
When Women Become Men at Wellesley - a5seo
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/when-women-become-men-at-wellesley-college.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
======
jcrites
> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the
> school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

> “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to
> have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men
> in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place
> where women are the leaders.”

I find this concept both depressing and distressing. Any person can be
capable, willing, and qualified to take on a role promoting diversity. Their
gender, sex, race, or whatever else should not disqualify them and should
hardly be a factor. I guess this shows that prejudice is unfortunately still
common in modern society. Discriminating against e.g. white men in such a role
is just as abhorrent to me as discriminating against any other groups in other
circumstances.

Certainly it's their right not to vote for him, but if the basis of their vote
is simply his membership in some group, rather than his character or
qualifications, then that's prejudice. It's sad and it needs to stop.

We need to cease over-correcting for past discriminating by propagating new
discrimination and prejudice into the modern day.

> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
> where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
> of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let's put discrimination to rest by selecting people for roles based on what
we know about them as individuals: their capability, qualifications, and
character. [Edit: minor rephrasing and added content.]

~~~
lexcorvus
It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone
might express:

“I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate
to have a black man as President of the United States.”

Such a person would be pilloried as a racist.

It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men
don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and
sex. A cursory glance at, say, the New York Times shows that such hostility is
in fact pervasive—even, bizarrely, among white men themselves.

~~~
jamesaguilar
White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to
be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's
worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some
white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be
possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole,
has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I
understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things
worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage.
Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the
state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move
forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life,
dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back
for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

~~~
mynameishere
You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity
seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull.
As an example:

 _disproportionate victimization with sexual violence_

Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about
how white people are at fault:

[http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf](http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf)

Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort
to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple
fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any
country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan,
and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the
merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that
racism. [2]

[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward
explanation:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/File:Tree_map_exports_2009_Equatorial_Guinea.jpeg)

[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

~~~
jamesaguilar
> Sexual violence ... white people

????? Obviously, I was referring to men as the oppressing group on this point.

Re. the rest, let me make sure I understand your position. "As long as there
is someplace black people are worse off than they are in the US, they have
nothing to complain about and white privilege doesn't exist." Am I reading you
right?

------
nomansland
This article illustrates how trans men are such an interesting problem for
feminist institutions. Either you go along with the current trans party line,
which is men are men, trans or cis, and they have no place at a women's
institution/space. fin. This is an interesting expression of some really rigid
thinking about binary gender. Or you take the "women and trans" position and
place yourself as an institution for people of oppressed genders. You include
anyone in the category of not cis men. You cease to specifically celebrate
femininity at that point. You also start defining yourself in terms of cis
men, which can be... problematic.

I'm concerned with how this spills out in the tech industry and our current
focus on gender. All of the gender equity campaigns at the moment are
inclusive of women, the more liberal include trans women, but none of them
appear to have any explicit inclusion of trans men or non binary gender
people. Which I find curious since trans masculine people often share the same
structural issues with cis women being: lack of access to STEM pre-education
in gradeschool/highschool, reproductive realities which are disruptive to a
tech career, lack of socialization as boys/access to old boys' network. Trans
people, including trans masculine people, do not occur in large enough numbers
to have multiple tech industry gender advocacy groups and the best they can do
is hope that "women's" groups eventually advocate for them.

I know of zero trans men in leadership positions in tech (eg, visible
senior/staff engineers at the large companies, or actual management (PM
doesn't count)), but I do know of quite a few trans women in these sorts of
positions and even more cis women. Of course, the trans men in leadership
could all be stealth, as I am (but I'm just a cog in the machine). I've worked
in tech long enough, and have heard the stories of cis men when they think
they are talking to another cis man, to know that the people tech are still
deeply transphobic and we have such a long way to go.

------
kevinmchugh
This is a great article. Tons of questions and not many answers, and that's
okay. I'm glad to have places to look for inspiration when trying to celebrate
my identity as a man in a way that doesn't marginalize anyone. I haven't found
any good answers yet. It's really interesting to see how the student body is
balancing their desire to be inclusive with a desire to retain an identity and
common experiences.

I also appreciated how the author and editor did a great job of making
complicated issues about identity and tense and changing pronouns and changing
names very simple and human and readable.

------
ender89
There's a whole "have your cake and eat it too" mentality going on here that's
kind of upsetting. These trans students are men, and yet they are attending a
women's college, living in women's dorms. They're apparently making waves
because they're trying to remove the emphasis on gender(and women
specifically) from a women's college. In other words, tim is trying to rob the
university from its identity because he slipped in through a loop hole and
feels discriminated against because (surprise!) the school is purpose built to
exclude men. Would you agree with an atheist student at a private religious
university trying to remove references to god from the school charter? or a
religious student trying to add references to god to a public university
charter? Of course not! Got to give it to Wellesley for not kicking his ass
out upon realizing that he lied about the primary qualification for
attendance, but I don't think that give him the right to try and remake the
school in his own image.

------
erceciooir
I know two people who "become women" to get better treatment at university.
Dance around it as you wish, but today women has 60% higher chance to graduate
compared to men.

~~~
alukima
You know two men who became trans for better treatment? Considering the issues
trans people face you are full of shit.

Interesting how accounts trying to claim that 'women have it so much better'
are always green accounts. If you believe in your comment why not use your
actual handle?

Why do you think women have a better chance? What can you do to help men?

~~~
erceciooir
Take typical nerd, add mild depression and zero social life. I can ensure you
that being trans will not make it much worse and will improve relations with
authorities significantly. And in their cases it was 'administrative
decision'.

I argued a few times in person, results were unpleasant for my person, I am
not going to do it again.

65% graduates are women, men do not even have universal voting right in US.
Google is your friend.

~~~
alukima
Why do you think more women graduate? Why complain that women have it better
than actively trying to make it better for men? I'm trying to figure out why
you have such a skewed view of society. You're certainly incorrect about how
trans people are treated, especially with authorities.

What do you mean men don't have universal voting rights? Are you talking about
felons?

~~~
erceciooir
Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view
of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them),
I am just complaining men have it worse.

I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally
capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can).

EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since I
was down-voted to oblivion. And because I am obviously "full of shit" I will
not add links, just three hints:

\- Men has to register at two places, instead of just one.

\- Voting for men is a reward, not a right

\- I am more worried about student loans, not voting.

~~~
matteotom
> I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and
> mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women
> can).

What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a
clean record and mentally capable?

~~~
jessaustin
I'm guessing the unpopular poster is referring to selective service, for which
men (and, TBH, trans women) must register, or forfeit numerous "rights".
Because war. I hesitate to articulate this, being cis and all, but the
strenuous denunciations of this greenbean seem to hint of something ugly in
one's opinions of the whole notion of trans.

As far as I know, I'm no relation to the Jesse Austin interviewed in TFA.

~~~
delecti
As a trans woman I fully agree with your assessment. They clearly have no idea
what they're talking about.

Also, selective service is such an absurdly trivial "obstacle." I registered
ages ago, and despite a half-dozen moves (and transitioning) since, I haven't
ever done anything else about it.

------
piratebroadcast
homer_silently_backing_himself_into_the_bushes.gif

------
joyeuse6701
>“The patriarchy is alive and well,” he said. “I don’t want to perpetuate it.”

I laughed pretty hard at this one, the irony seems pretty lost here for
Timothy. This could offer some serious introspection for the echo-chamber that
is Wellesley. It's one of those case examples of an entity 'becoming what they
hate'.

