That 25 year old women’s studies minor turned out to be useful for more than just knowing how to make a latte 
Interestingly, one of my girlfriends studies (as in has a PhD and this is her area) why girls under perform in Science. Not a sexist field at all, the reality is that girls under perform in Science and it might be kind of important to understand why.
That’s sort of close, but “bigotry” technically refers to any type of discriminatory belief or behaviour. A misogynist is, by definition, also a bigot.
Anyway, to my hearing. “Bigot” and “misogynist” have different flavours. Misogyny, to me, implies at least a small degree of emotional or psychological imbalance, whether caused by personal history or an extraordinarily ferocious cultural situation. “Bigotry” implies obstinance and stupidity. Archie Bunker was a bigot, but he was absolutely not a misogynist.
That is fascinating to this engineering type who always found the dearth of women in the field creepy.
Or this Comp Sci type who finds it kind of funny (in a sad way) that a ~20% female turnout at PyCon was lauded as “the biggest female turnout at a tech conference in history”
Misogyny is truth as women exist to serve men.
20%? Yeesh, but I can’t say I’m surprised that’s the record. 
Sir, I cannot adequately describe my reaction to your post in this forum.
Well, there’s an example we can use.
Yes, but will he last a full 24 hours here?
Wait… women exist to serve man!? :eek:
Oh god, the straw feminists are coming! SAVE YOURSELVES.
A friend pointed out today that “No means no” doesn’t quite cut it. He suggested “Yes means yes, everything else means no” as a replacement. A little discussion, and we decided that “Only an enthusiastic Yes! means Yes. Everything else means No.” worked for us, as men. Not that either of us are really in a place where this is an issue, both being married to women who know their own minds and boundaries and aren’t afraid to let them be known. But it’s what we’d teach our sons if we had any.
I’ve never had an explicit “no” but I’ve certainly had words to the effect of “we should stop” while the person in question was rubbing my junk. I do think there are more factors in whether consent is being given than a single instance of the N word.
(OTOH obviously someone who carries on when a woman has said no and is either actively pushing him away or basically lying there…that’s rape.)
The problem with “no means no” or even “everything except ‘yes!’ means no” is that people are too clever by half.
There are a half-billion counterexamples. The trick is what you do with the counterexamples. To me I look at the spirit of the quote. Obviously it’s not meant to apply in cases where you’ve been married in a consensual Dom/Sub relationship for 15 years and your safe word is “antidisestablishmentarianism”, where yelling “no!” adds to the fun for your wife. And yes, I’m 100,000% certain that there are girls you could find relatively easily that say “no” but mean yes because they’re fucked up in the head, or have been socially conditioned, or really would be uber enthusiastic if you pushed just a little bit. A lot of guys, as we’ve seen, take these counterexamples as some stupid proof positive that the quote is bullshit and that they have their own warped “nuanced” view that they use. Which is missing the point. The point is that when you haven’t been sexual partners for long enough to know these things, and you haven’t been explicitly told, BY HER, of these quirks that you’re treading really, really thin ice by proceeding – morally, legally, and in tons of other ways. Sure, maybe she means “yes!”, but no matter how good at signals you think you are, no matter how many times you’ve been right, you just can’t be certain.
And then, of course, we can get into a bullshit game of “well, if she says ‘yes’ can I be certain? What if her father raped her so much that she has a bizarre pavlovian response to squeak ‘yes!’ in a manner indistinguishable from enthusiasm at any hint of sex, but she’s secretly dead on the inside?”
I don’t think you can really fix the problems with a catcy slogan. They’re at best nice bandaids that keep a few more people from falling through the cracks than would otherwise. Cultural attitudes are the main culprit and those are harder to change.
For instance that whole “she doesn’t want to be thought of as a slut!” justification could be all but gotten rid of my making sex (and esp. female sex) less taboo in general. Perhaps in a contradictory fashion, we need to stop that so HI-larious trope that men will do anything to get sex. Or even insulting men for “not getting any.” Because then it seems like a game, where sex is some elusive thing and you’re a worse person for not having it. Not even a better person for having it, men are literally shamed for not fucking like rabbits. Hell, even in the recent MOL/Treis threads there were posters making slights about “have you ever touched a woman” this and “yeah, you’re only getting it in your dreams” that. What message does that send? To me, it seems like it sends the message that guys need to get sex or they’re less of a person – which makes them MORE likely to excuse sort-of-ambiguous situations as “totally not rape”, not less.
Of course, that’s not an immediate solution. If we start RIGHT NAO in 20 years your daughters might be safe. Maybe. Well, from people their own age at least, don’t let them around anyone 10 years older than them or you’re in danger territory because some of us older people may not have quite absorbed this radical cultural shift.
Of course, now it sounds like I’m saying “CEASE ALL PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ATTEMPTS TO STOP RAPE BECAUSE THEY’RE USELESS.” Which I’m not. I’m not even saying we shouldn’t touch or revise “no means no” because it won’t do any good. I just don’t think there’s any one simple rule (made up by a local mom!) that will do more than stop a tiny percentage of the men that do this crap now from rationalizing away why their rape (or not rape that would have been a rape if they weren’t so lucky) was a triple secret exception to the rule.
Fuck, now I’m depressed.
I’m a woman in IT. I HATE conferences. And I hate conferences because there are a lot of clueless men - for me its a gauntlet of sexism and misogyny. When men outnumber women by that many - and many of those men likely have issues picking up social cues - it isn’t pleasant.
On the same topic, I get angry when anyone - including other women - tell women that they have some sort of responsibility to succeed in these fields - or any field. Feminism is about choices, not about having as many female CEOs as male CEOs or if there is a 50% 50% proportion at a tech conference. If I want to climb the corporate ladder only as far as ‘cube dweller’ or want to be an elementary school teacher or a nurse, or want to be a stay at home mom, those are my choices. If external forces are stopping women from becoming programmers - we need to address that - and if its internal forces - women would rather do something different, then that’s what women want. The idea here is not to turn women into men.
Indeed, it used to be a feminist tenet, in some circles at least, that women had distinct approaches to various kinds of tasks and solutions, and that these could be superior in their own right, or at least that there was value in a diversity of responses. Women filling previously-male roles in the same way men had would represent an absolute failure of feminism.
Well, I can’t speak for everyone, but most people I know take the approach of “we need more people in the field, period. Women are >50% of college graduates but <20% in comp sci. There are various factors, both cultural and internal that affect this. How can we market this to women to increase their numbers?”
There’s a bit of a fine line here. At what point does “women are an untapped wealth of potential awesome STEM professionals, we should try to attract them” turn into “women have a duty to enter STEM fields, you’re oppressed otherwise”? I don’t know. I don’t view the lack of women in CS inherently sexist, though I do think that some sexist policies and attitudes can contribute to it. It’s not even always sexist so much as “has some norms and atmospheres that make it unappealing to women” (which I consider different, though might be hair splitting).
Talk about sexist!!
Women filling well paying and powerful positions would be an “absolute failure of feminism” if they acted like men? The fact that they are in the same place speaks for the success of feminism.