6 ms·

If it's surprising to you that there are women who want to work on oil rigs, and want that badly enough to go through the trouble of making a case out of it, th

If it's surprising to you that there are women who want to work on oil rigs, and want that badly enough to go through the trouble of making a case out of it, then you may need to update your beliefs about what it means to be a woman.

wallace_f 10y ago
Give me a break. You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women. 5 women and 1 court case (and no lawyer ever set up a lawsuit like that, right?) does not change all of those facts. You need to realize that your worldview and own personal politics of 'what it means to be a woman' has nothing to do with this topic. Even if it did, the vast majority of women do not want those jobs as much as men do, and you would need to prove prevalent, institutional bias, not discuss what it means to be a woman, to show that this is not true. That does not mean there is not 1 woman who does not love her job as a truck driver. Or 5 woman who love their jobs as truck driver. Nor does it mean women should be prevented from being truck drivers. That's not what this is about though. This is about political correctness and lawyers, not about human welfare and civil rights.
- louhike 10y ago
  "You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women." Then why developers are mostly men? And why there is more and more female football/soccer players? It might be harder for females to get muscles, compared to men but it does not mean they do not want to do and can do physically demanding jobs.
- dkersten 10y ago
  You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women. Yeah, and girls prefer pink... How much of this is because of how women are brought up, believing that these are mens jobs, rather than by nature? Women do plenty of physically demanding jobs, just not generally these stereotypical "mens" jobs. Hell, if you look at poorer countries, you see women doing all kinds of physically demanding stuff like carrying water for miles. Its not that they can't or won't do them when they have to, its that when they have a choice that they don't and I believe that's because from a young age and in media these things are portrayed as very un-womanly.
  - xyzzyz 10y ago
    In poor countries, there are plenty of women doing physically exhausting jobs, but also plenty of women pursuing engineering careers. On the other hand, in many rich countries most jobs have huge gender disparities. It all comes down to the freedom of choice given to people -- if you're rich and you're free to choose what you are going to do, you'll choose whatever you like the most.
    - dkersten 10y ago
      I agree with what you say. My point is just that "whatever you like the most" is biased by your upbringing, culture and media. Hence my "girls prefer pink" comment - that's not nature, its nurture - because we're brought up to associate pink with femininity.
      - xyzzyz 10y ago
        Did you know that young monkeys of many species (rhesus, bonobo) have pretty gendered preference when it comes to the toy choice? Female monkeys prefer soft toys like teddy bears, while male prefer mechanical toys, like cars on wheels. Google "monkey gender toy preference", there has been tons of research on it. This means that even if preference for pink was purely by nurture (which I also consider unlikely), the data on toy preference strongly suggests that preference for certain jobs or activities is not purely nurture, and has at least some nature aspect. Now, it is difficult to quantify how much exactly is the split between nature and nurture, one of the reasons being the fact that lots of what you would call nurture would never take place if a nature didn't provide people with preferences in the first place. However, blaming everything on "upbringing, culture and media" is certainly incongruent with reality.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        Of course it is. Our country has spent 14 trillion on wars in recent years while we can't provide everyone with healthcare, or even clean drinking water. This issue is not about civil liberties or human rights. This is about people's feelings who have political representation. Lawyers who can profit off of it. And an increasingly authoritarian, surveillance, human rights abusing, police state that wants to control the people it rules over. Harrison Bergeron, we will be seeing you soon in our future. >“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.” ― George Orwell, 1984 If people were really so equal, the NBA should be sued by Asians. There have been 2 (2!) women in history who have been able to dunk a basketball in a NCAA game. I could dunk a basketball in high school. Give me a break, the whole thing is ridiculously fraudulent. I would not want to work somewhere that had some bigoted, awful idea and attitude that a 'woman can not do a man's job,' I would never want to work somewhere like that -- but that's not the role of government to decide. We need people in government who are going to fight for civil liberties and human rights, people who will progress humanity off this planet and into the stars. People who will fight against corruption. Instead we get people who want to take advantage of people's feelings for their own profit or security.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  The heaviest thing an auto mechanic typically lifts is a tire. Everything else is going to be lifted by a hoist, because no human, male or female, can pull an engine out of a car. Auto mechanic is, in fact, a skilled job involving a mental model of a very complex system, diagnosis, testing, research, and tool usage. Modern mining is done primarily by machines which are tended to by mechanics. Ever wonder why there are so few mining jobs these days? That would be automation improving the efficiency and taking away manual jobs. Speaking of which, truck drivers... will be obsolete soon. Even so, driving is not a task that inherently favors upper body strength. OK, so the physical argument holds no water. What's left? Prejudice and social expectations -- which is to, say a prevalent institutional bias.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I'm curious as to how you would address the industries that are heavily female with males being underrepresented. Is there institutional bias in those instances?
    - dsr_ 10y ago
      Very likely.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    You are sounding like you have never worked in a job like this. I have worked for a carpenter and an automechanic. Ever seen someone unable to even get the heat shrink wrap off a pneumatic tool and replace the lines? I saw someone unable to do it and end up gashing their hand as they were trying to cut it off. Ever work under a hot engine bay for 8 hours? Holding your hands above your head the entire time, and developing pain in your neck? Ever used an angle grinder? Should I trust you with one? Ever lifted 300lb pieces of granite, cut them to size and polish them? That's hard work. Do you think you can do it? Besides, by focusing 100% on this physical aspect you're nearly just attack a straw man argument and ignoring the substance of everything else. Not every person is exactly the same and it doesn't matter. Get over it.
    - 10y ago
- soundwave106 10y ago
  I unfortunately think you are undermining your own argument here with this focus. It's clear that institutional biases and societal biases exist, and that some of these biases may act as steering currents for certain people to go into certain careers. However, there always will be some cases of people who like to "steer against the current" and work in a field that's outside the society-traditional bias in one way or another (gender or otherwise). A good goal, I think, is to ensure that merit is the chief qualification for employment. Statements such as (paraphrasing) "oil rigs are a man's club" and "pretty women would be a distraction" is way too sweeping -- lazy group collective thinking at its most absolute, playing on stereotypes of both women and men. Humans have a wide range of abilities and behaviors and it doesn't always divide neatly in binary form. From a personal standpoint, I would call this biased group-think sort of hiring practices as far from optimal. If someone can do the job well, they should do it if they are good at it. I do know someone, for instance, who's a female welder. Apparently, only 5% of welders are women. Well, she's one of them and from all indications she's good at it. Luckily, the place she works at doesn't have a "welding is a MAN's job" sort of attitude. (Note that this bias can also apply in reverse. Think of the current societal bias with men teaching elementary school, for instance.) Now, whether or not government enforced action (eg, to what degree, and what tools, governments should use to challenge the bias) is a good thing or not, I think that's more of an open question. The truth is, in some cases, some people hold onto stereotype so heavily, that they will literally threaten people who challenge this "norm" with harassment and violence. Clearly in this sort of case, the government should be involved. However, for something like standard hiring practices, I'm a little fuzzy as to how much government should dictate anti-discrimination policy, if any. I wouldn't mind seeing more data in this regard; at this point, I don't know how effective various tools have been at eliminating lazy hiring groupthink, or whether they aren't terribly effective at anything but increasing resentment.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >A good goal, I think, is to ensure that merit is the chief qualification for employment I agree with you >It's clear that institutional biases and societal biases exist, and that some of these biases may act as steering currents for certain people to go into certain careers. We agree on that, too >If someone can do the job well, they should do it if they are good at it. I do know someone, for instance, who's a female welder. Apparently, only 5% of welders are women. Well, she's one of them and from all indications she's good at it. Luckily, the place she works at doesn't have a "welding is a MAN's job" sort of attitude. That's good. I would never want to work somewhere that had an attitude that "this is a man's job, only men can do it" >Now, whether or not government enforced action (eg, to what degree, and what tools, governments should use to challenge the bias) is a good thing or not, I think that's more of an open question. I agree with you there as well. Even though I wouldn't want to work for a company that refused to hire women due to some illogical bigotry, I don't think it's government's role to force results on to who companies can hire. Look, we agree on almost everything, but I think you and others are missing my point because this is an emotionally sensitive topic for some people, and one that the media has also blown out of proportion. The idea that there are no differences between people is totally fraudulent. When are we going to sue the NBA for discriminating against Asians? What's the point if we don't? There are huge differences even between men and women. Serena and Venus Williams claimed they could beat any man in Tennis, and so they ended up playing a 203'rd ranked player "after he had a case of beer and a smoke," and neither could barely score a single point against him. There are differences between people and that's the way it is. If any of these people arguing against this actually cared about human rights or civil liberties they'd have said so by now. What they really care about are their feelings. That's what this is about - that, and lawyers cashing in on new diversity laws.
- mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
  This line of reasoning sounds just like the people who said there was no need for women's sports programs because the vast majority of women don't like sports. You are confusing cause and effect.

wallace_f 10y ago

Give me a break. You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women. 5 women and 1 court case (and no lawyer ever set up a lawsuit like that, right?) does not change all of those facts. You need to realize that your worldview and own personal politics of 'what it means to be a woman' has nothing to do with this topic. Even if it did, the vast majority of women do not want those jobs as much as men do, and you would need to prove prevalent, institutional bias, not discuss what it means to be a woman, to show that this is not true. That does not mean there is not 1 woman who does not love her job as a truck driver. Or 5 woman who love their jobs as truck driver. Nor does it mean women should be prevented from being truck drivers. That's not what this is about though. This is about political correctness and lawyers, not about human welfare and civil rights.

louhike 10y ago
"You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women." Then why developers are mostly men? And why there is more and more female football/soccer players? It might be harder for females to get muscles, compared to men but it does not mean they do not want to do and can do physically demanding jobs.
dkersten 10y ago
You are insane if you think auto mechanics, miners, truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, landscapers, or working on fishing vessels, or other physically demanding, laborious jobs, are not preferred more by men than women. Yeah, and girls prefer pink... How much of this is because of how women are brought up, believing that these are mens jobs, rather than by nature? Women do plenty of physically demanding jobs, just not generally these stereotypical "mens" jobs. Hell, if you look at poorer countries, you see women doing all kinds of physically demanding stuff like carrying water for miles. Its not that they can't or won't do them when they have to, its that when they have a choice that they don't and I believe that's because from a young age and in media these things are portrayed as very un-womanly.
- xyzzyz 10y ago
  In poor countries, there are plenty of women doing physically exhausting jobs, but also plenty of women pursuing engineering careers. On the other hand, in many rich countries most jobs have huge gender disparities. It all comes down to the freedom of choice given to people -- if you're rich and you're free to choose what you are going to do, you'll choose whatever you like the most.
  - dkersten 10y ago
    I agree with what you say. My point is just that "whatever you like the most" is biased by your upbringing, culture and media. Hence my "girls prefer pink" comment - that's not nature, its nurture - because we're brought up to associate pink with femininity.
    - xyzzyz 10y ago
      Did you know that young monkeys of many species (rhesus, bonobo) have pretty gendered preference when it comes to the toy choice? Female monkeys prefer soft toys like teddy bears, while male prefer mechanical toys, like cars on wheels. Google "monkey gender toy preference", there has been tons of research on it. This means that even if preference for pink was purely by nurture (which I also consider unlikely), the data on toy preference strongly suggests that preference for certain jobs or activities is not purely nurture, and has at least some nature aspect. Now, it is difficult to quantify how much exactly is the split between nature and nurture, one of the reasons being the fact that lots of what you would call nurture would never take place if a nature didn't provide people with preferences in the first place. However, blaming everything on "upbringing, culture and media" is certainly incongruent with reality.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        Of course it is. Our country has spent 14 trillion on wars in recent years while we can't provide everyone with healthcare, or even clean drinking water. This issue is not about civil liberties or human rights. This is about people's feelings who have political representation. Lawyers who can profit off of it. And an increasingly authoritarian, surveillance, human rights abusing, police state that wants to control the people it rules over. Harrison Bergeron, we will be seeing you soon in our future. >“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.” ― George Orwell, 1984 If people were really so equal, the NBA should be sued by Asians. There have been 2 (2!) women in history who have been able to dunk a basketball in a NCAA game. I could dunk a basketball in high school. Give me a break, the whole thing is ridiculously fraudulent. I would not want to work somewhere that had some bigoted, awful idea and attitude that a 'woman can not do a man's job,' I would never want to work somewhere like that -- but that's not the role of government to decide. We need people in government who are going to fight for civil liberties and human rights, people who will progress humanity off this planet and into the stars. People who will fight against corruption. Instead we get people who want to take advantage of people's feelings for their own profit or security.
dsr_ 10y ago
The heaviest thing an auto mechanic typically lifts is a tire. Everything else is going to be lifted by a hoist, because no human, male or female, can pull an engine out of a car. Auto mechanic is, in fact, a skilled job involving a mental model of a very complex system, diagnosis, testing, research, and tool usage. Modern mining is done primarily by machines which are tended to by mechanics. Ever wonder why there are so few mining jobs these days? That would be automation improving the efficiency and taking away manual jobs. Speaking of which, truck drivers... will be obsolete soon. Even so, driving is not a task that inherently favors upper body strength. OK, so the physical argument holds no water. What's left? Prejudice and social expectations -- which is to, say a prevalent institutional bias.
- talmand 10y ago
  I'm curious as to how you would address the industries that are heavily female with males being underrepresented. Is there institutional bias in those instances?
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    Very likely.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  You are sounding like you have never worked in a job like this. I have worked for a carpenter and an automechanic. Ever seen someone unable to even get the heat shrink wrap off a pneumatic tool and replace the lines? I saw someone unable to do it and end up gashing their hand as they were trying to cut it off. Ever work under a hot engine bay for 8 hours? Holding your hands above your head the entire time, and developing pain in your neck? Ever used an angle grinder? Should I trust you with one? Ever lifted 300lb pieces of granite, cut them to size and polish them? That's hard work. Do you think you can do it? Besides, by focusing 100% on this physical aspect you're nearly just attack a straw man argument and ignoring the substance of everything else. Not every person is exactly the same and it doesn't matter. Get over it.
  - 10y ago
soundwave106 10y ago
I unfortunately think you are undermining your own argument here with this focus. It's clear that institutional biases and societal biases exist, and that some of these biases may act as steering currents for certain people to go into certain careers. However, there always will be some cases of people who like to "steer against the current" and work in a field that's outside the society-traditional bias in one way or another (gender or otherwise). A good goal, I think, is to ensure that merit is the chief qualification for employment. Statements such as (paraphrasing) "oil rigs are a man's club" and "pretty women would be a distraction" is way too sweeping -- lazy group collective thinking at its most absolute, playing on stereotypes of both women and men. Humans have a wide range of abilities and behaviors and it doesn't always divide neatly in binary form. From a personal standpoint, I would call this biased group-think sort of hiring practices as far from optimal. If someone can do the job well, they should do it if they are good at it. I do know someone, for instance, who's a female welder. Apparently, only 5% of welders are women. Well, she's one of them and from all indications she's good at it. Luckily, the place she works at doesn't have a "welding is a MAN's job" sort of attitude. (Note that this bias can also apply in reverse. Think of the current societal bias with men teaching elementary school, for instance.) Now, whether or not government enforced action (eg, to what degree, and what tools, governments should use to challenge the bias) is a good thing or not, I think that's more of an open question. The truth is, in some cases, some people hold onto stereotype so heavily, that they will literally threaten people who challenge this "norm" with harassment and violence. Clearly in this sort of case, the government should be involved. However, for something like standard hiring practices, I'm a little fuzzy as to how much government should dictate anti-discrimination policy, if any. I wouldn't mind seeing more data in this regard; at this point, I don't know how effective various tools have been at eliminating lazy hiring groupthink, or whether they aren't terribly effective at anything but increasing resentment.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >A good goal, I think, is to ensure that merit is the chief qualification for employment I agree with you >It's clear that institutional biases and societal biases exist, and that some of these biases may act as steering currents for certain people to go into certain careers. We agree on that, too >If someone can do the job well, they should do it if they are good at it. I do know someone, for instance, who's a female welder. Apparently, only 5% of welders are women. Well, she's one of them and from all indications she's good at it. Luckily, the place she works at doesn't have a "welding is a MAN's job" sort of attitude. That's good. I would never want to work somewhere that had an attitude that "this is a man's job, only men can do it" >Now, whether or not government enforced action (eg, to what degree, and what tools, governments should use to challenge the bias) is a good thing or not, I think that's more of an open question. I agree with you there as well. Even though I wouldn't want to work for a company that refused to hire women due to some illogical bigotry, I don't think it's government's role to force results on to who companies can hire. Look, we agree on almost everything, but I think you and others are missing my point because this is an emotionally sensitive topic for some people, and one that the media has also blown out of proportion. The idea that there are no differences between people is totally fraudulent. When are we going to sue the NBA for discriminating against Asians? What's the point if we don't? There are huge differences even between men and women. Serena and Venus Williams claimed they could beat any man in Tennis, and so they ended up playing a 203'rd ranked player "after he had a case of beer and a smoke," and neither could barely score a single point against him. There are differences between people and that's the way it is. If any of these people arguing against this actually cared about human rights or civil liberties they'd have said so by now. What they really care about are their feelings. That's what this is about - that, and lawyers cashing in on new diversity laws.
mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
This line of reasoning sounds just like the people who said there was no need for women's sports programs because the vast majority of women don't like sports. You are confusing cause and effect.