
Do Pro-Women Groups on Campus Discriminate Against Men? - poster123
https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-pro-women-groups-on-campus-discriminate-against-men-1527067800
======
sudosteph
> a Women in Science and Engineering group that excludes males.

I was in one of those in college. Literally the only benefit that group
provided was that all members could share 3 floors of a dorm and those floors
were reserved for WISE. Campus housing was already largely segregated by sex,
but some of the floors not in use by WISE were for men. This wasn't a
particularly nice dorm building either (in fact many argued it was one of the
worst). But the WISE program did give us a good benefit by making it easier
for us to find people we could study with without having to venture out to the
library or random people's dorms all the time. I see no reason that a male
equivalent of this program shouldn't exist though.

Most "womens" groups I avoided like the plague though. I didn't like the
implication that I needed special support or something. It's the same reason
I've turned down requests for me to speak to "women in tech" groups and the
like. There's a pipeline problem, but it was started well before college for
most folks, so these groups are really not very helpful for bringing people in
anyhow.

~~~
mikestew
_I didn 't like the implication that I needed special support or something._

I go back-and-forth with this in the case of my wife, who works at a large
tech company. On the one hand, she's quite capable of doing the job without
special treatment. But on the other hand, if the odds really _are_ stacked
against her...

She's a big girl and can make her own decisions, I just wonder what I'd do
were I in the same boat. Probably the same thing she (and from the way it
sounds, you) would do: mostly avoid the drama that such groups can bring.

~~~
arcaster
The fact that you just referred to your wife as a "big girl" speaks volumes in
regards to this issue...

~~~
mikestew
Now I know what it is people are complaining about when they use the acronym
"SJW": pointless tilting at windmills whilst the real issues are ignored. But
at least you're doing _something_ , eh?

I'm sure that making sure to refer to my wife as "adult woman" in the future
will cure the problem of management being packed with men of the same
ethnicity as the group manager.

------
arcaster
As a recently graduated computer science student with deep experience working
with startups, notedly with highly experienced women developers and staff
within those startups, I find groups like this deeply troubling.

I believe what these groups advocate for on paper and what they knowingly
actually advocate for are very different. IMO these groups foster division and
group-think that makes learning harder for all involved and if anything
promotes the portrayal of toxic culture as a purely gendered issue along with
wrapping everything under a poorly though-out victim mentality.

Some of the best female developers I've come to know both as co-workers and
mentors (although I'm a man) avoid these groups and find them counter-
productive. Some have even been banned for just speaking on the issue of these
groups, regarding their "real" benefit. I acknowledge there are problems with
tech culture, but pro advocacy and labeling of any groups involved will never
be a productive way to solve these problems.

~~~
j45
Genderism can be exclusionary, especially when the mindset of the "wider"
group they belong to is truly not one of inclusivity. Genderism also takes
voices away from visible minorities who are often excluded by these groups as
well.

We talk a lot of about diversity, and this word has been in many ways,
commandeered by genderism. Diversity is not only gender diversity. But it
seems to be the diversity we can hear most about at times.

Diversity for me is ensuring anyone with the potential can develop the talents
to execute from any diverse background. (Happy to improve this defintion).

If using pro-women groups as an example, the issue is not the women. It's men.
Existing decision making powers and structures need to change behaviour.

Focusing on Humanism may be another approach. Everyone is a citizen in
humanity, and adjusting the structures and powers within that context might
set bars and standards for behaviour can be set within it.

~~~
arcaster
I strongly identify with humanism in this regard. I also agree there are
problems with existing structures, but I think unanimously working against
these structures fares better for "oppressed" groups than just labeling the
opposing group as "evil".

For instance, I have worked in circumstances where women use similar rhetoric
created in these groups to foster a toxic culture that affects everyone
negatively. Again, I cannot stress enough, toxic culture affects everyone.

If we don't start developing new approaches that are less reminiscent of
methods used to remedy elementary school playground scuffles, we'll just keep
seeing more articles / threads titled "Why Networking is only hard for <women
/ insert some group here>".

Furthermore, an un-intended side-effect of these kinds of gendered / tribalist
approaches is that they empower companies / organizations to use them for
profit. For example, the number of coding bootcamps that target and exploit
women under the guise of "fighting for equality" is disgusting and nauseating.

------
samschooler
I’m interested, legally, when is this okay and when is it not? Can you have
“one sex only clubs”? Scholarships? Can you have VC firms that only let one
sex founders? Where is the line here?

By looking at it in reverse it is very discriminatory in any sense:

\- Men’s only VC firm

\- Outstanding Male Award

\- White Male Study Room

I completely understand equity and trying to actively support women and
minorities, however I’d just like to know the current law and where the line
is drawn.

~~~
Splognosticus
I wondered the same thing a while ago and my understanding is that these are
all covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1][2]. The gist is there's not so
much a line you can't cross, but rather that what is illegal is explicitly
enumerated.

The act defines what specifically is a protected class (sex, race, religion,
and so on) and a number of specific situations where it is not permitted to
discriminate against members of those classes (e.g. employment, schools,
access to public spaces like restaurants and theatres, etc.)

So in your examples I believe the answer is yes, single-sex clubs are
permitted so long as they're private clubs. A scholarship that only members of
a single sex are eligible for is also allowed since that's not one of the
things the act covers. I think a VC firm that only backs founders of a
particular sex is also legal since that's investment rather than employment.

An Outstanding Male Award would be legal (and I can't really think of any
ethical reason that'd be a problem.)

A White Male Study Room would probably _not_ be legal presuming we're talking
about a public facility, however to expand on that concept a bit, I _think_ a
private school for white males _might_ be legal. Title IV appears to be the
relevant portion, which doesn't as far as I can tell apply to private schools
so long as they don't receive any sort of public funding for research or other
purposes.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
[2]
[https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=...](https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript)

------
poster123
Political threads do appear on Hacker News. I regularly see threads about
universal basic income. I wonder why this thread, which I started, was
flagged. Political bias?

------
Mononokay
Answer: Yes, but people are on the fence on whether it's a bad thing.

~~~
Cuuugi
Socially? Agreed. Legally it's pretty black and white though. They are
choosing one sex over the other.

------
skywhopper
Keep in mind that these groups operate in a context that is overwhelmingly
anti Women, just rarely explicitly so.

~~~
stormking
"anti Women"? In the west? On a campus? Are you kidding?

------
temp-dude-87844
There's a common point of view that any member of a privileged class is
implicitly responsible for the state of things as they stand, regardless of
whether their individual actions align with the conditions perpetuated by the
privileged class, as a sort of societal original sin.

The spread of this view is unfortunate, because for any particular privileged
member, it makes the support of social causes a lose-lose proposition.

While in some people this manifests as outwardly displayed resentment, most
people in this situation just avoid engaging the topic entirely, as the
default option in this trolley problem. This is also an outcome that activists
decry, but ironically people in this situation are afforded by their privilege
to withdraw from the conversation.

Seeing threads like this appear and then get flagged shows that enough people
anticipate no productive discussion on the matter, which seems to validate the
efficacy of the strategy of silence.

------
creaghpatr
Sure, they advance the interests of over-represented groups at the expense of
underrepresented groups. This includes transexual students, presumably.

~~~
Nasrudith
Depends on if they are by sex, gender, or both. Gender is a social construct
as opposed to sex although they have been strongly linked usually - although
not without exceptions even in the west. Albanian sworn virgins for one were
considered male in gender.

Surprisingly some womens' colleges accept FtM students, some accept MtF
students, and others accept both or neither.

The first seems odd but is actually pretty historically justifiable in the
number of women known to make history by disguising as men. Whether they did
so for sake of opportunity or gender identity and how much the two overlapped
in the context of the time ("I am a doctor above all else but women cannot be
doctors...") is an interesting concept to explore. Doing so couls be said to
honor their legacy.

The second is of course justifiable as supporting the gender.

