Why Aren’t Feminist Groups More Concerned that So Many Universities Discriminate Against Women

Wait, you mean that feminist organizations aren't raging against institutional measures toward equality that are seeking to undermine disparate outcomes for men and women? You don't say.

Let's me real, for women, it's damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they were overrepresented and were still raging at the machine that they weren't being allowed to monopolize and fully expand their greatest market share, there would be a thread just like this saying "look at these feminists attacking gender equality; see, they're just man-haters!!!!"


Fucking yawn.
 
My dad is a small contractor and I've worked with him plenty. I guarantee you there are crossfit bitches out there who can bench more than me but are they willing to get their hands dirty? Haven't seen many women who are on construction sites.

There are plenty of guys who are stronger than you too but they're not all working construction. The difference with the female population is that it's a much smaller percentage of them, relative to the whole, who are capable of performing the tasks.

When we talk about Crossfit women, for example, we're talking about a very select group of women who are interested enough in fitness to include some form of strength training into their regimen. But is strength training a major part of most women's workouts, as opposed to endless amounts of pointless aerobic work and yoga?

Obviously I think you have a population problem. Your average guy is going to be significantly stronger than your average girl without any training. And to get your average girl up to average male strength standards, you're going to need a girl who has an interest in strength training and pursues it to a sufficient to degree to make up for the gender difference.

And then, from that already small population, you're going to need that woman to also be drawn to contractor work. That's a very small percentage of the total female population.

And it's not a good comparison to your average male because your average male doesn't have to climb the strength training route to engage in the basic tasks of the job. And even then, contractor work isn't something that most men opt for as their first career choice.
 
There are plenty of guys who are stronger than you too but they're not all working construction. The difference with the female population is that it's a much smaller percentage of them, relative to the whole, who are capable of performing the tasks.

When we talk about Crossfit women, for example, we're talking about a very select group of women who are interested enough in fitness to include some form of strength training into their regimen. But is strength training a major part of most women's workouts, as opposed to endless amounts of pointless aerobic work and yoga?

Obviously I think you have a population problem. Your average guy is going to be significantly stronger than your average girl without any training. And to get your average girl up to average male strength standards, you're going to need a girl who has an interest in strength training and pursues it to a sufficient to degree to make up for the gender difference.

And then, from that already small population, you're going to need that woman to also be drawn to contractor work. That's a very small percentage of the total female population.

And it's not a good comparison to your average male because your average male doesn't have to climb the strength training route to engage in the basic tasks of the job. And even then, contractor work isn't something that most men opt for as their first career choice.

What is the harm? So what is the solution? What if men are better suited to some intellectual pursuits such as engineering? What if women are better suited to other types of intellectual pursuits?
 
There are plenty of guys who are stronger than you too but they're not all working construction. The difference with the female population is that it's a much smaller percentage of them, relative to the whole, who are capable of performing the tasks.

When we talk about Crossfit women, for example, we're talking about a very select group of women who are interested enough in fitness to include some form of strength training into their regimen. But is strength training a major part of most women's workouts, as opposed to endless amounts of pointless aerobic work and yoga?

Obviously I think you have a population problem. Your average guy is going to be significantly stronger than your average girl without any training. And to get your average girl up to average male strength standards, you're going to need a girl who has an interest in strength training and pursues it to a sufficient to degree to make up for the gender difference.

And then, from that already small population, you're going to need that woman to also be drawn to contractor work. That's a very small percentage of the total female population.

And it's not a good comparison to your average male because your average male doesn't have to climb the strength training route to engage in the basic tasks of the job. And even then, contractor work isn't something that most men opt for as their first career choice.
Yeah I don't expect that women should be equally represented in these industries nor do I expect that they want to be.

But I think the point in highlighting the over-representation of men in dangerous fields is to counter the idea of male privilege. Men of the lower, blue collar classes have to risk their health and lives for a living in many cases, not so much that they're oppressed into these roles by society as much as by necessity.
 
What is the harm? So what is the solution? What if men are better suited to some intellectual pursuits such as engineering? What if women are better suited to other types of intellectual pursuits?

I didn't say there was a harm, I said there was a fallacious argument.

Specifically, some men complain that women are hypocrites for not being more prevalent in the certain high risk industries. Yet those high risk industries tend to have entrance requirements predicated on traditional male strength standards.

It's like a tall guy putting something on the highest shelf he can reach and then complaining that short people don't take it down as often as he does. It might be true that the short people don't but the tall guy's choices is the reason that they don't, not the short people's lack of interest or effort.
 
Yeah I don't expect that women should be equally represented in these industries nor do I expect that they want to be.

But I think the point in highlighting the over-representation of men in dangerous fields is to counter the idea of male privilege. Men of the lower, blue collar classes have to risk their health and lives for a living in many cases, not so much that they're oppressed into these roles by society as much as by necessity.

It doesn't counter male privilege because men set the standards for entry. That's the flaw in the argument. You can't set a standard that works against women and then claim that you setting the high standard is proof that you lack privilege in that industry.

Men could broaden the entry opportunities and if women still didn't join, fine. But so long as the entry req's are skewed against women, they can't also imply that they, the men, are victims.
 
It doesn't counter male privilege because men set the standards for entry. That's the flaw in the argument. You can't set a standard that works against women and then claim that you setting the high standard is proof that you lack privilege in that industry.

Men could broaden the entry opportunities and if women still didn't join, fine. But so long as the entry req's are skewed against women, they can't also imply that they, the men, are victims.
Men set the standards but not in an effort to exclude women but rather to set standards that are appropriate for the industry. Women aren't incapable of meeting these standards but it in general its men seeking and qualifying for these roles.

And the reality is that in the case of construction the standards can be very loose as evidenced by the rampant hiring of illegal immigrants. I don't think the barrier to entry is really that steep for women and I say this as someone who grew up around the industry(though of course anecdotal evidence only counts for so much).
 
Men set the standards but not in an effort to exclude women but rather to set standards that are appropriate for the industry. Women aren't incapable of meeting these standards but it in general its men seeking and qualifying for these roles.

And the reality is that in the case of construction the standards can be very loose as evidenced by the rampant hiring of illegal immigrants. I don't think the barrier to entry is really that steep for women and I say this as someone who grew up around the industry(though of course anecdotal evidence only counts for so much).

The issue centering around "privilege" isn't impacted by why the standards are set but by who sets them.

As for the contractor side of things, I think you're disregarding elements of the job. Carrying ladders, all day hammering, tightening and loosening screws, nuts and bolts, manipulating large pieces of wood, drywall, etc. Pulling down existing structure with limited mechanical assistance. All things that give an economic advantage to stronger workers, regardless of gender.
 
As for the contractor side of things, I think you're disregarding elements of the job. Carrying ladders, all day hammering, tightening and loosening screws, nuts and bolts, manipulating large pieces of wood, drywall, etc. Pulling down existing structure with limited mechanical assistance. All things that give an economic advantage to stronger workers, regardless of gender.
Meaning that by their very nature men, specifically blue collar, lower class men, are saddled with dangerous jobs. So the privilege arguments fall on deaf ears when directed at such men.
 
Because what passes for a feminist today is not a feminist. They are confused people...
 
Well I'm sure they do but I don't advocate outright shutting women out from those fields like I do in the case of combat roles in the military. Plus if you're going to work for a small contractor(in the case of construction) the requirements are likely less strict. Their primary pool of potential employees are 5 foot tall Guatemalans so I think a reasonably in shape woman could find a job in construction.


99% of women couldn't do any construction job. They don't have the strength. Not house painting, plumbing, tile, or carpentry. None of it. Not even being an electrician.
 
There are plenty of guys who are stronger than you too but they're not all working construction. The difference with the female population is that it's a much smaller percentage of them, relative to the whole, who are capable of performing the tasks.

When we talk about Crossfit women, for example, we're talking about a very select group of women who are interested enough in fitness to include some form of strength training into their regimen. But is strength training a major part of most women's workouts, as opposed to endless amounts of pointless aerobic work and yoga?

Obviously I think you have a population problem. Your average guy is going to be significantly stronger than your average girl without any training. And to get your average girl up to average male strength standards, you're going to need a girl who has an interest in strength training and pursues it to a sufficient to degree to make up for the gender difference.

And then, from that already small population, you're going to need that woman to also be drawn to contractor work. That's a very small percentage of the total female population.

And it's not a good comparison to your average male because your average male doesn't have to climb the strength training route to engage in the basic tasks of the job. And even then, contractor work isn't something that most men opt for as their first career choice.
I came across this article and it appears women simply don't want to do construction despite a big push to get them in
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article...orkers-says-minnesota-building-trades-leader/

960x540roofersFBpage.jpg

Roofers Local 96 at a Construct Tomorrow event getting students interested in the trades. Local 96 FB page


PAUL, Minn. – International Women’s Day occurred last month, and in news stories, public rallies and social media campaigns, advocates drew needed attention to the stubborn gap between wages earned by men and women worldwide.

But there is one area of the U.S. economy where the gap is uniquely narrow: Construction.

On average, women working in the construction trades earn about 96 cents for every dollar men earn. That’s miles ahead of the economy as a whole, where women earn 81 cents on the dollar, and women of color fare even worse. Unionized women earn 89 cents for every dollar the union man earns, and both earn at least $200 weekly more than non-union workers.

“The one great thing about the roof is it doesn’t discriminate against anyone,” Roofers and Waterproofers Local 96 organizer Tristan Lundblad said. “The wage scale is the same for everyone, and no one judges you about anything except whether you work hard.”

Experts have long argued that adding more women to the construction workforce would help reduce broader pay disparities, but efforts to attract more women have seen limited success. Today, about 3 percent of construction tradespeople nationwide are women, and the rate hasn’t changed much over the last decade.

“One of the big factors in women’s lower earnings is they tend to work in occupations where many other women work,” said Ariane Hegewisch, who studies employment and earnings at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

“Women’s underrepresentation in construction has an impact on women’s earnings and their poverty rates.”

Why aren’t more women pursuing careers in the trades? In the Twin Cities area, at least, it’s not for lack of outreach from construction unions.

Lundblad was among more than a dozen union-affiliated recruiters at an event for women interested in exploring construction careers, held March 6 in St. Paul as part of Women in Construction Week. Their pitch was familiar – middle class wages and earn-while-you-learn apprenticeship training, first-class health benefits and retirement security – but most chairs in the union hall remained empty.

“We definitely need women,” Tim Grimm said of his union, Local 110 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. “We are begging for women.”

Attracting sisters into the brotherhood is about more than increasing the local’s diversity, Grimm explained. The construction workforce is aging, and unions aren’t going to meet the demand for skilled workers if they ignore half of the potential workforce.

Women also are vital to Minnesota construction contractors’ ability to capture market share. The state considers “workforce participation goals” for women as part of its process for awarding public construction contracts over $100,000, and those goals jumped sharply last July, from 6 percent to 20 percent in Ramsey (St. Paul) and Hennepin (Minneapolis) Counties.

Meeting new goals will require union contractors and apprenticeship programs to keep hustling to recruit and retain women, but there are challenges associated with both.

For starters, too many women and girls dismiss construction as a career path, or never even consider it. Tasha Lawrence, a member of St. Paul Plumbers Local 34 and vice president of the National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC), put it this way: “A lot of women don’t know what they want to do, but they know they don’t want to be a plumber.”

Many children are steered toward “gender-specific” activities at a young age, Hegewisch said, and building things falls squarely in the realm of male activities. Research shows shop classes in high school too often are taught in ways that “put off” female students, she added.

And while policymakers have pushed initiatives to increase interest in science and technology among girls, the subsequent step is usually a push toward “college, college, college,” Lawrence said.

Minnesota’s building trades unions have been proactive in developing “youth build” programs that welcome girls into their training centers, pre-apprenticeship programs that connect women with contractors who are eager to hire, and stronger relationships with area high schools – a particularly good idea, Hegewisch said, pointing to research showing most career counselors have little familiarity with the construction industry. “Career counselors exposed to the construction industry are more likely to point girls into construction careers,” she said.

Retaining women construction workers, meanwhile, means addressing the factors that deter women from pursuing jobs in the trades, including the industry’s culture. “Men act a little differently” when women are on the job site, Lawrence said, adding some women feel intimidated, unwanted or out of place.

Hegewisch, who surveyed tradeswomen from across the country for a 2015 report, said workplace harassment remains a problem in the industry. But she pointed to other, more subtle ways job sites could change to become more welcoming to women, like providing equipment that fits and bathrooms that offer privacy.

“Too often on a construction site they get the harness in two sizes, and they’re two or three sizes too big for most women,” Hegewisch said. “Work gloves are much harder for women to find in their sizes too… It feels like an insult, like they don’t really want me here.”

Promoting women to leadership positions – and ensuring they get equal access to job opportunities – helps keep apprentices and tradeswomen in the industry, Hegewisch said, as do mentorship programs and networking groups like NAWIC.

For Lawrence, just being able to see women wearing a hardhat or tool belt, swinging a hammer or pouring concrete helps change the industry’s culture – and its perception – in an organic way.

“I don’t want to sit behind a desk. I’m not a pencil pusher,” she said. “I’m just as capable as men to do the work, and I know I’m not alone.”
 
I came across this article and it appears women simply don't want to do construction despite a big push to get them in
http://www.peoplesworld.org/article...orkers-says-minnesota-building-trades-leader/

Not wanting to do construction is part of it. But per your article that's a broader conversation than just generic disinterest.

Men act a little differently” when women are on the job site, Lawrence said, adding some women feel intimidated, unwanted or out of place.
Many children are steered toward “gender-specific” activities at a young age, Hegewisch said, and building things falls squarely in the realm of male activities. Research shows shop classes in high school too often are taught in ways that “put off” female students, she added.
Hegewisch said, pointing to research showing most career counselors have little familiarity with the construction industry. “Career counselors exposed to the construction industry are more likely to point girls into construction careers,” she said.

There's a broad array of factors that are influencing women's desire to enter or stay in construction. They even mention equipment size issues and lack of bathroom privacy.

My takeaway from the article is the presence of women, or the lack thereof, in construction jobs is a fairly multifaceted scenario. I hadn't even previously considered the retention issue associated with not being able to find appropriate equipment for the job.
 
Maybe feminist organizations don't want to draw too much attention to how well females are doing these days in school, because it hurts the narrative that women are the underdogs. But women form a 56% majority of collegestudents. And they are a majority of those in law, medical, and dental school.
It's likely this, however, I believe the dental school number is actually like 46%. Not sure about the others but they're all pretty close to half or a slight edge for women.

I'm also not sure how this stacks up with race considerations. Would a black female have higher or lower standards than an Asian male? I'm sure they probably want to avoid the topic entirely cause the whole topic of engineering college admissions based on race and sex doesn't really come off well.

You're also unlikely to hear feminists complain that women aren't equally represented in sanitation and plumbing. There are some topics they'd rather just avoid.
 
Back
Top