6 ms·

> Men can get away with making sexist jokes (or even not-jokes) around other men. That's an important observation and plays a huge role in perpetuating sexism

by bitops 13y ago

> Men can get away with making sexist jokes (or even not-jokes) around other men. That's an important observation and plays a huge role in perpetuating sexism and gender discrimination. It continues to exist because guys let other guys get away with it. If you speak up and indicate that you're not okay with it, behaviors and attitudes may change. It's not easy and it requires courage. But it's necessary to really make a dent in the historical patterns.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Maybe it isn't a problem that needs fixing? Maybe making work another place of constant judgement and time under the PC microscope would not be a net positive? Remember there's a difference between bare-faced misogyny and garden variety politically incorrectness.
- bitops 13y ago
  I'm certainly not advocating that work should be a place of constant judgment. And I'm not fan of being under a constant behavioral microscope. I do find it important that work be a place where I feel respected and safe. Eliminating sexism and gender discrimination in the workplace is part of that effort.
- dominotw 13y ago
  Nice observation. One of my colleague got a stern warning for using the word dick ( 'dont be a dick' kind of way) around female colleagues, because two women sitting behind him complained to management about it. I am sure he is not discriminatory, biased or misogynistic. I guess it wise to think about what you are saying and not say stuff like 'fuck off', 'stop bitching' which may be construed as inappropriate.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I can't claim it is my own observation. I got it from a feminist talking about how maybe the reason men are resisting women's ingress into male-dominated professions is because when women find the traditionally male workplace environment unsatisfactory, they expect the environment to change to suit them.
    - omegaham 13y ago
      As a man in a pretty male-dominated profession, (Military) I can say that this is the case. It's exacerbated by blatant sexism, but the biggest rational fear is that women expect the environment to change when they arrive and that this change will be detrimental. The current culture and environment has been tried and proven to work, and they're fearful of a change in that culture impacting success. Having worked with women, I'm of the opinion that it really depends on leadership and the maturity of everyone in the shop. If you have scumbags around that are allowed to act unchecked, then a woman can destroy a shop in a matter of weeks. If you have good leadership that clearly outlines proper and improper behavior, then things usually come out ok.
      - bitops 13y ago
        Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's especially valuable since you are working in a historically male institution. It'd be interesting if you wrote about more of your experiences and observations on this topic (like a blog post). I would be excited to read it.
        omegaham 13y ago
        Women in the military is a really, really complicated topic. It'll take a long post to do it justice; you could easily write several books on the subject. First, as you have said, the military has always been a male-dominated institution. The first time that we actually started putting large amounts of women into uniform was during World War 2. We took women for clerical jobs so that more men were able to fight on the front lines. The recruiting slogan was "Free an Man to Fight." The military has always been seen as a catalyst for social change. It's arguable that the integration of black and white soldiers was the first step in the civil rights movement, and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is probably going to be seen as the first step of the federal government ending de jure discrimination of gay people. With this in mind, a lot of feminist lobby groups are trying to do the same thing with women with the exact same goals. The problem is that men and women are much further apart than these other integration challenges. Black men and white men are culturally different, and there were a lot of problems with integration. I'd say that there still are problems; if you look at a battalion, you'll notice that all the black guys hang out with each other, all the Hispanic guys hang out with each other, and so on. However, everyone is still able to function as a unit. The same is true for gays. I'd say that it's mostly because most gay men stay in the closet for their terms, (lesbians are almost universally accepted) but the repeal of DADT didn't really have much of an effect on anything because a gay man is still basically the same as a straight man when it comes to doing work. This is not so with women. Similar to firefighting work, the military is a very physical job. Everything ends up being physical in some shape or form, and it really doesn't matter which MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) you pick, you're going to end up doing something physical as a matter of your daily duty. There are particularly egregious cases where they stick women into Ordnance, but even a job like avionics technician involves doing hard labor (Ha, you thought you'd use a soldering iron all day? Guess your recruiter didn't tell you that you have to take off all the hydraulic lines before you can take the control box out. Have fun). There's a very clear double standard that is communicated, and it's insidious for several reasons. When a man "falls out" (can't keep up with the rest of the unit) of a run, his life sucks. In my shop, falling out means you just volunteered to run with the master sergeant at 2:00 in the afternoon. It's summer in Arizona, and it's usually around 115 degrees. Not a good time. We have a guy who isn't very good at running; as a result, he gets to run every day at 2:00. He is pretty miserable. He's definitely getting better, though. When we had a female sergeant, she also fell out every time. The response was indifference because, "well, she's a woman and it's just par for the course that women can't keep up with men." It's also implicit that said sergeant could make the case that the master sergeant is only making her run at 2:00 because she's a woman. The case would go, "Your standard is too high, and you know that I can't keep up. You're being a big meaniehead and you're only making this standard because you're sexist." The master sergeant's career would be fried before you can say "Equal Opportunity." An EO case is a career-ender. Because this issue can't be dealt with in the open, (it's verboten to say that women are simply not as physically capable as men) you have a lot of people who pay lip service to the "We're all equal" party line but snicker at women in leadership positions. And, sadly, it's justified in many cases. This aforementioned double standard also get applied to promotion along with daily life, and it's a kick in the teeth when you're a lance corporal obeying a corporal who is, by all objective measures, a worse Marine than you. That applies to either gender, but it just so happens that due to affirmative action, there are a lot of women in leadership positions who have no business being there. Couple that with the fact that women make just over 6% of the Marine Corps, (small sample size) and you get sexism. I don't really feel like going into the sexual harassment / assault part and the fraternization, as that's just shitty behavior that can be remedied by court-martialing people and setting a clear standard. In any case, the real problem is the double standard. If you apply a double standard, then you get sexism. If you hold everyone accountable, then you get genuine respect. Doing so, however, would drastically decrease the number of women in the military. I personally think that's a good thing if it means that the remainder are respected and valued.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    If anything "don't be a dick" is misandrist.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    This is an issue with jerks in any situation that entitles them to some automatic due process or protection. That might be gender/race/disability or union affiliation or nepotism. People who are skilled in manipulating the environment use whatever tools are available to get their way. When you decide that an entire class of people, say women, are unwelcome because you're worried about dealing with chickenshit complaints, you are discriminating illegally.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    You don't have to be a woman to be offended by profanity. So it is hard to say (based on your few sentences) that this had anything to do with man vs woman. Perhaps the two people sitting behind the person were just offended by the language in a general "I don't think we should be cursing at work" sort of way. Not everything has something to do with the gender of the people involved. Wait... that can't be true... can it? ;)
    - newnewnew 13y ago
      If a man that is not a member of a protected minority complains about profanity, the powers that be tell him to suck it up. If a protected minority complains, the user of profanity may be fired (see: Adria Richards)
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        Sad but true. That is a cross we'll have to bear until everyone else gets rid of their crosses first. :(
        dominotw 13y ago
        Yes true. But for now, I would rather shut the fuck up that make women on the team uncomfortable. I'll reserve my profanities to gym's locker room.
- mcguire 13y ago
  Maybe it would be better if the women stayed home and did whatever it is that they do there? Unfortunately, the economy over the last 40 years has demonstrated that that option is sub-optimal. Or did you mean by "time under the PC microscope" and "garden variety politically incorrectness" that you are ok if other people are uncomfortable, as long as you aren't?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Unfortunately, the economy over the last 40 years has demonstrated that that option is sub-optimal. Huh? Explain? I don't even know what you are referencing.
    - mcguire 13y ago
      My favorite explanation comes from the Economist[1]: "The increase in female employment has also accounted for a big chunk of global growth in recent decades. GDP growth can come from three sources: employing more people; using more capital per worker; or an increase in the productivity of labour and capital due to new technology, say. Since 1970 women have filled two new jobs for every one taken by a man. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the employment of extra women has not only added more to GDP than new jobs for men but has also chipped in more than either capital investment or increased productivity. Carve up the world's economic growth a different way and another surprising conclusion emerges: over the past decade or so, the increased employment of women in developed economies has contributed much more to global growth than China has." [1] http://www.economist.com/node/6802551 http://www.economist.com/node/6802551

by bitops 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

Maybe it isn't a problem that needs fixing? Maybe making work another place of constant judgement and time under the PC microscope would not be a net positive? Remember there's a difference between bare-faced misogyny and garden variety politically incorrectness.

bitops 13y ago
I'm certainly not advocating that work should be a place of constant judgment. And I'm not fan of being under a constant behavioral microscope. I do find it important that work be a place where I feel respected and safe. Eliminating sexism and gender discrimination in the workplace is part of that effort.
dominotw 13y ago
Nice observation. One of my colleague got a stern warning for using the word dick ( 'dont be a dick' kind of way) around female colleagues, because two women sitting behind him complained to management about it. I am sure he is not discriminatory, biased or misogynistic. I guess it wise to think about what you are saying and not say stuff like 'fuck off', 'stop bitching' which may be construed as inappropriate.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I can't claim it is my own observation. I got it from a feminist talking about how maybe the reason men are resisting women's ingress into male-dominated professions is because when women find the traditionally male workplace environment unsatisfactory, they expect the environment to change to suit them.
  - omegaham 13y ago
    As a man in a pretty male-dominated profession, (Military) I can say that this is the case. It's exacerbated by blatant sexism, but the biggest rational fear is that women expect the environment to change when they arrive and that this change will be detrimental. The current culture and environment has been tried and proven to work, and they're fearful of a change in that culture impacting success. Having worked with women, I'm of the opinion that it really depends on leadership and the maturity of everyone in the shop. If you have scumbags around that are allowed to act unchecked, then a woman can destroy a shop in a matter of weeks. If you have good leadership that clearly outlines proper and improper behavior, then things usually come out ok.
    - bitops 13y ago
      Thanks for sharing your perspective. It's especially valuable since you are working in a historically male institution. It'd be interesting if you wrote about more of your experiences and observations on this topic (like a blog post). I would be excited to read it.
      - omegaham 13y ago
        Women in the military is a really, really complicated topic. It'll take a long post to do it justice; you could easily write several books on the subject. First, as you have said, the military has always been a male-dominated institution. The first time that we actually started putting large amounts of women into uniform was during World War 2. We took women for clerical jobs so that more men were able to fight on the front lines. The recruiting slogan was "Free an Man to Fight." The military has always been seen as a catalyst for social change. It's arguable that the integration of black and white soldiers was the first step in the civil rights movement, and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is probably going to be seen as the first step of the federal government ending de jure discrimination of gay people. With this in mind, a lot of feminist lobby groups are trying to do the same thing with women with the exact same goals. The problem is that men and women are much further apart than these other integration challenges. Black men and white men are culturally different, and there were a lot of problems with integration. I'd say that there still are problems; if you look at a battalion, you'll notice that all the black guys hang out with each other, all the Hispanic guys hang out with each other, and so on. However, everyone is still able to function as a unit. The same is true for gays. I'd say that it's mostly because most gay men stay in the closet for their terms, (lesbians are almost universally accepted) but the repeal of DADT didn't really have much of an effect on anything because a gay man is still basically the same as a straight man when it comes to doing work. This is not so with women. Similar to firefighting work, the military is a very physical job. Everything ends up being physical in some shape or form, and it really doesn't matter which MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) you pick, you're going to end up doing something physical as a matter of your daily duty. There are particularly egregious cases where they stick women into Ordnance, but even a job like avionics technician involves doing hard labor (Ha, you thought you'd use a soldering iron all day? Guess your recruiter didn't tell you that you have to take off all the hydraulic lines before you can take the control box out. Have fun). There's a very clear double standard that is communicated, and it's insidious for several reasons. When a man "falls out" (can't keep up with the rest of the unit) of a run, his life sucks. In my shop, falling out means you just volunteered to run with the master sergeant at 2:00 in the afternoon. It's summer in Arizona, and it's usually around 115 degrees. Not a good time. We have a guy who isn't very good at running; as a result, he gets to run every day at 2:00. He is pretty miserable. He's definitely getting better, though. When we had a female sergeant, she also fell out every time. The response was indifference because, "well, she's a woman and it's just par for the course that women can't keep up with men." It's also implicit that said sergeant could make the case that the master sergeant is only making her run at 2:00 because she's a woman. The case would go, "Your standard is too high, and you know that I can't keep up. You're being a big meaniehead and you're only making this standard because you're sexist." The master sergeant's career would be fried before you can say "Equal Opportunity." An EO case is a career-ender. Because this issue can't be dealt with in the open, (it's verboten to say that women are simply not as physically capable as men) you have a lot of people who pay lip service to the "We're all equal" party line but snicker at women in leadership positions. And, sadly, it's justified in many cases. This aforementioned double standard also get applied to promotion along with daily life, and it's a kick in the teeth when you're a lance corporal obeying a corporal who is, by all objective measures, a worse Marine than you. That applies to either gender, but it just so happens that due to affirmative action, there are a lot of women in leadership positions who have no business being there. Couple that with the fact that women make just over 6% of the Marine Corps, (small sample size) and you get sexism. I don't really feel like going into the sexual harassment / assault part and the fraternization, as that's just shitty behavior that can be remedied by court-martialing people and setting a clear standard. In any case, the real problem is the double standard. If you apply a double standard, then you get sexism. If you hold everyone accountable, then you get genuine respect. Doing so, however, would drastically decrease the number of women in the military. I personally think that's a good thing if it means that the remainder are respected and valued.
- Amadou 13y ago
  If anything "don't be a dick" is misandrist.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  This is an issue with jerks in any situation that entitles them to some automatic due process or protection. That might be gender/race/disability or union affiliation or nepotism. People who are skilled in manipulating the environment use whatever tools are available to get their way. When you decide that an entire class of people, say women, are unwelcome because you're worried about dealing with chickenshit complaints, you are discriminating illegally.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  You don't have to be a woman to be offended by profanity. So it is hard to say (based on your few sentences) that this had anything to do with man vs woman. Perhaps the two people sitting behind the person were just offended by the language in a general "I don't think we should be cursing at work" sort of way. Not everything has something to do with the gender of the people involved. Wait... that can't be true... can it? ;)
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    If a man that is not a member of a protected minority complains about profanity, the powers that be tell him to suck it up. If a protected minority complains, the user of profanity may be fired (see: Adria Richards)
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Sad but true. That is a cross we'll have to bear until everyone else gets rid of their crosses first. :(
      - dominotw 13y ago
        Yes true. But for now, I would rather shut the fuck up that make women on the team uncomfortable. I'll reserve my profanities to gym's locker room.
mcguire 13y ago
Maybe it would be better if the women stayed home and did whatever it is that they do there? Unfortunately, the economy over the last 40 years has demonstrated that that option is sub-optimal. Or did you mean by "time under the PC microscope" and "garden variety politically incorrectness" that you are ok if other people are uncomfortable, as long as you aren't?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Unfortunately, the economy over the last 40 years has demonstrated that that option is sub-optimal. Huh? Explain? I don't even know what you are referencing.
  - mcguire 13y ago
    My favorite explanation comes from the Economist[1]: "The increase in female employment has also accounted for a big chunk of global growth in recent decades. GDP growth can come from three sources: employing more people; using more capital per worker; or an increase in the productivity of labour and capital due to new technology, say. Since 1970 women have filled two new jobs for every one taken by a man. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the employment of extra women has not only added more to GDP than new jobs for men but has also chipped in more than either capital investment or increased productivity. Carve up the world's economic growth a different way and another surprising conclusion emerges: over the past decade or so, the increased employment of women in developed economies has contributed much more to global growth than China has." [1] http://www.economist.com/node/6802551 http://www.economist.com/node/6802551