group dynamics in majority female/minority male groups

[margerykemp]

Has anyone experienced this and noticed any interesting patterns?

I think the dynamics never really get away from the fact that, when you have a majority female/minority male group in our society, it is contained within the wider social assumption that male things are default. So dynamics either react to that or acknowledge that, even if individuals try not to.

My classes all through university have mostly been that composition. I have found that generally, there is an assumption that male pronouns will be used, and we will expect to read male-authored texts unless the class is very clearly labeled as a women's studies class. But those classes happen within a subject where the profs are still mostly male, so it's hard to know how to analyze it.

OTOH, my department now has a female majority at graduate, lecturer and prof level and I have found it to be a very supportive environment for women. There is a huge emphasis on collaboration. I have a theory that the patriarchy likes binaries, and that women - who're so often pushed to the outside - are very good at deconstructing or destabilizing binaries and, instead, seeing the grey areas. I suspect it's not coincidental that the department I'm in is interdisciplinary as well as female-dominated.

But, of course, all the nice things I'm saying about it go with the rider that many people there have, and are aware of, the misogyny in other areas, so it's like a safe space, rather than a space that happens to have lots of women.

Interesting topic, thanks.

Sorry, still half asleep - that should be 'many people there have been affected by, and are aware of, the misogyny ...'.

It takes a man who is confident in himself to survive a majority female staffroom in primary. That doesn't mean a bloke who throws his weight around and needs to be dominant, but some of the jokes, hazing and expectations of the women can cross the line of civil behaviour.
They have to fight the gender stereotypes and expectations.
In good primaries, there is a respect for the strengths and opinions of all members, equally. Nothing to do with income levels or academic prowess.

This is a tangent to your point down, but it made me think of a mate of mine. He's one of our few male students in my dept. He was saying how he found it surprisingly fine being in a minority, and it was probably because he is quite confident in himself, and so on. And the thing that hit me was ... he thinks he's doing something really praiseworthy, doesn't he? I mean, bless him, he was a nice bloke and all .. but he really thought him being in a majority female department (enclosed in a male-dominated university in a male-dominated society, and in a context where any time we went out of university to do conferences or whatever, the majority of senior people would be men), was the same as a woman being in a majority male context.

I'm not having a go, either at him or at male primary teachers (good for them, it is important IMO). But it is important to recognize that the dynamic of a female-dominated group in our society is always conditioned by the fact that society as a whole is patriarchial.

'But it is important to recognize that the dynamic of a female-dominated group in our society is always conditioned by the fact that society as a whole is patriarchial.'

I agree, which is why it is important to not push males in a majority female group to fulfill their stereotypical roles of dominant, football-playing disciplinarians. Or allow them to play the cockerel in the henhouse.
Why recreate the inequalities and stupidities of the patriarchy when there is a chance to adopt a different stance.

I certainly agree it is important not to push males to fulfill stereotypical roles, of course. That's not even in question.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused - is that what you thought my post was about or is it a separate point?

I don't think having a female-dominated group automatically gives you a chance to reject completely the inequalities of the patriarchy. If that were so it'd be very simple IMO - we could just be separatists and ignore the patriarchy. But I don't think in reality it works like that - even when people did discuss separatist groups on that old thread about it, it was clear those groups were defined by the patriarchy that surrounded them. They were having to struggle to survive - and on that thread people were forced to justify them - because the patriarchy can't just be discounted. It's still there even if you try to make a space in which to discount its rules.

(Sorry, that is very pessimistic! I don't mean patriarchy will never go away, just it is there now.)

During my time as a student nurse, we went through in "sets" or classes of about 30. In each you would get 2 maybe 3 males and the rest females. I was one of the two reps on the student council and you guessed it, the other from my set was a guy. In fact, the student council (made up of 2 reps from each of 9 sets in training at any given time) was about 1/3 male. Was this because the men tended to be more confident, assertive and ambitious, so put themselves forward for leadership roles? Was it because female students chose men to represent them where possible because they'd been socialised to believe men make better leaders? I really don't know.

Did a computing MSc a few years ago. About one in ten of us were female. I found the men used to treat me as "Mum" relying on me to organise them or tutor them in the bits they didn't understand. It didn't stop them partonising me at every opportunity mind.

What made me laugh was at our graduation ceremony. It must have come as no surprise to my classmates that I was top in the class. I outshone them in every single assignment and exam. Yet, when the academic prizes were handed out (to me) the level of muttering about "special consideration" and "only given to a woman to make the University look good" was truly appaling.

I've noticed that men tend to get called "She" and generally talked about as one of the girls.
Women also tend to look after the man and help him get on more than they would help a new woman in the workplace. (In my case a nursery).
The talk in the staff room tends not to get moderated much. The man is often subjected to a rant of how men are complete and utter bastards. If she remembers there might be a "Not you though" to the chap.

It depends on the environment I think - when working in male-dominated kitchens the sexual innuendos are plat-du-jour and if the woman wants to fit in she has to "be one of the guys". But a single bloke in a female dominated environment (crafty hobbies, primary school staff) is welcomed. When the conversation turns to female topics, apologies are made to the man. Go figure...

Having said that, when I worked in male dominated IT, apart from the occasional office porn, there was a pretty nice egalitarian vibe, except for the occasional nobhead who like to quote "statistics" about women not being as good at Maths, but people mostly looked upon them as the nobheads they were.

"The man is often subjected to a rant of how men are complete and utter bastards. If she remembers there might be a "Not you though" to the chap." Yes, I can second that! IME they come from women who wouldn't know feminism if it bit them on the bum...

My dh is a SAHD and active in our local PT equivalent (we are in Canada at the moment). This year he was asked if he would be chair (he was secretary last year) and he felt a bit awkward about the idea as he is usually the only guy in the group. He agreed to be co-chair and was talking to me about the dynamics of the group and how he is sometimes concerned that when he says things sometimes it shuts down conversations, and he wasn't sure if that was because he is a man, English (we can sound a bit authoritative I'm told), doesn't say very much or because the everyone recognises that the conversation needed to be brought to a close (it is after all part of the role of the chair to wrap things up).

I thought it was interesting he even thought about it, as I just tend to say what I think needs saying regardless of the context (sometimes I shouldn't!)

Hire a male and a female trainee, have them working together and in an hour he is giving her orders and she is bringing him coffee..
Unfortunately yes, we are all* socialized and conditioned to see men as leaders and women as helpers and pleasers.
(*well not us feminists, of course).

even though many battles and wars were won by male leaders?

My expereince is the same as SGMs.
One of the most interesting things that happened when I was doing my PGCE was the tutor said one afternoon that we could only speak if he said we could, he then only let the females in the room respond in the session. Within 20 minutes of this the males were positively seething. He pointed out that this was generally how the females experienced the sessions, silenced and largely ignored.

carpet - were they in majority female groups at the time then? Wow, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible I suppose. Do you have a link? SGM had some fascinating info a while back about women in WWII smuggling grenades in their vaginas - it was shocking and made me think of war differently.

nope, women were at home maintaining the home while their men kept the country safe

Um, ok - sorry, I'm missing something, what's the relation to this thread then?

And which war are we talking? I've not read about the one where women stayed home and men kept the country safe myself, but always interested in learning.

ella do you know history? What happened in times of War and still happens in modern wars? Men (mostly) go out to fight, their partners don't

No, that is a mistake.

Historically, woman have been involved in wars as combatants and victims. This is still happening in Afghanistan - women are right there, being killed, as are children. It is really sad.

It's actually a very modern development (and, obviously, one-sided), that for us Brits, war doesn't happen on our home soil and is often fought by men.

Though when I say this I always think of my very brave schoolmate who was killed a few years ago - she is much missed.

battle of Britain. All pilots were men, women were at home either being bombed or being protected

No, that's not true.

Women in WWII were very active - in fact without women crews on the ground, those pilots would really have struggled! And indeed without women munitions workers, who had a very high likelihood of being killed because their factories were targeted.

I did this stuff at primary school and a good thing they got us to do was to actually talk to our grandparents about it - it was fascinating! It surprises me that this is not more widely taught.

I agree with you though that modern wars sometimes give us a rather skewed idea of what war has historically been like - as a rule of thumb, any war where you're not fighting on your own territory will be very different from any war where you are fighting on your own territory. And of course, modern warfare is potentially much more remote (for technologically advanced side) than has been the norm.

hmm... ok. You must have been taught differently ir from a different book. Pretty much all sources I read never mentioned women's roles