honorentheos wrote:Let me take a step back and say I probably went too far in using the line from xkcd as a one-for-one equivalency.
My personal experience with trying to right things with laws is mixed. A positive example I've seen is in the State of New Mexico where pay equity has to be demonstrated in order to win State contracts. My firm has done some work in New Mexico, the process seems to be reasonable and it's focused on fairness within the pay structure of a company.
On the other hand, tying federal funding for projects to having a certain percentage of the work completed by women/minority owned businesses has led to a stratification in the discipline I'm in. Large firms tend to fall into two categories: those that are WBE's or those that exist as departments within larger generally male-owned engineering or architectural firms. This result is the product of a few decades of the male-owned engineering firms hiring W/MBE's to fulfill the W/MBE percentage obligation while not doing anything to correct inequality within the actual companies. Because federal funding is often tied to the larger, high visibility projects covering all transportation work in our state as well as many public works and high-profile building/campus projects, narrowing the field to W/MBE firms has had unintended consequences. The ability of a firm to grow is tied to it's ability to get part of that work in most cases.
But this hasn't fixed gender discrimination or sexual intimidation problems in the industry. It tends to cause resentment on the part of some male company owners and professionals. In segments of the industry where federal funding isn't involved such as private development, sexism is a very real problem. A few of my women co-workers have told me horror stories about working in offices where frat house behavior is the norm and their sense it was a truly hostile work environment led them to quit and eventual come work with our firm. So we have small, frat house offices operating on good-ol'-boy principles where the money comes from private pockets, and disincentives that create resentment and have similar effects on disadvantaging men in certain market niches instead of reducing inequality. My wife also works in the same industry, and if we were to start our own business it would be financial suicide to not set it up in her name as the primary owner. The whole thing is a mess in many ways.
My view is the issues are real enough, but solutions need to be targeted at specific sources. Individuals and organizations as I said.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you consider the two laws you described to be targeted at specific sources?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Is it ok to put my arm around you? Is it ok to kiss you? Can I touch your boobies now?
I doubt most women want this.
Novel thought: ask a woman what she wants instead of deciding what she wants for her.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I just want to re-visit the OP.
Ready?
So You Want to Be a Male Feminist
1. It’s not about you.
2. It’s not about you.
3. It’s not about you.
4. It’s not about you.
5. It’s not about you.
6. It’s not about you.
7. It’s not about you.
8. It’s not about you.
9. It’s not about you.
10. It’s not about you.
11. It’s not about you.
Yeah, tell me why I should be fired up about this woman or her cause again?
I'm not a Feminist.
I'm an Equalitist.
Here's how my post would go (If I were such a narcissist that I would maintain a blog.):
1. It's about us.
2. Let's move forward together.
You can probably infer from my post why I suck at the Internet because I actually believe in equal rights, equal standards, and reject perpetual victimization.
- Doc
BS, Doc. You're lying to us and yourself.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
honorentheos wrote:Let me take a step back and say I probably went too far in using the line from xkcd as a one-for-one equivalency.
My personal experience with trying to right things with laws is mixed. A positive example I've seen is in the State of New Mexico where pay equity has to be demonstrated in order to win State contracts. My firm has done some work in New Mexico, the process seems to be reasonable and it's focused on fairness within the pay structure of a company.
On the other hand, tying federal funding for projects to having a certain percentage of the work completed by women/minority owned businesses has led to a stratification in the discipline I'm in. Large firms tend to fall into two categories: those that are WBE's or those that exist as departments within larger generally male-owned engineering or architectural firms. This result is the product of a few decades of the male-owned engineering firms hiring W/MBE's to fulfill the W/MBE percentage obligation while not doing anything to correct inequality within the actual companies. Because federal funding is often tied to the larger, high visibility projects covering all transportation work in our state as well as many public works and high-profile building/campus projects, narrowing the field to W/MBE firms has had unintended consequences. The ability of a firm to grow is tied to it's ability to get part of that work in most cases.
But this hasn't fixed gender discrimination or sexual intimidation problems in the industry. It tends to cause resentment on the part of some male company owners and professionals. In segments of the industry where federal funding isn't involved such as private development, sexism is a very real problem. A few of my women co-workers have told me horror stories about working in offices where frat house behavior is the norm and their sense it was a truly hostile work environment led them to quit and eventual come work with our firm. So we have small, frat house offices operating on good-ol'-boy principles where the money comes from private pockets, and disincentives that create resentment and have similar effects on disadvantaging men in certain market niches instead of reducing inequality. My wife also works in the same industry, and if we were to start our own business it would be financial suicide to not set it up in her name as the primary owner. The whole thing is a mess in many ways.
My view is the issues are real enough, but solutions need to be targeted at specific sources. Individuals and organizations as I said.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you consider the two laws you described to be targeted at specific sources?
No, but I consider the New Mexico Executive Order a move in the right direction. My limited experience with it was reasonable but I don't have extensive experience with it's impacts, good or bad.
The Federal W/MBE laws are, in my opinion, the wrong approach and clearly not targeted.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 11, 2013 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Brad Hudson wrote:Doc, the 1700's called. They want their century back.
Cam is one of those guys who has had a tumultuous relationship with a few female posters here. I think at one point the wanted to fight MsJack’s husband in a glorious rage post; so in that context his posts aren’t that surprising.
For the record, I’m pretty sympathetic with the blog post in the OP. I really don’t care to be seen as an “ally” since I think most forms of activism are done in bad faith, but being a good friend to someone usually meets all the points mentioned.
It's pretty easy to see what Cam's about. If I took him seriously, I wouldn't just trade barbs with him.
Based on my own experience, I don't share your view of activism. But reasonable people get to disagree about that kind of stuff. We all have to make our own moral choices, and nobody has to answer to me except for me.
I said earlier that I don't consider myself an ally. Personally, I think to be an ally requires something more than sitting on my ass typing stuff into message boards. I like to discuss feminist issues, as my perspective has changed quite a bit over the last couple of years. But I don't have the time or ability to be an ally at this point in my life.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Cam never offered to fight my husband. I'm doubtful that revisiting Cam's history with myself, what he's said about my husband, who he has offered to fight, or his treatment of other women on this forum would add anything productive to this thread, so I'm not going to do it.
I found the fMh OP rather grating as well. I like the author a lot, but I guess I haven't had too many problems with "male allies" engaging in the behaviors that she is calling out. I've had my share of problems with men who wouldn't identify as feminist engaging in those behaviors, but that's not the same thing.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
No, but I consider the New Mexico Executive Order a move in the right direction. My limited experience with it was reasonable but I don't have extensive experience with it's impacts, good or bad.
The Federal W/MBE laws are, in my opinion, the wrong approach and clearly not targeted.
I guess I'm trying to figure out the targeted part. One thing about working through laws is that they can't target individuals or specific companies. So, to what extent do you think legal approaches are foreclosed?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
No, but I consider the New Mexico Executive Order a move in the right direction. My limited experience with it was reasonable but I don't have extensive experience with it's impacts, good or bad.
The Federal W/MBE laws are, in my opinion, the wrong approach and clearly not targeted.
I guess I'm trying to figure out the targeted part. One thing about working through laws is that they can't target individuals or specific companies. So, to what extent do you think legal approaches are foreclosed?
To answer that, I'd ask what the intent of the proposed law might be. Specifically.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:To answer that, I'd ask what the intent of the proposed law might be. Specifically.
Fair enough. I didn't have anything specific in mind.
by the way, I really do appreciate the extended conversation. It helps me think through what I find to be interesting and complex issues.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951