Do Pro-Women Groups on Campus Discriminate Against Men?
wsj.com
wsj.com
I was in one of those in college. Literally the only benefit that group provided was that all members could share 3 floors of a dorm and those floors were reserved for WISE. Campus housing was already largely segregated by sex, but some of the floors not in use by WISE were for men. This wasn't a particularly nice dorm building either (in fact many argued it was one of the worst). But the WISE program did give us a good benefit by making it easier for us to find people we could study with without having to venture out to the library or random people's dorms all the time. I see no reason that a male equivalent of this program shouldn't exist though.
Most "womens" groups I avoided like the plague though. I didn't like the implication that I needed special support or something. It's the same reason I've turned down requests for me to speak to "women in tech" groups and the like. There's a pipeline problem, but it was started well before college for most folks, so these groups are really not very helpful for bringing people in anyhow.
I go back-and-forth with this in the case of my wife, who works at a large tech company. On the one hand, she's quite capable of doing the job without special treatment. But on the other hand, if the odds really are stacked against her...
She's a big girl and can make her own decisions, I just wonder what I'd do were I in the same boat. Probably the same thing she (and from the way it sounds, you) would do: mostly avoid the drama that such groups can bring.
I'm sure that making sure to refer to my wife as "adult woman" in the future will cure the problem of management being packed with men of the same ethnicity as the group manager.
I believe what these groups advocate for on paper and what they knowingly actually advocate for are very different. IMO these groups foster division and group-think that makes learning harder for all involved and if anything promotes the portrayal of toxic culture as a purely gendered issue along with wrapping everything under a poorly though-out victim mentality.
Some of the best female developers I've come to know both as co-workers and mentors (although I'm a man) avoid these groups and find them counter-productive. Some have even been banned for just speaking on the issue of these groups, regarding their "real" benefit. I acknowledge there are problems with tech culture, but pro advocacy and labeling of any groups involved will never be a productive way to solve these problems.
We talk a lot of about diversity, and this word has been in many ways, commandeered by genderism. Diversity is not only gender diversity. But it seems to be the diversity we can hear most about at times.
Diversity for me is ensuring anyone with the potential can develop the talents to execute from any diverse background. (Happy to improve this defintion).
If using pro-women groups as an example, the issue is not the women. It's men. Existing decision making powers and structures need to change behaviour.
Focusing on Humanism may be another approach. Everyone is a citizen in humanity, and adjusting the structures and powers within that context might set bars and standards for behaviour can be set within it.
For instance, I have worked in circumstances where women use similar rhetoric created in these groups to foster a toxic culture that affects everyone negatively. Again, I cannot stress enough, toxic culture affects everyone.
If we don't start developing new approaches that are less reminiscent of methods used to remedy elementary school playground scuffles, we'll just keep seeing more articles / threads titled "Why Networking is only hard for <women / insert some group here>".
Furthermore, an un-intended side-effect of these kinds of gendered / tribalist approaches is that they empower companies / organizations to use them for profit. For example, the number of coding bootcamps that target and exploit women under the guise of "fighting for equality" is disgusting and nauseating.
By looking at it in reverse it is very discriminatory in any sense:
- Men’s only VC firm
- Outstanding Male Award
- White Male Study Room
I completely understand equity and trying to actively support women and minorities, however I’d just like to know the current law and where the line is drawn.
The act defines what specifically is a protected class (sex, race, religion, and so on) and a number of specific situations where it is not permitted to discriminate against members of those classes (e.g. employment, schools, access to public spaces like restaurants and theatres, etc.)
So in your examples I believe the answer is yes, single-sex clubs are permitted so long as they're private clubs. A scholarship that only members of a single sex are eligible for is also allowed since that's not one of the things the act covers. I think a VC firm that only backs founders of a particular sex is also legal since that's investment rather than employment.
An Outstanding Male Award would be legal (and I can't really think of any ethical reason that'd be a problem.)
A White Male Study Room would probably _not_ be legal presuming we're talking about a public facility, however to expand on that concept a bit, I _think_ a private school for white males _might_ be legal. Title IV appears to be the relevant portion, which doesn't as far as I can tell apply to private schools so long as they don't receive any sort of public funding for research or other purposes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [2] https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=...
The spread of this view is unfortunate, because for any particular privileged member, it makes the support of social causes a lose-lose proposition.
While in some people this manifests as outwardly displayed resentment, most people in this situation just avoid engaging the topic entirely, as the default option in this trolley problem. This is also an outcome that activists decry, but ironically people in this situation are afforded by their privilege to withdraw from the conversation.
Seeing threads like this appear and then get flagged shows that enough people anticipate no productive discussion on the matter, which seems to validate the efficacy of the strategy of silence.
Surprisingly some womens' colleges accept FtM students, some accept MtF students, and others accept both or neither.
The first seems odd but is actually pretty historically justifiable in the number of women known to make history by disguising as men. Whether they did so for sake of opportunity or gender identity and how much the two overlapped in the context of the time ("I am a doctor above all else but women cannot be doctors...") is an interesting concept to explore. Doing so couls be said to honor their legacy.
The second is of course justifiable as supporting the gender.