I almost want to stand up and applaud this quite outstanding level of whataboutery for the poor menz...

[ShotsFired]

Original article link (depressing, not surprising etc): www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/aug/30/keith-mann-the-inside-man-who-has-exposed-tech-industry-sexism

Comment:
I believe in equal opportunities , not equal outcomes . That said , I smile at the amount of time examining sexism in tech / science / engineering when there is a dearth of consideration given to the catastrophic loss of male teachers , desperately needed to reach out to disillusioned boys . Male teachers are an endangered species in primary schools and it's getting that way in secondary also . This is spreading to other 'caring' professions too as I noticed when visiting prospective universities with my daughter . 90% plus of psychology graduates are now women ..... at s time when men's mental health is in crisis . But hey , who cares?

I expect he's is too busy to write more bunkum because he spends his life campaigning and working to improve the ratios of men in teaching and other caring professions, given how strongly he feels about it. Right? Rght...? Hello?

I haven't asked anyone to explain anything to me?? I have been respectful and polite

You haven't been aggressive at all and it has been an interesting discussion a counter view can provide interesting talk points. You have occasionally expressed the view we are approaching things incorrectly and you are free to hold that view but you certainly aren't the first man to tell feminists they are approaching things incorrectly.

I was commenting more on the fact that men (in general rather than you specifically) coming onto feminist threads and suggesting we are wrong/mistaken/hate men/don't understand is commonplace and often our response can be sharp just because we are tired of it and some language has come into use as a result of frustration. It is a fact that being male and growing up with the benefits that accords you means that you cannot be entirely aware of the relentless wearing down of women (in several areas) which begins from birth and how that has shaped women.

Anyway I'm being thrown off the computer for now ...

Gentlemanjohn

I wasn't talking about you!

I was talking about the raging misogynists that often find these boards a magnet.

Gentlemanjohn I am still interested in your views about my post on unconscious bias at post 16.31.30 and polite reminder at 17.15.43.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore my question, but as you have answered others' questions I wonder why you are reluctant to answer mine?

gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-“blind”-auditions-female-musicians

Fair points Madam.

All I would say is this:

As a man I don't particularly like living in a patriarchal society either. Although to nothing like the same degree, I have an interest in the neurosis, power play and violence that characterises patriarchal culture coming to an end or being significantly ameliorated; and in its place I would like to live in a social, sexual and economic culture that fosters gender equality and allows both women and men to live free, happy lives.

I do not see this happening. Much of the western world is at the fag end of a financial, debt based capitalism that has left huge sections of the workforce impoverished, economically insecure and existentially threatened. Many of these people are women trapped in low wage work with precious little state funded child care, health care and social security. Some are forced into a sex industry that grows as the waged economy of old withers away. Many of the impoverished men - think of those in the US rust belt - have had their legitimate anger very successfully redirected towards women and other minorities by Trump and other right with demagogues. Africa and the ME are strewn with conflict ridden failed states, many of which are controlled by violently misogynist death cults like ISIS - or criminal gangs who play their part in the globalized abuse of women by trafficking them as sexual commodities. India - along with China set to become a new capitalist superpower to rival the US - is under the command of hard-line Hindu nationalists. Rape is endemic.

In the west, hardcore pornography is becoming a new norm along with an array of tech facilitated sexual services such as webcam sex, hook up apps (and soon no doubt sex robots) that all commodify an intimate, interpersonal act to serve the interests of big business. Child on child sexual assault in British schools is rising, mainly with boys as the perpetrators. Some are at primary school.

It is a mess.

Debates about the colour of children's toys and the iconography of toilet doors will only get swallowed up into the cacophonous click economy of the internet. The system absorbs such unthreatening opposition very readily. All it means is that Mumsnet and Google make some more money courtesy of us clicking away on an adsense network.

I love talking on the internet. It's fun and interesting. But I have never believed it will change a thing.

Neither do I believe that in the face of the global forces and convulsions warping our society - to the detriment of women and a civilized sexual-political culture - that cultural politics will change much.

But Gentleman, you were the one who asked whether these debates were even worthwhile. And I think many of us, while not dismissing the huge issues you point to, are trying to make the point that there ARE things we can do, at a smaller more local level, to change things. Including debate the issues or try to make people see them.

My suggestions re unconscious bias training were just dismissed out of hand, even though it's been proven to have a positive effect. Ditto my comments on corporates providing enhanced paternity pay (although you do seem to agree it's worthwhile). I had other suggestions like tax free childcare etc.

There are huge issues, and I do feel silly sometimes moaning because my expertise is ignored or ridiculed when some women are being forced into what is practically slavery through forced marriage at the age of 10, but I have todo what I can. If we can get to the point where the society I live in has started to make real changes, other changes become easier.

For example, the ongoing debate about culture vs sexism. Do we (westerners) have the right to impose our views on male-female relationships on other societies? It's a question and it needs to be discussed. But.... for many people, they don't even see it as an issue because they themselves are living a similar life in terms of male-female relationships, even if it's not quite so formalised or legitimised. If that makes sense? How can we ask a man or a woman in England to think about these issues if that same couple are in a situation, and think its normal, where he is the breadwinner, with complete control over the finances and she is the sahp who feels uncomfortable asking for money for a hair cut or to go out for an evening with friends?

We have to tackle these things one step at a time.

whoputtgecatout I agree that that there is such a thing as unconscious bias. The question is why would someone dispense with that bias upon becoming conscious of it? Why would they care?

It's a Socratic assumption which identifies vice with error. According to this perspective, people are bad, hateful, bigoted whatever out of ignorance. Once they become aware of this error in their thinking they change their attitudes and behaviour.

This is not true. To give the most extreme example, the Nazis did not unconsciously hate the Jews. They were quite open about it.

To your point about unconscious bias, because people DO care.

I was realised that I had internalised racist views from my upbringing. I won't go into the details as the story is one I've told a lot of people. I was horrified. I was a young, 20 something white liberal who genuinely considered that I was not at all racist etc but suddenly, here I was, making assumptions based on race. It made me really think about what I was doing and saying and, I like to think, has led to me being able much less likely to do the same subsequently.

I have a client who have done training on this in the context of women and promotions. And in many many cases, the men involved, when they see the things they've said, done or thought and accepted that they are demonstrating bias, have done everything they can to change it. The result is more women being promoted in that organisation because the process has included support on how to assess women more fairly.

I haven't seen the programme, but someone upthread pointed to an example where a male teacher hadn't realised he was unconsciously allowing the boys more room to shine and he has implemented strategies to stop.

Thanked Working.

My issue with unconscious bias training along with Equality and Diversity training and all these attempts to address deep rooted social issues through a kind of reverse brainwashing is that, as I have said, all they might do is bring the bias into consciousness, which does nothing to reduce it.

You might well be right. Decision-making men who suddenly find out they have unconscious bias, might just de-glove and say I don't fucking care.

But I believe there is still enough people, women and men, who do care. Whether it's genuine or because they are forced.

Out of interest, what are your suggestions?

"I love talking on the internet. It's fun and interesting. But I have never believed it will change a thing. "
So why bother taking up time and space and energy on boards that aren't here for you?
And why are we yet again letting a single man, however polite, do this?
Its not about you...............so go away, the women are talking!

Let me ask you this:

If a man is made aware that he is unconsciously biased against female applicants for jobs in his IT department, how would he put that right?

He could ask a colleague to cover up the names of the applicants before he viewed their CVs.

The same way as the teacher in the program used a basket of named balls to randomly select children to answer questions.

In terms of interviewing, he could have a panel, rather than just interview himself. Half men, half women.

That still might not get rid of 100% unconscious bias, but it would be a start.

You might well be right. Decision-making men who suddenly find out they have unconscious bias, might just de-glove and say I don't fucking care.

No, they would just pretend to care.

My suggestion would be to argue for the abolition of negotiated wages and bonuses which would to some extent wipe out the boys clubs. Unionise. Pay everyone in the various departments a similar wage so that if for whatever reason there are more women working in the marketing department then at least financially they're on the same level as the men.

Maybe consider a state funded three day week or UBI so both men and women aren't forced to compete with other for status or money in the first place.

Some form of democratic socialism.

In terms of interviewing, he could have a panel, rather than just interview himself. Half men, half women.

That still might not get rid of 100% unconscious bias, but it would be a start.

Good suggestion - but it's good because it has nothing to do with bias.

But even then - might not these women be unconsciously biased against a women doing a computing job?

Datun's suggestions are both good. I see it with promotions where, for example, some firms have banned the use of certain words that only tend to be applied to women in performance reviews. It seems silly, but it has the immediate affect of forcing people to use similar language for men and women and making the reviews more consistent.

Your suggestions are more radical. And involve the kind of societal change that is imposed from the outside and are unlikely to lead to inherent change in perceptions because a) it's imposed and b) there's no incentive to change.

To my law firm example - clients are increasingly insisting law firms are more diverse. senior management therefore is incentivised to make sure this happens. But, they can't promote willy nilly as quality deteriorates. So they are incentivised to find ways to a) keep women or people of colour who are strong in their roles but might be leaving due to the way they feel in the organisation and b) to actively seek out and promote people who might have been overlooked due to unconscious bias.

Meaningful change has to be imposed from the outside.

Changing words changes nothing. Words do not fix their own meaning. Regulating language just means misogynists and racists have to choose their words more carefully.

The problem I gave with your argument is that it legitimizes a capitalist system that is fundamentally unjust.

Can I ask you this: In your law firm's equality and diversity policy is there any mention of bias and discrimination towards people from a low socioeconomic background? Any mention of class at all?

Changing words changes nothing.

Whilst I understand why you would say this, I disagree. Language can absolutely change perception. I've done it myself.

Take the transgender ideology for instance, where language is paramount. A man calling himself a woman has not changed his sex. The material reality still exists.

But there are a considerable number of people who genuinely believe that his sex is immaterial, as it is his brain which defines it.

Has this altered material reality? No. Is it changing laws and attitudes? Yes.

I see it with promotions where, for example, some firms have banned the use of certain words that only tend to be applied to women in performance reviews. It seems silly, but it has the immediate affect of forcing people to use similar language for men and women and making the reviews more consistent.

This is very interesting indeed. My last performance review was stellar, except for one quite odd 'negative' point which was basically that I wasn't fluffy enough.

Not rude - apparently I'm extremely diplomatic, can put my point in a way which doesn't alienate or force but invites discussion. I never belittle people, all my directs reports had nothing. It good to say. So I asked for clarification on this point. Could they please give me some real examples so I can consider and improve?

And lo. None were given. So I politely pushed more - this is obviously something you feel is a flaw, I said. I'm open to feedback, but I'm not really understanding what the problem is - you're simulataneously telling me you don't like my communication style while saying it's good? All these ways you've described it are good. What's the problem?

Nothing more was forthcoming, and the negative stood (fair enough, their prerogative) but I'm remembering he phrases they used and yes - it was basically saying I negotiate and manage well, but not in a womanly way. Whatever that is.

I think language IS important. And that's difficult because censoring language is a huge problem in itself, but the way we talk about the sexes is very biased. Why was I, a woman who was strong/confident/calm/able to put her point across without doing that aggressively a problem?

And john I must disagree about the colour of clothes and toys. I know it seems trivial but it isn't, because little minds are sponges and it all starts there. With nice little girls playing with nice toys, and being nice. And twenty years of that needing to be nice later, they're unable to say no a man they don't want to date because it's not nice to let him down (there are two threads this past week on this alone.)

The whole way we raise our kids and deal with each other needs to change.

The whole transgender thing - i don't think anyone disagrees that everyone is entitled to feel safe and free from violence, but that's not accomplished by eroding the rights of women, or even worse, referring to them as 'cis' women. The very term is gross - it's saying 'I, as a man, will define myself as a better sort of woman and you can be this inferior type.'

But if we just got rid of all this genderised stuff there would be no need for people to feel like they were born the wrong sex. Because their sex wouldn't matter. And when you ask people why they think they're in the wrong body they say they think like a woman (but women - do we think differently? Science doesn't say so, it's debunked the idea of the female/male brain) and so you say 'well how do women think? ' and no one can answer that... and then you start to suspect that perhaps it's autogynophilia, or the innate desire to invade every space women have. There are always men on here doing that, it's like they can't beat women to have a space they can't access.

"Legitimises a capitalist system that is fundamentally unjust"

So you're not here to debate feminism but socio-economic issues? If you feel the only way to get men and women to be equal is to cancel capitalism, then I can't engage further because I simply don't agree and certainly none of my ideas or thoughts, which are rooted in changing the way we view people within the society we live in (which I'm broadly fine with) are every going to resonate with you. You want to have a discussion on capitalism vs socialism that's fine. But I'm not particularly interested in that discussion and it's not where I'm focused.

I will say that actually yes, as I understand it, this law firm does briefly look at the issue of socio-economic issues. Not as much because their challenges are around people of colour and gender rather than background (so a poor white man is actually very likely to do well within the firm but a rich black woman less so) so that's what they focus on, but it does come up.

But again, even if they don't get everything right, why does that take away from what they're doing or trying to do? I can't stand this idea that if it's not perfect, there's no point. We make changes where we can and build on them from there.

I think also gentleman, you clearly have a very low opinion of humanity - which is partly why you want imposed change, a cancellation of a capitalist system etc. Because you don't think people can be trusted to want to change or to improve things for themselves or others. I find people with that kind of attitude sad because it really doesn't reflect the people around me. Many of whom are out there doing their best to make the world a better place for their families and loved ones and for the world as a whole. People who choose to do certain (inconvenient) things because they think its better for the environment. People who volunteer at organisations dealing with sick children to their own emotional strain because they want to help. People who engage with charities, helping to fundraise and donating time, effort and money to help. These people can and do make a difference and don't need to have a system imposed on them.

And I'm pleased to say I know lots of these people and it means I am far more willing to engage with people and want them to make me see things in different ways and vice versa so that positive change can be effected long term.

anatidae your comments on your performance review are interesting and absolutely reflect what I've seen in the reading I've done on this. Similarly, often a woman's very positive performance review will have, in the section on things to improve etc things like, "lacks gravitas". Which seems to directly contradict the rest of the performance review where the feedback was that she was a strong communicator, well respected by clients, managers and junior staff. So how do the two relate? It makes no sense.

Meaningful change has to be imposed from the outside

Meaningful change doesn't arise out of nowhere. And some types of change which are deeply meaningful to women cannot be externally imposed.

whoputtgecatout I agree that that there is such a thing as unconscious bias. The question is why would someone dispense with that bias upon becoming conscious of it? Why would they care?

Either they would care - a lot of us do once our unconscious bias is brought to our attention; we become aware of what is happening (at least I do and try to avoid it in future) or, if they didn't care the unmasking of it produced a result that was effective i.e. in increasing the percentage of women in orchestras that may not have happened without revealing unconscious bias. Result.

Of course language matters. So much. And of course meaning can change over time.

Simple example: think of how the word "gay" has changed from meaning "happy" to "homosexual" to being a derogatory term ("urgh, those shoes are gross, they're so gay")