you define "false".

Look up the Tracy West / Louis Gonzales case. It's literally physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, he was expressly named as the perp, and it's not a "false" accusation by most definitions. Why? Because it was merely impossible for him to have done it, she was never tried for false reporting, and clearly *something* happened to her. Therefore, not a "false" accusation.

 

[sumanoskae]

If and when you have children, which right now is likely not for at least 20 years or so and historically didn't become a factor for at least 13, give or take. Before the act of having a child the differences are negligible.

Given that the majority of a person's life occurs after the age of 20, it almost sounds like you're conceding that the ability to bear children is significant.

We also need to consider the cultural impact of the *ability* to bear children regardless of whether an individual female chooses to do so or even has the ability to do so. I'd argue that for the majority of human history gender roles have been directly linked to whether or not you're expected to spend the majority of your adult life pregnant and/or nursing - boys would be guided towards the role of protector, provider, aggressor, etc, while girls would be primed to be home makers, primary caregivers, responsible for domestic duties and so on. Not because of some overarching political decree on the objective relative worth of males and females, but simply because it was a workable and sustainable arrangement. Simple pragmatism has guided most of human development. It's only relatively recently, with the luxury of increased leisure time and reduced labour, that we have the ability to sit around assigning sociopolitical meaning to every last facet of human culture.

Let's not forget the hormonal aspect of personality too. Even if we supposed that a gender-neutral upbringing would result in male and female children of equivalent aptitudes and interests, I think we'd inevitably see a shift as soon as they entered puberty. The role of testosterone alone would cause a divergence in physicality, attitude to risk taking, etc.

I thought I made this clear, but I was speaking about PURELY genetic differences. Discussing culture is a moot point, because humans will do almost anything in the proper cultural context. Psychology and sociology are soft sciences that are not set in stone; biology is hard science.

Regarding hormones: My understanding was that experts were divided when it comes to whether or not hormones caused tangible differences in personality, and that more importantly, they were negligible compared to environmental factors.

All of this is coupled with the fact that A: Hormone levels also vary by individual, and B: Behaviors like "Risk aversion" are vague, and could manifest radically differently in different people, depending on what that person judges to be "Risky".

 

[Chanticoblues]

Also a film grad here. Initially I'd say it was about 2/3's guys, and by the time fourth year came it was a pretty even ratio.

Most sets I've been on are majority guys, but I've been on a couple where women outnumbered men.

 

[sumanoskae]

So you are saying the discrimination is present and real then, reinforced by our gender roles in society that reject the notion of women's presence in specific fields and male-dominated fields?

Does this statement also mean you believe that we should erase the concepts of masculinity and femininity from society?

Probably, yeah; they seem draconian at best.

It's not just women being stifled here; everybody is affected by these things in one way or another. It's the same flawed argument as all bigotry - that the continent of one's character is not determined by what they do or who they are, but by where they come from.

It isolates, divides and reduces people; it denies them reflection upon who they really are; it tells them that the most formative aspects of their identity were set from birth, and that everything they've tried to achieve has been for naught, because it was all predetermined by genetic fate.

You couldn't invent a better way to drive someone INSANE.

Well seeing as the terms "ideal man" and "ideal woman" are purely based in subjective opinion, I think it's safe to say everyone has their "ideal man/woman." So yeah, you can't exactly go up to someone and say "you have no idea of what you want in a man/woman" or "you don't know your own aspirations as a man/woman."

That subjectivity is illusory; we've spent this whole conversation silently agreeing that culture changes people. You and I both know that the average person doesn't throw out the mold and create for themselves a comprehensive standard of values to live by Ubermensch style; they seek affirmation from their environment.

They are TOLD what the ideal man and woman look like, and many of them are shamed for not living up to that ideal.

But if it's not biological, how did they develop these social constructs in the first place? I would concede the possibility that it was through adaptation to their environment, but those roles still contribute to their survival as a species. So we should erase our gender roles because we have advanced such as a species that we no longer need them?

At the very least, yes. We have already established that people, in the collective, will do just about anything given the right incentive; I would venture to say that genocide is not natural behavior for us, but we have no trouble being corralled into that course of action.

Well if that's true does that mean I can tell all those genderfluids to fuck off with their bullshit? Does it also mean that we can abolish those gender specific legal double standards, like "if he cheats it's his fault, and if I cheat it's his fault" or "you can't hit a woman even if she is assaulting you" or "if a woman is beating a man he deserves it, but if a man is yelling at a woman we gotta stop that shit?"

I take no issue with people calling themselves whatever they want and acting however they want; trans people aren't causing anybody any trouble. But I think if all goes well the idea of a person needing to identify as a certain gender in order to express themselves in a certain way will become unnecessary. Genetic gender is a different story, but I see the existence of trans people as a point IN FAVOR of my argument; it proves that not everybody is comfortable with the gender roles they are born into.

Truth be told, I don't think that such a concept would even exist if gender roles weren't so limiting.

As for all the other double standards you mentioned, you're Goddamn right we should do away with them; I know I don't condone domestic abuse in any form from anybody, and I'll hit anyone who hits me.

That doesn't mean they can't reject any of that information either. With age and development comes a more critical mind, exposed to different thoughts and opinions from all sides. So most certainly it might seem indistinguishable from what they were born with, but it is not as if their development left them completely static mentally.

So? I never argued that gender roles were inescapable; just that there was no reason they have to exist in the first place.

Sociology is really the only thing that matters nowadays, isn't it?

No; sociology tells what people TEND to due given their current situation; biology tells us what human nature is. One of those is far more limiting than the other. We can't CHANGE our biology, but we CAN change our culture.

This doesn't stop women from doing it.
Also, not many would likely enjoy taking up boxing because, I dunno, the large possibility of head and brain injuries that would potentially follow?

What's your point here? Obviously there are exceptions to the rule. My point is that what our society teaches us about what is suitable for each gender is not necessarily correct.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove by pointing out why someone, ANYONE, might not take up boxing; that reasoning applies to men as well...

Women on average are weaker than men.
A man and a woman both work out at the same rate, and build muscle at the same rate. A woman will top out on their muscles before a man does, primarily in the upper body. This is basic sexual dimorphism.

And yes, they might not be encouraged to take on tasks to build those muscles, but at the same time even if they did, they would only rise above "average" women and men, but not men who dedicated time to working out as they do.

And there ARE women that build muscles and take on those tasks to build them. They are not common for some reason, but I don't see how it's our society that's to blame. I mean, they will most likely be met with some social stigma for going against standard gender roles and choosing to build muscles, but if they really want it, would they not build muscle anyway?

Yes, society can influence people; people want to be accepted by society, so they conform to gender roles. But I feel that's more a case that we should ease up on societal pressure rather than erase gender roles entirely.

Semantics; the point wasn't to prove that men and women were equally strong; the point is that data surrounding issue of gender is confounded by how early our society starts conditioning you, to the point that it's sometimes impossible to tell the difference.

The fact that women don't have the same capacity to build muscle to a ridiculous degree like men do doesn't have any tangible effect on the average woman's personality.

Well then the standards are what need to change, not the roles themselves.

No, the roles themselves are the problem. In order for the roles to have any meaning, there has to be disparity and difference between them, and thus, by definition, they are CONFINING. Change the specifics all you want; the underlying problem remains the same - stereotyping people is always misleading, and there will always be a wealth of people who don't fit into your labels.

It's like having a rule that says "There are no rules".

If you stretch the roles enough to accommodate everybody, they effectively cease to exist. "Men/women come in many different forms and can be whoever they want to be" is not a "Gender role" because it presents no role to play.

Well I feel that part of this discussion is that women are in different fields for reasons. This is potentially one of them. While pregnancy is not something that happens regularly, the process itself is a nine-month long process that begins at conception. As a result some women might be less inclined to pursue a career that demands their attendance on a regular basis, especially if they want to someday have children.
This could also be a big part of what contributes to gender roles; women need to stay out of physical confrontation because they are key to our continuing existence as a species; women are just more valuable than men are.

It's the reason why some argue that males are considered the disposable gender.

That last argument falls apart when you remember that, you know, you need to fuck a guy to get pregnant. There is also the concept of empathy; that people are worth more to one and other than their fucking genetic material.

Maybe back our days wandering the African plains there was some purpose to gender roles; but that has not been our situation for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. There is no real risk in modern society that we will "run out of women"; there is no real risk that women will just decide to stop having babies. Nor is the act of having a child necessarily a career death sentence.

My mother was a practicing physician and having me never stifled her career. Hell, she just straight up brought me with her to work. There is also no reason why the woman needs to be the one staying home with the kids; I see no reason why the father can't do the same thing if it becomes necessary.