The boys club

[Frission]

Huh. I'm lucky to have never had that problem in what I'm studying, since the ratio of men to women is pretty even. That being said, almost everyone is either white or maybe asian, so it's not as if we're perfect.

The main thing that can be addressed is to make the workplace a less hostile place to be, but whether women will feel accepted as part of the community is another matter. I would say that it become more welcome as more women are accepted, but that does mean that the first few women who go into the field will have to be tough. Apart, from I don't know. I've never really thought about this, I'm sorry to say.

Insulting a man's mother, wife or daughter will do more then any insult against him ever will. Hell this even applies to inanimate things he looks at as a women, the highest insult one can make against someone in the Navy is to insult his ship.

Doesn't even have to be the navy either. Commercial boats, houses, cars, anything that you've worked on and might be proud of counts.

/snip

/snip

I just wanted to say that the view from different perspectives is pretty interesting.

 

[Redryhno]

How do you include women into the discussions and creative process without them feeling they have to 'become one of the boys' to do it?

Here's your problem with this line of thinking. Everyone has to be at least a little bit that they don't want to be to fit in most places. I'm not an overly social person, I'm the guy that'll be seemingly rude to a cashier by ignoring them because I'm already going through what else I need to do while I'm out, it's not out of any malice towards them, but they aren't important at that point anymore. And I don't really work well in teams because they've largely always been way too damn slow and more interested in hanging out than getting the shit down with.

And since I got out of my family's kitchen and got into school and actual jobs, I largely had to become one. There's a huge amount of communication in any professional kitchen that nobody realizes until they look in. And I don't particularly like it, never have, and I doubt I ever will, but I go with it because I wouldn't have a job to begin with if I didn't. It honestly sounds alot like what you're describing here.

Everyone has to become one of the boys and be accepted into pretty much any team setting, whether or not you're one of the boys to begin with. Shy guys get just as much shit as girls that don't become one of the boys in those situations.

Hell, this is all ignoring the MANY professions where guys have to act and look a certain way otherwise they're labelled as some kind of weirdo with female dominated professions(we all had that one coach that was ugly as sin that had that gaze that lingered a bit too long in school after all that was routinely shit on by the girls around whether or not he was actually interested). And yet nobody ever wants to talk about the "Girls Club" involved there, where you can get shit scheduling because you weren't buddy buddy with everyone there.

I'm honestly open to thinking there might be a problem, but you've got to admit that the majority of the time as well, the people that complain the loudest are often the ones least willing to compromise pieces or parts of their personality that others feel are hampering the dynamic.

As for the question, the minority should probably change for the majority, at least at the start before they're accepted. People are much more willing to accept differences once trust is established and someone has shown they're willing to be different for the sake of themselves and others than someone unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit. Hell, even the minority in this situation voicing dislike and offering alternatives or explaining why they dislike it would go a helluva long way. But overall, I largely just think that it's not on the majority to change when they don't know the minority has problems to begin with.

 

[EternallyBored]

Crazy idea...ask the women why they left. Hell, ask everyone. We can presume to know why people stop doing things, but it may not always be what we think. Ending sexism isn't having everything be half men half women, just letting people not be limited on what they do or want to do based on their sex (or gender). The thing of it is, men and women stereotypically want and prefer different things, and even without ANY sexism, things will naturally filter out un-evenly. We cant, or at least should not force people to do what they don't want to just to fill some quota of sexes. Some activities are just inclined towards masculine people, and masculine people will be more inclined to do them, and men more often are more masculine than women even without any macho BS.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but they already do that, asking I mean, and while not every woman leaves for the same reasons, there have been enough telling stories about the environment and being stifled by professions that don'tseem to want them there, enough to make asking about whether or not the environment is actively chasing people of a certain demographic away, a valid question, if maybe not one with a clear cut answer.

As someone who worked in a massively male dominated field in security and switched to a female dominated field in Social Work, specifically in child services, I can tell you that plenty of women left the former, and men the latter, because they felt unwelcome or faced unique hardships because people judged them based on their profession and their co-workers made them feel unwelcome.

50/50 should indeed not be our goal, but the OP doesn't seem to be about trying to attract more people that weren't interested into a field, it was specifically talking about people that wanted to get into the field but left for various reasons.

A lot of the women I knew in security, and the men in social work left because they felt they were being frozen out by a group that was dominated by a single gender, creating a culture that seemed to go out of its way to exclude them, from women facing harassment and flat out being denied jobs they were physically capable of doing in security, and men being frozen out of specific sectors or talked about negatively by female co-workers in social work. While we shouldn't assume that everyone that leaves a field does so because they were chased out or made to feel unwelcome, or assume that the mistreatment is universal or that everyone in the field is guilty of it, but there are enough stories of people in various fields or trying to get into them, of facing discrimination and hardship solely because of their gender, that I believe it is worth consideration.

There is likely more than one reason that each gender dominated field is the way it is, each field likely having different factors that influence why it attracts one gender over the other: physical, cultural, sexual, psychological, a "boys/girls club" mentality is something I would say is pretty easy to see as at least one potential explanatory factor, and fixing it likely won't create a 50/50 gender split in many fields, but its worth looking into if it is actively chasing away people interested in a given profession.

 

[Saelune]

Crazy idea...ask the women why they left. Hell, ask everyone. We can presume to know why people stop doing things, but it may not always be what we think. Ending sexism isn't having everything be half men half women, just letting people not be limited on what they do or want to do based on their sex (or gender). The thing of it is, men and women stereotypically want and prefer different things, and even without ANY sexism, things will naturally filter out un-evenly. We cant, or at least should not force people to do what they don't want to just to fill some quota of sexes. Some activities are just inclined towards masculine people, and masculine people will be more inclined to do them, and men more often are more masculine than women even without any macho BS.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but they already do that, asking I mean, and while not every woman leaves for the same reasons, there have been enough telling stories about the environment and being stifled by professions that don'tseem to want them there, enough to make asking about whether or not the environment is actively chasing people of a certain demographic away, a valid question, if maybe not one with a clear cut answer.

As someone who worked in a massively male dominated field in security and switched to a female dominated field in Social Work, specifically in child services, I can tell you that plenty of women left the former, and men the latter, because they felt unwelcome or faced unique hardships because people judged them based on their profession and their co-workers made them feel unwelcome.

50/50 should indeed not be our goal, but the OP doesn't seem to be about trying to attract more people that weren't interested into a field, it was specifically talking about people that wanted to get into the field but left for various reasons.

A lot of the women I knew in security, and the men in social work left because they felt they were being frozen out by a group that was dominated by a single gender, creating a culture that seemed to go out of its way to exclude them, from women facing harassment and flat out being denied jobs they were physically capable of doing in security, and men being frozen out of specific sectors or talked about negatively by female co-workers in social work. While we shouldn't assume that everyone that leaves a field does so because they were chased out or made to feel unwelcome, or assume that the mistreatment is universal or that everyone in the field is guilty of it, but there are enough stories of people in various fields or trying to get into them, of facing discrimination and hardship solely because of their gender, that I believe it is worth consideration.

There is likely more than one reason that each gender dominated field is the way it is, each field likely having different factors that influence why it attracts one gender over the other: physical, cultural, sexual, psychological, a "boys/girls club" mentality is something I would say is pretty easy to see as at least one potential explanatory factor, and fixing it likely won't create a 50/50 gender split in many fields, but its worth looking into if it is actively chasing away people interested in a given profession.

I'm not saying blatant sexism is never the reason, but it isn't always the reason either, and if we treat it either such way then we wont ever truly fix the problem. Too many people who supposedly fight to end sexism do so in hostile or even ironically sexist ways that it doesn't fix anything and its tiring when people are so quick to assume there is some sort of conspiracy.

Sometimes water works to put out a fire, but sometimes its an electrical fire and water will only worsen things. Knowing how to deal with the issue and the real cause is just as important as fixing it.

 

[Zaeseled]

SNIP

SNAP

Pretty much this, I work at the local grocery store around the year, I'm pretty much the only guy there, during the summer we might have 2 more, but for every guy we have there's two women. And during the fall and winter I work at the local fish processing factory as well, fresh salmon is shipped here from a local breeder, we cut, gut, wash, clean, weigh and ship the fish forwards, and we have only 1 woman here, and between 7-12 men.
It's a dirty and exhausting job, so yeah of course not everyone wants to do it. But it's still a job and it needs to be done. And the pay is really good.
This is why I will never take anyone seriously when they complain that there are more men than women in the X line of work, or vice versa. Personally I think men and women are 100% capable of working in whatever field they want, but they just don't want to.

 

[Zontar]

Norway being the most egalitarian nation is not the same thing as Norway being a completely egalitarian nation. That the rest of the world is worse does not make Norway perfect in this regard. When the time comes when everyone alive in Norway was not only sent through these school programs and affirmative action, but were raised by people who were sent through them, then we can start thinking about Norway being truly egalitarian. Until then, it seems a bit odd to assume that the minute you institute some school program the entirety of society, young and old, will stop being sexist.

I think it's odd you assume that a society that would have such programs operating for about 30-40 years (depending on the specifics) would be one where we should assume everyone not raised by those raised in such a system are automatically sexist. I also have to wonder how such systems being in place so long many of those being influenced by the system who are younger of age where in fact raised by those raised under the system in question has somehow not led to any noticeable change in things. Adding another 20 or 30 years is unlikely to change things more then the past few decades have, especially when we remember that many of the things that are stereotypically more catching of interest for men and women isn't arbitrarily dictated by society but a natural outgrowth of our biology.

I also find it hard to believe that a system couldn't show any change after 30-40 years but somehow 60-70 year will, especially since the mentality behind the theory that drives it should have made a single decade be all it takes to at least show SOME change.

The Norwegian Paradox is titled as such for good reason: it is a paradox to the idea that moving towards an egalitarian society will lead to a 50/50 ratio in the work place, all evidence shows the contrary as people will naturally gravitate towards certain lines of work, not only when society does not socialize them to but actively works to prevent such socialization. Which isn't a surprise given how it's nature, not nurture.

It certainly does, but that won't stop people letting their ideology warp reality.

Exactly, which is why the nature vs nurture debate still rages on despite the fact the very work that started it all proved is it nature, and all subsequent work that has survived the riggers of falsification and peer review have as well.

Is this that one experiment where they took newborns and tested them without any control over how they were actually being treated outside of the experiment? Where people assumed that newborns simply live completely indifferent to the entirety of the world and are operating completely on inherent attention-priorities that have been coded in since birth?

No this was the experiment where a pair of twin boys had one of them accidentally have his penis cut off, and the response by the doctor was to use him as a Guinea pig to prove that gender is socialized, which resulted in him giving him a sex change operation shortly after birth and his being raised as a girl while his brother was raised as a boy.

Despite the fact that he refused to be identified and treated as a girl by age 9 (without being told of his birth state initially), his depression over his forced body change and eventual suicide, somehow the complete failure of the experiment and the fact it proved that gender is nature, not socialized, it somehow sparked a debate on the matter and has led to people genuinely believing that gender is a social construct when all evidence shows it's hard-coded into us.

Which isn't a surprise. After all if gender was actually a social construct then trans people could choose to not be trans. But such statements would be moronic to the highest degree.

 

[Autumnflame]

more often than not women are told to do " boys things" out of pc sjw narrative of take back " x "

and not out of any passion

many industries rely heavily on passion and dedication to drive them,

so they see things like science and such as too competitive and they opt out for easier less competitive classes.

its not a war on women at university,
its women choosing to pick something they are comfortable with instead of doing what their feminist overlords tell them to do

 

[Zontar]

I don't know which military you're talking about.

Canadian military, though in my time in the service I worked with a few of you Yankees and didn't notice anything. Unless it's part of weeding out the weaklings who can't handle a few words (something American society has a problem with, so I wouldn't put it past them that it would be enough reason alone) I can't say I noticed anything unusual in that regard. Your soldiers may be narcissistic, but can't say much else that's negative form the ones I've worked with.

You do understand that these are mutually exclusive insults, right? You can't insult a man by saying that he's a man.

Last time I checked outside of some parts of the fringe left no one used called a woman a women as an insult.

You mean challenging his presumably heterosexual sexuality, which occurs when you call them gay or even *gasp* a woman?

No more so then calling a straight women a lesbian or a man would, but real insults in that regard, the type that aren't thrown around as casually (because they're more likely to start a real fight) is insults about impotence. That's where the real insults start.

Thats not an insult. At least, not to him. Sure, its infuriating but its not a personal attack on one's sense of self.

I have no idea what gave you that impression, but for heterosexual men attacking the women they care about is viewed as a worst slight then attacking they themselves is. It IS a personal attack on one's sense of self when that sense of self holds up that person higher then yourself. Men overall do not care what other men call them as insults unless it harms their reputation. What we do care about, however, is the women in our lives being insulted. A mother, wife or daughter being insulted are fighting words for many.

Again, not a personal insult.

You've obviously never served in a Navy.

 

[wulf3n]

I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

 

[Zontar]

I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

Especially given the fact no one, not the teachers nor the students, will look into it to confirm she actually has it.

And how does one even intentionally give themselves the flu?

 

[Redryhno]

I suspect at one point that she gave herself the flu just to get a break from these assholes.

Why actually give yourself the flu instead of just faking it?

Especially given the fact no one, not the teachers nor the students, will look into it to confirm she actually has it.

And how does one even intentionally give themselves the flu?

Dunno about you, but I personally go to the nearest Children's Hospital and break into the ICU and rub the most infected child I see all over my face. Chances are Im gonna get something out of it!

 

[Silverbeard]

I.
That said, there are guys out there that do say something when someone is being a dick and saying some real sexist shit. Again, it's going to take some time, and it's going to be super painful. Also, I don't want for guys to interact with woman stiffly and feel like they have to censor themselves otherwise they get shit canned. If the woman on a job is okay with dirty jokes, tell them. If not, don't tell them when she's around. You know, common decency.

This does raise an obvious self-effacement: Specifically, how is one to know that a woman would be 'okay' with dirty jokes? I'd think that the only way to make a deduction would be to actually make a dirty joke and gauge the reaction- but by then the joke has already been made and if the woman in the example is not okay with such jokes then it's too late to take it back.
So... how is one to know?

In my own case for example, I work in a laboratory. Most of the women at my workplace are well-educated and many are much older/ have more field experience than I do. As a guy, I admit that I feel very uncomfortable talking with any of them. I feel like I need to constantly watch what I say or I'll end up annoying any number of them. I act much differently around the other guys at my lab; we'll routinely mock each other's appearance, job competency and indeed any number of things without a second thought and no-one holds even the slightest grudge.
I'm sure you'd think that I'm interacting stiffly with my female colleagues and I'll confess that that's probably true- but I don't know what else to say and I'd rather not stir anything up.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I.
That said, there are guys out there that do say something when someone is being a dick and saying some real sexist shit. Again, it's going to take some time, and it's going to be super painful. Also, I don't want for guys to interact with woman stiffly and feel like they have to censor themselves otherwise they get shit canned. If the woman on a job is okay with dirty jokes, tell them. If not, don't tell them when she's around. You know, common decency.

This does raise an obvious self-effacement: Specifically, how is one to know that a woman would be 'okay' with dirty jokes? I'd think that the only way to make a deduction would be to actually make a dirty joke and gauge the reaction- but by then the joke has already been made and if the woman in the example is not okay with such jokes then it's too late to take it back.
So... how is one to know?

In my own case for example, I work in a laboratory. Most of the women at my workplace are well-educated and many are much older/ have more field experience than I do. As a guy, I admit that I feel very uncomfortable talking with any of them. I feel like I need to constantly watch what I say or I'll end up annoying any number of them. I act much differently around the other guys at my lab; we'll routinely mock each other's appearance, job competency and indeed any number of things without a second thought and no-one holds even the slightest grudge.
I'm sure you'd think that I'm interacting stiffly with my female colleagues and I'll confess that that's probably true- but I don't know what else to say and I'd rather not stir anything up.

I don't know about your female co-workers, but I'm pretty up-front when it comes to dirty jokes and how I feel about them.

If I hear it and they stop telling the joke because I'm in the room then I tell them it's fine. At that point I make a joke about it, and ask them to carry on. Then again, I say very questionable things at times, so that's hardly an issue.

If it's in a lab and they are older, then maybe...? I would probably ask, honestly. If not, then I would just wait until one of them mentions it. Not ideal, but it's better than getting yelled at. Fucking women, why do they have to go make things difficult?

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't give a shit about the labeling, lets just acknowledge there's a problem.

That's usually the first point of contention.

Back in my electronics courses, we were taught things like "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly," a mnemonic for resistor colour codes. People get offended, even hostile when you suggest this sort of thing isn't particularly cool. Just stating that there's a problem in itself generates antipathy. Because really, what are electronics and engineering without rape mnemonics?

It's difficult to address a problem people won't admit exists.

The only way to change that is to artificially suppress natural behaviours, which is very unhealthy and could lead to actual problems.

Yeah, except that's a pseudo-science argument that was used on blacks and gays, too. It sounds nice, except if it was nature, you would expect to see the same proclivities across cultures and time periods, you don't. It sounds nice, except we still actively discouraged girls from being assertive and rowdy. Except there wasn't an issue finding women in software and the like until they started actively precluding us. Except gender stereotypes change by the generation, and they're always somehow "natural."

It's the discouraging part that is against "nature." If you think that forcing people to act against their nature is harmful, then maybe don't do it. And don't support it.

 

[Something Amyss]

So because you can't lop off boys' penises and tell them they're a girl without some issues showing up, men and women are just hard coded to enter and excel at different jobs? All based on a sample size of one fucked up situation; the epitome of science that is.

It's also confusing "gender" and "gender identity."

Seriously, though, in pretty much every case where they've tried to raise a boy as a girl it's failed. this is still largely anecdotal, and with some really screwed up instances in terms of methodology, but we can't really test this on a wide scale without some ethical issues. But, I mean, you're talking to someone with gender dysphoria, and there are a bunch of others on here who could point to the fact that there is an issue when your gender identity doesn't match your body.

The pseudoscience, of course, is that if this is true it must extend to other elements. Like liking pink and cooking and...I don't know. My brother's "girlier" than I am, so stuff he does, I guess.

 

[DementedSheep]

if they do get hired to met the "gender quota" all the men unfortunate enough to be saddled with them will have to pick up their slack.

That probably stems from the fact that having gender quotas does lead to people being hired because of their gender and not because of their abilities. Which is probably why when the EU tried to force a 40% corporate boardroom membership quota for women there was an outcry from women working in the industry. Which makes sense because if someone genuinely thinks you're an affirmative action hire being present not because of your abilities but because of what's between your legs you aren't going to be taken seriously.

The idea of gender equality is just nice lie that gets striped away the instant you get out of school.

I think you're mixing up "equality" with "parity". Having the same opportunities will not lead to the same results. There are things that women are inherently better at then men and things men are inherently better at then women, and we are hard wired to try to exploit these traits we have other the other due to the fact not doing so led to death before we created civilization (and even for thousands of years after we did so).

You'll be hard pressed to find a job that naturally gets a 50/50 split because with the way men and women think and what we take interest in you're unlikely to find anything that grabs our interest that works with our abilities equally on the societal level.

I also have to wonder where your little rant about men and women both seeing women as inherently inferior comes from, because it sure doesn't stem from prolonged periods in North American English or French society, or West European mainstream society either.

Have you lived my life? are you even female? no? then don't try and tell me what I have and have not experienced.
And gender quota was in qoutations marks because it doesn't mtter whether there was one or not. Thats the only way a lot of people can comprehend you even being hired