5 ms·

There are A LOT of female-only (or identifies as female) things (free STEM classes/camps, apprenticeships/internships, talks, events at museums, trips etc etc)

There are A LOT of female-only (or identifies as female) things (free STEM classes/camps, apprenticeships/internships, talks, events at museums, trips etc etc) for girls/young-women in the UK. Even at work there are female-only networking and career development and placement and mentorship things. Boys/men are not invited and are explicitly not welcome to attend. Is it any wonder that all of this is leading to more opportunities and more success for women? Not sure why people are surprised that positive discrimination is having the intended effect I am not saying it is wrong, but it was obvious that consistently giving special treatment and opportunities to one group while actively blocking access for another group would lead to outcomes that the other group would not benefit from when this all started a decade or two ago. I know "equality" is now a banned word and is on the naughty list, but whatever happened to equity for young school-age boys and men? It is not the fault of a 5 year old that historically men have had things better, yet they are now being actively sidelined and actively denied opportunities due to the sins of the historical patriarchy. Somehow I doubt we'll see "boys only" extra-classes and events etc at schools any time soon though.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
happytoexplain 2y ago
One nitpick: It is not the fault of anybody that any of their intrinsic member groups (e.g. race, gender) have historically been advantaged, regardless of age (until they decide to explicitly fight for that bias). I not only agree that doing this kind of social bias correction based on symptom addressal has eventual negative effects on others, I think holistically it's a net negative. Human nature makes this an almost impossible argument to present, but I really think it's just as damaging to actively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically advantaged group as it is to passively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically disadvantaged group.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I mostly agree with you. And yet... Let's say you have one group that is being left behind because of lack of social capital. (I think that's a decent term to describe the issue.) You don't want to discriminate against the other group, because that's unjust and has negative effects. But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. You say "don't reverse discriminate", and I think I agree. But then... what? What should we do?
  - schmorptron 2y ago
    Yes, I feel like this hits the nail on the head. It's completely understandable that something had to be done. This might not be the ideal solution, but it's extremely good that it happened and is happening to stop women from being the under group. If the alternative is doing nothing, this is definitely the preferable outcome. The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.
    - mattlondon 2y ago
      > The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done. Yeah I think this is part of the problem. Young boys have been given the message (implicitly, but also at times explicitly) that academic pursuits and achievement and learning are not for them. "Sorry you're a boy - this is not for you. Only girls get the support and encouragement and guidance and opportunities to achieve. Run a long and go play in the dirt or whatever it is boys do. You'll be fine on your own without any help." We've raised a generation or two of men who have been taught to not strive or aim high, and we're reaping what we've sown in that regard, with what was noted in the article of economically inactive males.
      - schmorptron 2y ago
        I've definitely felt this. I don't know how much of this feeling is legitimate and how much is just me seeking excuses externally, but the sentiment you mentioned is definitely felt and demotivating. Still, this isn't the women's fault who are engaging with and benefiting from these programs, so the solution isn't to go bash them for it. (not that I think you implied that) It's gotta be something different, uplifting. The most helpful sentiment might be "It's super cool that you're finally getting the opportunities that you deserved for years, and the support and coaching networks that have sprung up out of it are great. I'd like that as well."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

happytoexplain 2y ago

One nitpick: It is not the fault of anybody that any of their intrinsic member groups (e.g. race, gender) have historically been advantaged, regardless of age (until they decide to explicitly fight for that bias). I not only agree that doing this kind of social bias correction based on symptom addressal has eventual negative effects on others, I think holistically it's a net negative. Human nature makes this an almost impossible argument to present, but I really think it's just as damaging to actively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically advantaged group as it is to passively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically disadvantaged group.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I mostly agree with you. And yet... Let's say you have one group that is being left behind because of lack of social capital. (I think that's a decent term to describe the issue.) You don't want to discriminate against the other group, because that's unjust and has negative effects. But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. You say "don't reverse discriminate", and I think I agree. But then... what? What should we do?
- schmorptron 2y ago
  Yes, I feel like this hits the nail on the head. It's completely understandable that something had to be done. This might not be the ideal solution, but it's extremely good that it happened and is happening to stop women from being the under group. If the alternative is doing nothing, this is definitely the preferable outcome. The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.
  - mattlondon 2y ago
    > The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done. Yeah I think this is part of the problem. Young boys have been given the message (implicitly, but also at times explicitly) that academic pursuits and achievement and learning are not for them. "Sorry you're a boy - this is not for you. Only girls get the support and encouragement and guidance and opportunities to achieve. Run a long and go play in the dirt or whatever it is boys do. You'll be fine on your own without any help." We've raised a generation or two of men who have been taught to not strive or aim high, and we're reaping what we've sown in that regard, with what was noted in the article of economically inactive males.
    - schmorptron 2y ago
      I've definitely felt this. I don't know how much of this feeling is legitimate and how much is just me seeking excuses externally, but the sentiment you mentioned is definitely felt and demotivating. Still, this isn't the women's fault who are engaging with and benefiting from these programs, so the solution isn't to go bash them for it. (not that I think you implied that) It's gotta be something different, uplifting. The most helpful sentiment might be "It's super cool that you're finally getting the opportunities that you deserved for years, and the support and coaching networks that have sprung up out of it are great. I'd like that as well."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]