3 ms·

> >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me > Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would

> >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me > Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would be ecstatic to be hit on by a woman or two at a conference? Can we acknowledge that men and women are innately different? That forcing men to change their behavior significantly to accommodate for women in male spaces may in fact place unequal strain on men? "Male spaces"?! Since when are conferences male spaces, they are a freaking professional space and yes expecting men (and women) to act professionally is exactly what we should do. > Edit: are we just going to deny the fact that men are biologically driven to reproduce and compete for women? That this is an instinctual urge that we are required to suppress? You don't solve problems by ignoring their sources. B*ll, to imply that men can't control themselves is just offensive to men. But I guess you're also a proponent that women should wear burkas to protect them from those men that can't control themselves. Funny how those "policies" are always to the detriment of the women, not the men who can't control themselves. So much for unequal strain.

mtgp1000 6y ago
>"Male spaces"?! Since when are conferences male spaces, they are a freaking professional space and yes expecting men (and women) to act professionally is exactly what we should do. Male spaces are any spaces that are predominantly occupied by men. It is an observational definition and does not imply that women are deliberately excluded. >B*ll, to imply that men can't control themselves is just offensive to men. But I guess you're also a proponent that women should wear burkas to protect them from those men that can't control themselves. Funny how those "policies" are always to the detriment of the women, not the men who can't control themselves. So much for unequal strain. No, I am not implying that men cannot control themselves. But it's possible that in unisex spaces, there is a much higher burden on men not to be men than there is on women to accommodate to the spaces they are entering (practically by force). But I'm glad you brought up burkas, because I considered mentioning the fact that men and women have largely self segregated across time and culture; we seem to be taking our very modern experiment with diversity and inclusion as though history (and non western culture) has been unambiguously wrong. My ultimate point is inclusiveness does not come without its own costs, and there's no guarantee that an environment re-emagined to be overly inclusive will overall accomplish it's initial goals with the same effectiveness. In fact some degree of implicit exclusivity is not only good, but necessary for many pursuits. In sports the differences (not just in performance, but strategy) between males and females are obvious - but we're just supposed to pretend that sexual dimorphism stops at the shoulders?

mtgp1000 6y ago

>"Male spaces"?! Since when are conferences male spaces, they are a freaking professional space and yes expecting men (and women) to act professionally is exactly what we should do. Male spaces are any spaces that are predominantly occupied by men. It is an observational definition and does not imply that women are deliberately excluded. >B*ll, to imply that men can't control themselves is just offensive to men. But I guess you're also a proponent that women should wear burkas to protect them from those men that can't control themselves. Funny how those "policies" are always to the detriment of the women, not the men who can't control themselves. So much for unequal strain. No, I am not implying that men cannot control themselves. But it's possible that in unisex spaces, there is a much higher burden on men not to be men than there is on women to accommodate to the spaces they are entering (practically by force). But I'm glad you brought up burkas, because I considered mentioning the fact that men and women have largely self segregated across time and culture; we seem to be taking our very modern experiment with diversity and inclusion as though history (and non western culture) has been unambiguously wrong. My ultimate point is inclusiveness does not come without its own costs, and there's no guarantee that an environment re-emagined to be overly inclusive will overall accomplish it's initial goals with the same effectiveness. In fact some degree of implicit exclusivity is not only good, but necessary for many pursuits. In sports the differences (not just in performance, but strategy) between males and females are obvious - but we're just supposed to pretend that sexual dimorphism stops at the shoulders?