Gender roles are a problem because they mean that anyone who doesn't fit into them nicely gets screwed over. This affects, oooh, probably pretty much everyone because the odds of someone matching up with them exactly in every possible regard are pretty damn low.
>Gender roles are a problem because they mean that anyone who doesn't fit into them nicely gets screwed over. This affects, oooh, probably pretty much everyone because the odds of someone matching up with them exactly in every possible regard are pretty damn low.
Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"
How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."
Sure, and that's the point-- you can't even do something as unimportant as wear a particular kind of clothing without subjecting yourself to serious social pressure, but we're being asked to believe that gender roles don't really affect people's choices.
Well, of course a majority of people seem to embrace traditional gender roles - that's what our society rewards people for! We look up to women who drop out of work to raise kids and look down on men who do the same as unmanly, tut-tut about how women who don't have kids will regret it later once their feminine instincts kick in, beat up people who wear the wrong kind of clothing for their gender (clothing, for fuck's sake!), ...
>There are people fighting traditional gender roles. But then you get called a feminazi by people who don't want change.
People who embrace our traditions get called "troglodytes" "fascists" "nazis" "sexists" and the like by cultural Marxists, moralistic activists, and other fanatics.
>Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize. You may be surprised to learn how little many people care about your 20th century social ideologies.
> No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize.
The whole point of feminism is to effect some changes in society. How do you propose to do that without, you know, talking about it?
Incidentally, I feel the same way about religions. I'm fine with being proselytized at, because I'm okay with people trying to persuade me of their opinions on any subject -- I don't consider religion special here. (And really, I'm not sure what to think about people who believe that their religion is the one true path to salvation, and don't try to convince others to join. It seems kind of... selfish, I guess? I don't believe any of that stuff, so I guess I should be happy about the peace and quiet, but it still irks me slightly.)
The people who believe their religion is he one true path to salvation _do_ tend to proselytize.
Thing is, many religions don't think they're the one true path to salvation (and in fact many don't even have a "salvation" going on). And people who hold to those rightfully get annoyed when they can't have lunch in peace because someone shows up on their doorstep trying to convince them that this someone's religion _is_ such a one true path.
The key problem with proselytizing isn't that it happens, it's _how_ it happens.
Except that feminism is a social movement that only works when it is widely understood and religion is a personal belief structure. The two are nothing alike.
>feminism is a social movement that only works when it is widely understood
Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
Our understanding of your ideology is precisely the reason we reject it.
Leftist ideology clearly has its roots in secularized Judeo-Christianity. We all have the "original sin" of racism/sexism/etc. we must be redeemed of, and the world is "torn" and must be tikkun-olamed to be "fixed" by a priest class of activists.
> Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
I think that this is the most concise summary of what's wrong with feminism as an ideology that I've ever seen. One thing to note is that this doesn't just apply to outsiders; feminists do this to other feminists that disagree with them , which is probably one reason why the grassroots of the movement is consistently a lot more reasonable than the career activists.
It is widely understood because people talk about it. Maybe it is over discussed; I obviously don't have a complete understanding of it because I thought that it was a movement for equality and you seem to disagree.
>One way to cure this symptom of patriarchy is to try to stop being a 'troglodyte' as you put it.
"Patriarchy?" Cultural Marxism went out in the 1970s. "Troglodyte?" As a metaphor for a man who works and takes care of his wife and children?
"Ignorant?" No one is "ignorant" of cultural Marxist screeds about "sexism" and "patriarchy." Plenty of people are quite knowledgeable on these issues, but simply reject your kind's often-strange morality and attempts to remake society to conform to bizarre sociological notions from the last century.
Really, burning bras is so last century. Get with the times.
>Is the pursuit of equality really something you think of as strange or outdated?
Labeling your ideology with glittering generalities like the "pursuit of equality" doesn't change the substance. "Equality" was traditionally understood to be "equality under the law" not some vague "social equality" where all social distinctions must be erased.
"Feminism" is clearly not about men and women being equal under the law.
Except it's not. Example: women who expect to have custody of their kids no matter what are perfectly reasonable, men who expect to actually be allowed to see their kids are demonstrating their male privilege and acting as though the kids are their property.
This doesn't just apply to non-law areas either. A few years ago the British government consoldated all anti-discrimination law into a single Equality Bill, and as part of this they had a consultation period where interested parties could submit their thoughts. Several really well-known and respected feminist organisations submitted complaints that some local authorities were only offering funding for services to rape and domestic violence survivors if they offered advice to victims of all genders who rang up, and argued that in order to achieve equality the Government should force them to direct all their funding to women-only services. Equality can be used to mean a lot of things.
Just because a person who names herself a feminist doesn't mean she's not also a hypocrite.
Some people are just for stronger rights for women (and should be poo poohed for this stance). Some people are for equal rights for everyone, and similar expectations for everyone.
If you use "equality" to mean "direct all services to women" you not only are misusing the term in the vein of some of the best bullcrap propaganda that came out of Lenin's regime in Russia, you're also a flaming asshole.
Let me put it this way: I have seen prominent feminists label other self-identified feminists as not really feminist because they care too much about male rape victims. I have never seen it happen to anyone because they cared too little about them, for values of "cared too little" up to and including contemplating the systematic mass rape of men in order to teach them what women experience (the feminists in question abandoned the idea because obviously men couldn't really be hurt by being raped, not like women are).
Hell, I've know of one prominent feminist blogger who thinks it'd be a great idea to reclassify anal rape as something that isn't really rape, even when the victims are women, just so that no man could ever claim to have been raped. This still caused infinitely less controversial than treating men as human beings with feelings does.
You've got to be kidding me. Catering to one demographic does not inherently disenfranchise the other. Its not sexist that I've never seen a woman in a Gillette Fusion ad (eta: save for at the end when oh MAN is her honey smooth!). It is not "reverse sexist" that there is a site addressing women's issues and experience in tech.
While I agree "reverse sexist" is a silly term to use in this case, you should really research both sides of the issue before telling a man to check his privilege. (If you had, you would have almost certainly come up with a more effective response)
I'm curious to what the "other side" of this issue is. Is there nary a safe space on the internet for men to talk about their experience in the tech sector?
> I'm curious to what the "other side" of this issue is.
When the term 'male privilege' is dragged into the discussion, people are likely start thinking about their own experiences. They'll remember girls getting extra attention in labs, girls getting deadline extensions, they'll remember working at a pizza shop Saturday night to help pay rent/tuition while the girl on a girl-only scholarship is enjoying a date paid for by her wealthy boyfriend. The details will be different for each individual but the important point is that the answer to the question "what is privilege?" is not simple. It doesn't offer a clear answer to the charge.
> Is there nary a safe space on the internet for men to talk about their experience in the tech sector?
Why not simply state this point directly (minus the sarcasm if possible) instead of making accusations of privilege to people you don't know anything about?
If the counterargument is good enough I will file it away in my head to use next time the topic comes up. Or I might think of other questions, like what happens if a womens-only tech group becomes more successful than any other tech group in a particular domain/region and men want to participate?
Though personally, I probably would have just downvoted and been done with it.
Uh what? The OP is male, so he does have male privilege. That is, he will never have the same experience as someone who is a woman. To say that providing an outlet for woman to share their experiences is sexist against men is laughable.
If you are suggesting that privilege of experience doesn't exist or is somehow Marxist, you are basically saying that any experience other than your own isn't real and doesn't count. That is to say, you are calling everyone who has ever lived differently from you a liar.
No one will ever have the same experience as anyone else.
The point is, we are all minorities, depending on which way you cut the population. It doesn't really matter, unless you let it matter. especially in this industry.
What about "whites in tech"? Would that be racist? What about "blacks in tech?"
Or are you of the opinion it's impossible to be racist to white people, sexist to men, etc?
> It doesn't really matter, unless you let it matter.
Yeah, that's the kind of pathetic platitude that condescends in order to pretend nothing's wrong. Having trouble because you're black, female, wheelchair-bound, recovering from alcoholism, etc.? Pft. It wouldn't matter if only you'd stop letting it matter.
Is that an attempt to discredit someone just by tossing out a scary-sounding label? What if we haven't been programmed to fear Marxism, and "cultural marxism" just makes you sound like an ignant fool?
In other, politer words, what exactly are you trying to say here?
> I don't see anyone suggesting such a thing, but instead, that the majority of each gender may have certain behavior and learning styles in common.
Unless you can prove that certain behavior is common among majority of females, and that certain common behavior is more significant than bazillion traits which are not shared, and then that certain behavior is significant to learning, and is more important than traits which aren't shared - the segregation is meaningless.
> Why go any further? Just because one type of segregation may work, doesn't mean that all types of segregation would work.
The chances that a group of students is going to be consistent, coherent, and will respond to the teaching style in the same way is essentially zero(group size > 1). If gender segregation show a noticeable, significant improvement; by all means have it. But don't make claims in advance.
You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any. However, they can be said to exhibit a tendency where the chances aren't exactly 100%. It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."
> You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any.
I am demanding hard conclusions, failing which I am demanding you don't make any if you aren't sure(gender difference became apparent to me that day, gender segregation works etc).
> It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."
I didn't claim correlation is meaningless - I just claimed you are claiming correlation, and for fuck's sake, causation, when there isn't any.
Correlation is when 2 random variables aren't probabilisticaly independent. If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop, I am more than willing to be corrected.
If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop,
This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.
> This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.
I am looking for correlation, as in the sense correlation is defined, or causation. I don't think correlation or causation is open to value judgement.
Wasn't the term "computer" at one time used to describe usually female mathematicians who worked in all female groups at DoD?
Perhaps the problem isn't women, and it isn't men, but instead the urge to force them together and then demand they suppress their natural gender differences?
Based on experience I would guess having gender segregated groups of technical workers could be quite productive. But anyone trying would immediately be hit by lawsuits from the discrimination lawyers.
Too much drama. Too much shit to cope with, that involves dicks and egos.
Absolutely, and from the other side, forcing a man into a mostly female group is going to drive him crazy with what he perceives to be the petty female group dynamics.
This is actually something I think will go away once we manage to overcome sexism in society. There is really no reason for it at all.
My subjective impression of you and your "anti-sexism" is that you are an ideological fanatic. Fortunately, it's not likely that you and your kind will ever "overcome sexism in society" and it's likely that public restrooms will remain segregated by gender.
Your understanding of the differences between the sexes seems based more on ideological, abstract categories than practical, biologically based considerations, which is often the case with ideological and religious fanaticism.
In my opinion, your "anti-sexism" is just rehashed, 20th century cultural Marxism that is fortunately becoming less popular. I hope we can all progress beyond such failed, politically and religiously motivated trends.
Which is probably why pwpwp didn't specifically refer to the self-selected women in the class, but made a general point about the industry and the ridiculous attempts to impose a completely artificial 50/50 gender ratio.
The comic could have just as easily said "one girl is good at math therefore exactly as many girls as boys are good at math."
While I agree a 50-50 gender ratio seems artificial at the moment, fact of the matter is the tech industry is becoming one of the great sources of power in society (think skynet). I think for the sake of civilization, we should try to involve women as much as we can and aim for the 50-50.
"I think for the sake of civilization, we should try to involve women as much as we can and aim for the 50-50."
I think for the sake of civilization, we should not try to aim for a 50/50 ratio. Your utopia is another person's dystopia. Not all of us share your morality.
