The Almighty Aardvark said:
The problem is that when you take personal feelings into account, you can't 100 percent quantify anything that could solve the "larger problem" the OP claims these personal accounts are indicative of. I won't contest that the situation your friend was in was unfair, and potentially even sexist, but personal feelings are not relevant to that situation. Anyone with a chip on their shoulder and a persecution complex can personally feel discriminated against. Any person not being involved in group discussion can feel excluded (whether they are choosing to try and get involved in discussion or not). So with her being discriminated against (beyond a reasonable doubt), we can say she was treated unfairly which lead to her feelings which lead to her quitting in this scenario, so it was not her feelings, but the environment she was in that was responsible. Were the environment a healthier one, she would not have those feelings to begin with. We need to look at each incident on a case by case basis to ensure people are not just being oversensitive and associating their personal feelings with the reality.
If condescension was inferred from her peers, then it's clear that she was in a shitty group. Whether that's an indication of how little they cared for the subject (maybe it was their elective course rather than their major, so they were being condescending because art was "easy" and "beneath them," but that's just speculation on my part) or because they were in fact being sexist, I can't say. But to state they made her feel like shit every day while in the same breath claim they would be horrified to realize they made her feel that way either means they weren't intending to be that way or they were and the statements are contradictory.
Or would you rather I propose that she chose not to speak up and make her concerns about the unhealthy work environment known to her peers?
I haven't been trying to give a conclusive proof that sexism exists in society. I specifically said I wasn't going to try to prove that. What I was describing was a situation where someone close to me quit a job in a male dominated environment in film because she felt unwelcome and condescended to.
Which is either an isolated case and therefore is not indicative of a pattern, or indicative of a pattern that proves sexism exists in society. If your intent was not to prove something, then I can only assume you were conveying your secondhand account to relate and empathize with the OP's situation, in which case I apologize for jumping down your throat on this.
I'm just tired of this whole "patriarchy wage gap boy's club sexism" narrative that's permeating society, and statements of "we need to be more inclusive even though our efforts to be more inclusive aren't working" and "this is a constant process (which means no effort is ever going to be good enough)" are not helping, especially when people are using their own personal accounts as some sort of 'prevalent evidence of sexism.'
Alternatively we assume the personal accounts are indicative of the larger problem, where we've also had accounts of males being treated like they're unwelcome in the "girl's club," in which case we have to wonder what we can do to fix both sides of the issue, or alternatively assume that it's simply a case of "boys and girls clubs" simply taking on borg mentality and anyone against the norm is an "abnormality," in which case I can't help but wonder why it's a gendered issue in that case when it seems to be more of a case of collectivist behavior.
This is applicable to every single industry, hobby and community really. Everyone deserves to succeed based on merit and not feel they have to behave like someone they're not in order to hold a job.
If I recall the OP's professor made this statement, and the OP agrees. This "we need to be more inclusive" thing is applicable to all industries. Therefore all industries are not inclusive already, therefore discriminatory, therefore any male-dominated field = boy's club, therefore sexism.
We've been trying to clean up the jokes around set lately but the problem is still that a lot of women are not staying in our classes and its indicative of the larger issue.
"We've been trying to clean up the jokes around set" but "the problem is still that a lot of women are not staying in our classes."
Now, considering then that we look at this statement as indicative that their efforts are failing, what does that tell us? Does that make their field too "boy's club" and "not inclusive enough," or were their efforts too piss poor to make an actual difference? The only 3 outcomes are "they're not trying hard enough," "there just is not enough interest and this isn't a gender issue" or "we need to cater to women to make them more comfortable."
Unless there's additional options.
Are male-dominated fields inherently sexist/exclusionary, or is it just unfortunate circumstances that have nothing to do with gender?
Are women leaving these fields due to personal preference, discrimination, atmosphere, or a combination of factors?
Where does the "boy's club" begin and "other factors" end?
And how can we encourage women to enter into these fields without the use of affirmative action programs or attempting to reprogram people like they're somehow automatically at fault for the population discrepancy?
