Ask an Anti-Feminist!

[Dystopia]

Men do 92% more dangerous jobs and put their lives on the line - why can't women do more dangerous jobs? That's crazy talk!

Not only can they - I'm in favour of them doing so and feminists have been arguing for it - In fact, in Everydayfeminism there was an article advocating more women on construction working.

For the part that matters - There's certain jobs we see as masculine or feminine in society, and depending on the number of people in them and the demographics, women and men are automatically more likely to opt or deny those jobs - Women are socialized from birth to not try to compete with men and that's noticeable in gender segregation toys, school segregation ("Don't play football with boys, play dolls with your friends", etc.), etc.

Being male-dominated isn't necessarily a problem - that just evidences that men are more likely to opt for that job. Women, if they really want to, can opt for those jobs if they want --- but once you look at University stats, we find that women like to choose different subjects, despite having the opportunity to choose traditional subjects -- that's what happens when you give equal opportunity.

I don't think ''lack of role models'' is the serious problem, if women want it, then go get it - they have the means to do so.

But why? Why are men more likely to choose that job? If you have 50% of the population making drastically different choices, why is that happening? Are female brains wired to automatically follow liberal arts, social sciences or education? Are men's brains wired to be engineers, politicians or CEO's? If, so, what evidence do you have? If not, then how can you say these choices are justified? Why do you think there's certain jobs associated with femininity, usually to do with secondary roles, education and helping people (social services, primary school teachers, nursing, etc.)? Why can I, with absolute certainty, assume that, regardless of which country you come from, there will be more men dominating society and following better paid jobs (no exceptions)?

That's basically a modified version of the argument "if the poor want to be rich, they can just work hard and get out of povery". It's not that simple. Women are socially less likely to go to something when it's male dominated, and that's an observable phenomenon. Having role models is great and helps boosting the credibility of jobs. If I grow up without seeing people of my gender in certain jobs and no one reassures me I can be one of those I'll probably be less likely to think it's a good option for the future

[Iroscato]

So, TheMessiah, when was the last time you got laid?

[TheMessiah]

Men do 92% more dangerous jobs and put their lives on the line - why can't women do more dangerous jobs? That's crazy talk!

Not only can they - I'm in favour of them doing so and feminists have been arguing for it - In fact, in Everydayfeminism there was an article advocating more women on construction working.

For the part that matters - There's certain jobs we see as masculine or feminine in society, and depending on the number of people in them and the demographics, women and men are automatically more likely to opt or deny those jobs - Women are socialized from birth to not try to compete with men and that's noticeable in gender segregation toys, school segregation ("Don't play football with boys, play dolls with your friends", etc.), etc.

Being male-dominated isn't necessarily a problem - that just evidences that men are more likely to opt for that job. Women, if they really want to, can opt for those jobs if they want --- but once you look at University stats, we find that women like to choose different subjects, despite having the opportunity to choose traditional subjects -- that's what happens when you give equal opportunity.

I don't think ''lack of role models'' is the serious problem, if women want it, then go get it - they have the means to do so.

But why? Why are men more likely to choose that job? If you have 50% of the population making drastically different choices, why is that happening? Are female brains wired to automatically follow liberal arts, social sciences or education? Are men's brains wired to be engineers, politicians or CEO's? If, so, what evidence do you have? If not, then how can you say these choices are justified? Why do you think there's certain jobs associated with femininity, usually to do with secondary roles, education and helping people (social services, primary school teachers, nursing, etc.)? Why can I, with absolute certainty, assume that, regardless of which country you come from, there will be more men dominating society and following better paid jobs (no exceptions)?

That's basically a modified version of the argument "if the poor want to be rich, they can just work hard and get out of povery". It's not that simple. Women are socially less likely to go to something when it's male dominated, and that's an observable phenomenon. Having role models is great and helps boosting the credibility of jobs. If I grow up without seeing people of my gender in certain jobs and no one reassures me I can be one of those I'll probably be less likely to think it's a good option for the future

1. Everyday Feminism is just a blog - most women don't want to work in construction; it's generally not a pleasant job and societal gender roles benefit women in that regard; it's seen as a man's job, hence why we don't really see Feminist pressure to work in hard, manual labor. Many women don't like construction because it's unpleasant.

2. Because men and women, do work differently; studies on their brains have found that they will opt for different subjects if given the choice - sure, there may be male CEO's, but there are also male laborers, male bricklayers, male construction workers, etc. These are jobs which men are expected to do.

The comparison between the poor becoming rich and women choosing STEM is disingenuous. The poor can be stopped via economic means, women on the other hand, can't --- evolutionary psychological research has found that men tend to opt for more constructive/manual jobs because of the way their brains are wired. For years, people have attempted to get women into STEM but when they have the choice, they likely opt for more expressive and written subjects than men do.

Women in India for example, are more likely to opt for STEM because liberal arts degrees are simply not an option; their parents will not allow it, same with China. Once you restrict their choice, they are more likely to opt for STEM - but countless attempts have been made to get them into STEM via role models and many just aren't interested.

The critical question is asking women whether they really wan't to get into STEM, rather than making excuses.

Want women in STEM? Encourage them not to opt for useless degrees such as gender studies.

[TheMessiah]

So, TheMessiah, when was the last time you got laid?

Last week

[Whateverist]

It has to be said. You are acting the ass here.

[Dystopia]

Well who the hell doesn't want to go to a field with interesting subjects and with potential to earn big money? Why wouldn't 50% of the population be interested in a job that gives you tremendous social prestige?

I'm betting that those studies only found differences in adult brains - It's funny a century ago the same studies were using similar arguments to segregate blacks from whites because, after all, blacks score lower on IQ tests. Studies after studies have found more differences between just groups of men than between men and women. It's complicated to, using a sample of people, actually argue our brains are wired. It's funny one of the masculine jobs has to do with computers and IT, but decades ago women did those jobs a lot and no one remembers that... And things changed. It's also funny that those "evolutionary traits" give men the better, more powerful jobs like politicians to wire us to dominate society. How pleasant.

[TheMessiah]

It has to be said. You are acting the ass here.

8/10

Well who the hell doesn't want to go to a field with interesting subjects and with potential to earn big money? Why wouldn't 50% of the population be interested in a job that gives you tremendous social prestige?

I'm betting that those studies only found differences in adult brains - It's funny a century ago the same studies were using similar arguments to segregate blacks from whites because, after all, blacks score lower on IQ tests. Studies after studies have found more differences between just groups of men than between men and women. It's complicated to, using a sample of people, actually argue our brains are wired. It's funny one of the masculine jobs has to do with computers and IT, but decades ago women did those jobs a lot and no one remembers that... And things changed. It's also funny that those "evolutionary traits" give men the better, more powerful jobs like politicians to wire us to dominate society. How pleasant.

Because here's what differs between Western and Asian culture --- the West want their children to do what interests them; do a career they enjoy. Asian culture (Chinese/Indian)? Not so much.

Indian and Chinese cultures look down on people who choose careers like gender studies or sociology because they don't generate much money. However western cultures are far, far more Liberal and put an emphasis on what you enjoy.

The prospect of women not liking STEM, despite the pay is....rational, and reasonable. Many women just find it boring - there's nothing wrong with that, but give equality of opportunity and you can observe the differences in course choices.

Those evolutionary traits also give men worse jobs, BTW, while you'll find male CEO's, you'll also find male janitors/labourers.

Also, in regards to politics, if a woman really wants it, she can get it.

Margaret Thatcher led the Conservative party in the 1970's; won the election 3 times and destroyed her male opponents. She wanted it, and she went for it --- the Left Wing Labour party which proclaims itself Feminist has never had a female leader, the current female leader is a fill-in and she isn't even campaigning for leadership. A woman, leading a traditionally sexist party...however she used her legal rights to achieve what she wanted.

I don't care if a female is a politician, I care about the merit of their idea.

A lot of women in North England detested Margaret Thatcher, and so did men - not because she was a woman, but because her right-wing politics fucked over the working classes.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Being male-dominated isn't necessarily a problem - that just evidences that men are more likely to opt for that job. Women, if they really want to, can opt for those jobs if they want --- but once you look at University stats, we find that women like to choose different subjects, despite having the opportunity to choose traditional subjects -- that's what happens when you give equal opportunity.

I don't think ''lack of role models'' is the serious problem, if women want it, then go get it - they have the means to do so.

What happens is that when recruiting for a job people have biases that they don't recognise. They know what kind of people have done well at the job in the past and which ones don't. So they give preference to candidates that match their idea of an ideal candidate. What they don't realise that they don't know all the possible types of people who will be good at the job. So you end up with a gender imbalance. And not just against women or ethnic minorities. It also explains the shortage of men in women dominated fields, for example teachers at Kindergarten / nursery schools.

Secondly, you say if women want it then go get it. Well if they don't see people like them doing a particular career then they are less likely to properly consider it and therefore don't develop the desire to do the career. But some women will still do the career. I work in a male dominated field myself and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that these are major concerns.

Just a few weeks ago we had someone come round and give a lecture about hidden biases at work, which incidentally is a silver award winner of Athena Swan which recognises equality in the workplace. It's the first place I have ever worked which has had a fair gender balance and it's a world renowned organisation.

And just because you don't recognise the problem does not mean to say that it does not exist. There are studies showing this discrimination happens. A famous one is when they sent the same CV to a whole load of academics and asked them to rate the candidate in terms of how much they would pay them, whether they would hire them and whether they were likely to receive promotion. Sometimes they sent out the same CV with a male name, and sometimes with a female name and this radically changed the responses they received.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The critical question is asking women whether they really wan't to get into STEM, rather than making excuses.

Want women in STEM? Encourage them not to opt for useless degrees such as gender studies.

I work in STEM and I'm damn good at it. But it wasn't my first choice.

I first chose a load of soft subjects that I was unsuited for because it never occurred to me to do anything else. I was actually so unsuited that I dropped out and changed my courses with the idea of starting again. This was at A-level in the UK. I was browsing through the list of courses and considering each one more closely and came across computing. It was always my brother's thing but I thought why not me? So I started a computing A-level. I found that I was rather good at it and went on to do a BSc. Then I went on to do an MSc, a PhD, two post-docs, lectured at university and made a whole career in industry.

And the bit I have put in bold is exactly what feminists are suggesting. This is why role models are needed. If I had seen other people like me do computing I would have given it proper consideration to start with and not have had to stay back a year.

The one thing that makes me want to drop out of software engineering / computer science though is that it is male dominated. But if I do then this makes the problem worse for other women.

[Regina]

Feminism is too broad I think to say "I don't like it"

I think you can still be pro-women while disliking certain radical elements of the feminist movement. Feminists are too diverse to say "I don't like feminism" in my opinion. I love feminism and consider myself totally pro-women on the basic definition of equality for women, but that doesn't mean I think every feminist is right on every issue all the time. The problem is some self-labelled feminists see any disagreement (especially from men but also from other women) as anti-women even if their opinion really isn't.