# Feminism and a world designed for men



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

Following on from JudithB 's thread again. Thanks to Poot for bringing up the subject of how the world is designed for men and and Winot for linking to this book  *Invisible Women** Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men* by Caroline Criado Perez – Invisible Women



> It’s a smart strategy, therefore, to invite readers to view this timeworn topic through the revealing lens of data, bringing to light the hidden places where inequality still resides. Criado Perez has assembled a cornucopia of statistics – from how blind auditions have increased the proportion of female players hired by orchestras to nearly 50%, to the good reasons why women take up to 2.3 times as long as men to use the toilet. This is a man’s world, we learn, because those who built it didn’t take gender differences into account. Most offices, we learn, are five degrees too cold for women, because the formula to determine their temperature was developed in the 1960s based on the metabolic resting rate of a 40-year-old, 70kg man; women’s metabolisms are slower. Women in Britain are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack: heart failure trials generally use male participants. Cars are designed around the body of “Reference Man”, so although men are more likely to crash, women involved in collisions are nearly 50% more likely to be seriously hurt.



Females are 51% of the population but the world its systems, technology, medicine and so much more are not designed with us in mind. Why?

This issue makes me livid.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

Me too! And great topic for threat Dorothy 

Can we start by sharing our best/worst encounters in a world made for men?

Kitchen cupboards and high shelves for me. I have cupboards and shelves in the kitchen for things we hardly ever use because it's such an arse for anyone apart from the big male person in our house to reach anything that's in them. All hail the steps we keep in the kitchen for when he's not around
Being cold in the office. Apparently there's an actual reason we women keep cardigans on the backs of our chairs.


----------



## Sue (Apr 28, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Being cold in the office. Apparently there's an actual reason we women keep cardigans on the backs of our chairs.


Is that really a male/female thing? Aren't women meant to typically have more body fat than men so should actually feel the cold less..?


----------



## Sweet FA (Apr 28, 2019)

Sue said:


> Is that really a male/female thing? Aren't women meant to typically have more body fat than men so should actually feel the cold less..?


Good summary of the book with links here: _The deadly truth about a world built for men – from stab vests to car crashes

'The formula to determine standard office temperature was developed in the 1960s around the metabolic resting rate of the average man. But a recent Dutch study found that the metabolic rate of young adult females performing light office work is significantly lower than the standard values for men doing the same activity. In fact, the formula may overestimate female metabolic rate by as much as 35%, meaning that current offices are on average five degrees too cold for women. This leads to the odd sight of female office workers wrapped in blankets in the summer, while their male colleagues wander around in shorts.'_
_
_


----------



## Sue (Apr 28, 2019)

Interesting Sweet FA. I'd no idea!


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 28, 2019)

Sue said:


> Is that really a male/female thing? Aren't women meant to typically have more body fat than men so should actually feel the cold less..?


Somewhat anecdotal but there's some basis for it.


----------



## Sweet FA (Apr 28, 2019)

Me neither Sue


----------



## Poot (Apr 28, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Somewhat anecdotal but there's some basis for it.


That's Australian and talks mostly about aircon. And the comments are shit.


----------



## newbie (Apr 28, 2019)

To add a slightly different take, there was an interesting programme on R4 earlier about how in the early days computing was a job for women, but that changed as soon as the technology became important.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 28, 2019)

The cupboards and things are what I come across most often. So many things designed for average height men despite the fact that most people are shorter than average height men. 

I taught at one school where the chair was fixed to the desk in a way that would have meant a pregnant woman couldn't fit in. It would have been difficult for some overweight people too, but at least you're not actually squishing a baby's head.

Also, and this is a really minor thing, but I like geeky t-shirts and an awful lot of them are only for men, or there are technically some available in a woman's shape but they're never in stock. Obvs women can wear men's t-shirts, and some do, but the shape doesn't suit most women - some don't care, but I do. Went around Forbidden Planet the other day and they had one women's shape t-shirt in the entire shop, as well as about 100 men's t-shirts.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 28, 2019)

newbie said:


> To add a slightly different take, there was an interesting programme on R4 earlier about how in the early days computing was a job for women, but that changed as soon as the technology became important.


This is an excellent book about that:

Programmed Inequality, How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing


----------



## Poot (Apr 28, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The cupboards and things are what I come across most often. So many things designed for average height men despite the fact that most people are shorter than average height men.
> 
> I taught at one school where the chair was fixed to the desk in a way that would have meant a pregnant woman couldn't fit in. It would have been difficult for some overweight people too, but at least you're not actually squishing a baby's head.
> 
> Also, and this is a really minor thing, but I like geeky t-shirts and an awful lot of them are only for men, or there are technically some available in a woman's shape but they're never in stock. Obvs women can wear men's t-shirts, and some do, but the shape doesn't suit most women - some don't care, but I do. Went around Forbidden Planet the other day and they had one women's shape t-shirt in the entire shop, as well as about 100 men's t-shirts.


When I was seven months pregnant my mother asked me when I was going to stop driving. I mean, I wasn't planning to but it's not possible to drive even a small car if you're small with a large bump because your feet won't reach the pedals when your bump is squashing the steering wheel. I can only imagine the safety implications in a crash (seatbelt goes under bump). It was just sort of understood that you stop driving (even though you can barely walk by that stage!). Never mind not being able to close the boot  (and this is a Corsa - hardly huge). 

My current bugbear is good, strong, thick socks which are never available in my size when I see them. Because women notoriously never get cold feet!

And yes, the mean height is the mean height, not the mean height of a man. I have the same kitchen woes.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

newbie said:


> To add a slightly different take, there was an interesting programme on R4 earlier about how in the early days computing was a job for women, but that changed as soon as the technology became important.


There is something I feel might be a nasty MRA meme called "learn to code" all over twitter at the moment. I wonder if there is reference to this fact or if it is pure reference to gamergate


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

newbie said:


> To add a slightly different take, there was an interesting programme on R4 earlier about how in the early days computing was a job for women, but that changed as soon as the technology became important.


Can't recall if it was that programme or another R4 one that was talking about the inbuilt prejudice in the way computers discriminated against women eg:
- not selecting CVs of perfectly qualified women for a job shortlist 
- or translation programs that when asked to translate 'He is a nurse' & 'She is president' into turkish that hasn't got gendered pronouns, then back in to english it became 'She is a nurse' & 'He is president' 
chnology more and more.
- also in not recognising non white faces as human (but thats for another thread)
There seems to be an issue of blatant sexism as well as gender bias going on inside tech companies that has far reaching effects as we all rely so much on the technology.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

Poot said:


> When I was seven months pregnant my mother asked me when I was going to stop driving. I mean, I wasn't planning to but it's not possible to drive even a small car if you're small with a large bump because your feet won't reach the pedals when your bump is squashing the steering wheel. I can only imagine the safety implications in a crash (seatbelt goes under bump). It was just sort of understood that you stop driving (even though you can barely walk by that stage!).



Humph the unexpected consequences of 'Safety' law . When seat belts were first made compulsary in the '70s, They weren't retractable and adjustable as they are now a lot of women found them extremely uncomfortable (where are you supposed to put your tits?) and they often went across your neck if you were short. I don't recall the issue of pregnant women even being mentioned (but then pregnant women were generally invisible and barely mentioned at all.) 
I don't recall hearing it at the time (did it get any publicity), but heard recently women were actually killed by seatbelts. 

Thinking of pregnancy - Thalidomide was deemed 'safe' for pregnant women. I heard that drugs in general never used to be tested on women as it was considered that our menstruation mucked up the results, a brief search found this:


> *Year	 Event*
> 1962  Thalidomide tragedy in Europe results in United States Congress to pass the Kefauver-Harris Amendment to mandate changes in drug development and strengthen the authority of the FDA
> 1975  National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects and Biomedical and Behavioral Research promulgates new rule which includes pregnant women as a vulnerable research subjects
> 1977  FDA guideline “General considerations for the clinical evaluation of drugs” essentially bans women of child-bearing potential from participating in early phase clinical research, except for life-threatening conditions
> ...


 Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

Toilets! are new buildings built with more cubicles for women yet?


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Toilets! are new buildings built with more cubicles for women yet?


Unfortunately I do not frequent the men's to find out the balance. Aren't they making lots women's gender neutral these days or is this a scaremongering story? I don't get out much


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

I'm not sure how common place gender neutral loos actually are, perhaps someone will have a link. It's a shame that gender neutral toilets, in my experience, usually means reeking of/or liberally sprinkled with male piss.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 28, 2019)

I have worked in bike shops since 1996 and not once have I ever had a workbench that was at the right height. This makes it difficult for me to reach tools, difficult to use a vice because the item I need to cut with a saw or drill is too high for me to use my muscles efficiently or to get on top of for gravity to help. I used to have to stand on an upside down crate to true wheels in my last job because the jig was about 8" too high. I have to wear a small men's polo shirt for uniform because the mechanic's shirts are not available in a women's cut. It's like a tent on me.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

Poot said:


> My current bugbear is good, strong, thick socks which are never available in my size when I see them. Because women notoriously never get cold feet!


I used to wear boy's football socks because I wanted something to keep my calves warm under bootleg trousers back in the day. Perhaps the boy's section will help you out? I also used to wear an older nephew's discarded trainers back in the day because men's trainers were so much nicer looking than women's at the time. And he grew out of my size super quickly


----------



## JudithB (Apr 28, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm not sure how common place gender neutral loos actually are, perhaps someone will have a link. It's a shame that gender neutral toilets, in my experience, usually means reeking of/or liberally sprinkled with male piss.


And girl's missing school if stories from Wales are to be believed. But let's try not to go down that rabbit hole. I promised on the last thread we wouldn't get distracted with ID politics and I'd hate to screw up your thread...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 28, 2019)

JudithB said:


> And girl's missing school if stories from Wales are to be believed. But let's try not to go down that rabbit hole. I promised on the last thread we wouldn't get distracted with ID politics and I'd hate to screw up your thread...


Thanks. discuss toilet provision by all means.

I'd like to ban all references to ID politics on this thread as anyone wanting to take the discussion that way should take it to the existing really long thread on that subject >>>


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can't recall if it was that programme or another R4 one that was talking about the inbuilt prejudice in the way computers discriminated against women eg:
> - not selecting CVs of perfectly qualified women for a job shortlist
> - or translation programs that when asked to translate 'He is a nurse' & 'She is president' into turkish that hasn't got gendered pronouns, then back in to english it became 'She is a nurse' & 'He is president'
> chnology more and more.
> ...



 l listened to most of that programme. Yes the examples you put up are correct.

What is most disturbing is that this is getting to be insitiutionalised in algorithms. Such as the Turkish translation.

Its moving beyond men making gender bias to algorithms doing it as part of the way they have been set up.

I've started reading a novel about some of these issues. Gnomen.

Gnomon


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 29, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks. discuss toilet provision by all means.
> 
> I'd like to ban all references to ID politics on this thread as anyone wanting to take the discussion that way should take it to the existing really long thread on that subject >>>


i'd rather that thread was binned tbh

(also, if feminism isn't id politics what is it? - or is it just trans women's perspectives not being welcome on here?)


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 29, 2019)

Well blow me down. I now realise that I’ve been complaining about this shit all my life but never really stopped to think it was about being an invisible woman.

I’m not really short but I have a little foot stool in my kitchen because I can’t reach the top shelf, and I have to stand on tip toe to do anything that needs me to lean in, lean down with my weight. I’ve always assumed “I’m too short” and suddenly finally I’m aware that it’s the default design that’s wrong.

So even the kitchen, which is meant to be the domain of the Little Woman, conforms to the comfort of the average male?


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Well blow me down. I now realise that I’ve been complaining about this shit all my life but never really stopped to think it was about being an invisible woman.
> 
> I’m not really short but I have a little foot stool in my kitchen because I can’t read the top shelf, and I have to stand on tip toe to do anything that needs me lean in, lean down with my weight. I’ve always assumed “I’m too short” and suddenly finally I’m aware that it’s the default design that’s wrong.
> 
> So even the kitchen, which is meant to be the domain of the Little Woman, conforms to the comfort of the average male?



Yeah, because it's generally men designing and fitting the kitchens. When my kitchen was installed at my previous flat I saw the men standing there working out from _their_ own heights where to place the upper wall-mounted cupboards so you can comfortably reach them, and I wasn't allowed to have them change it. They were all at least six inches taller than me so the cupboards were all six inches too high for me, and the worktops made me feel like a child trying to cook, and I'm average height for a woman. 

So they were sort of being considerate by making sure the cupboards were reachable but they didn't consider _who_ they were going to be accessed by, which, given not only women but children and older people (who are generationally shorter and also lose a little height in old age), is going to be on average noticeably shorter than young workmen. 

I've often noticed that showerheads are placed too high for me too, though not my current one because I had installed myself and got in the bath to work out exactly where I wanted it.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 29, 2019)

Drug testing was mentioned earlier.  Actually, drugs and other therapies are still routinely tested on principally male populations (phase I and phase II), for various reasons that mostly come down to this visibility issue (or “markedness”), really.  ISTR lots of painkillers come into this category.  Also, lots of wider social science studies do too — the amount I see that have populations of about 25-33% women but whose results are imputed onto the whole population based on a simple test for dissimilarity.  It’s definitely a known issue but doing anything about it is slow. (At least now, though, students are taught about the concept of external validity, which addresses precisely this).

Thalidomide, which was mentioned, is an interesting example because the problem there was specifically a lack of testing in pregnancy.  But, of course, that’s still an assumption that a pregnant woman is just the same as a non-pregnant woman, which I can’t help feel comes from the same wheelhouse.

(There’s a similar problem that even phase III tests are generally carried out on the most well patients, often much younger than the typical sufferer, and then mostly given to the most unwell, who have been entirely excluded from the testing).


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 29, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Me too! And great topic for threat Dorothy
> 
> Can we start by sharing our best/worst encounters in a world made for men?
> 
> ...


 Office temp is a known problem men are expected to wear suits and ties. While women should wear dresses. So the temp is never going to please everyone.


----------



## Poot (Apr 29, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Office temp is a known problem men are expected to wear suits and ties. While women should wear dresses. So the temp is never going to please everyone.


But women feel the cold more - that's just a fact and it's just the way we're made. And most of us do dress for the temperature but having to wear 2 jumpers cos the aircon is on is just bonkers.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Apr 29, 2019)

On the whole kitchen height issue. I decided that my very home made kitchen would have no high presses at all. At 5ft 2inches it was going to be impossible to reach anything other than things on the lower part of a wall press  si I ditched that completely. 
I've only got the lower presses and worktop. And I stacked the 4 presses(2x2)that were meant to go on the wall...in order to make a set of low shelves sat on the floor at the other side of the room.


----------



## Sue (Apr 29, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Office temp is a known problem men are expected to wear suits and ties. *While women should wear dresses.* So the temp is never going to please everyone.


Eh?


----------



## Winot (Apr 29, 2019)

Sue said:


> Eh?



I think dylanredefined is talking about societal expectation that women should wear fewer clothes than men.


----------



## cheesethief (Apr 29, 2019)

Poot said:


> But women feel the cold more - that's just a fact and it's just the way we're made. And most of us do dress for the temperature but having to wear 2 jumpers cos the aircon is on is just bonkers.


There's no easy answer to this one, I'm a bloke and am _always_ hot. Doesn't mean I expect an office temperature to conform to my specifications though. The one point I would make is that it's inherently easier to warm up, than it is to cool down. In a cold office one can wear extra layers, in a hot office there are few options available whilst maintaining standards of decency. But what does really rile me is how cold people get all the sympathy... "Oh no, you're cold! that's awful, we must find a way to warm you up". Compared to "why is that man sweating all over his keyboard? looks minging, glad I'm not him...".

When you can't think straight, when the sweat's making your eyes sting, when your armpits are like swamps, when you'd rather die than spend another fucking day in a stiflingly warm, oppressive office... I'd give _anything_ to be a cold person...


----------



## Poot (Apr 29, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> There's no easy answer to this one, I'm a bloke and am _always_ hot. Doesn't mean I expect an office temperature to conform to my specifications though. The one point I would make is that it's inherently easier to warm up, than it is to cool down. In a cold office one can wear extra layers, in a hot office there are few options available whilst maintaining standards of decency. But what does really rile me is how cold people get all the sympathy... "Oh no, you're cold! that's awful, we must find a way to warm you up". Compared to "why is that man sweating all over his keyboard? looks minging, glad I'm not him...".
> 
> When you can't think straight, when the sweat's making your eyes sting, when your armpits are like swamps, when you'd rather die than spend another fucking day in a stiflingly warm, oppressive office... I'd give _anything_ to be a cold person...


Try a hot flush.


----------



## cheesethief (Apr 29, 2019)

Poot said:


> Try a hot flush.


So you know how unpleasant it is to be horribly hot?


----------



## Poot (Apr 29, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> So you know how unpleasant it is to be horribly hot?


Yeah. Sorry. That wasn't terribly sympathetic and fwiw my hot flushes are caused by hormones and anxiety not the actual temperature, and if I sit them out for half an hour they do go away after a while. 

I don't know what to suggest. Can you have a fan on your desk?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The cupboards and things are what I come across most often. So many things designed for average height men despite the fact that most people are shorter than average height men.



Its an interesting area, and how various assumptions get baked in to the system to the detriment of whole groups of people. 

Kitchens are my bugbear too - sinks are usually too low to wash up comfortably without getting lower back pain (I'm 5'11", so slightly above average for a man), but some cupboards are too high to reach.  The kitchen where I live now has both problems - I can reach the front of the top shelf in the wall cupboards but can't get stuff at the back without standing on something, so they must have had someone at 6'4"+ in mind when they installed them, yet someone at 5'6" for the sink. 

The office I work in either too hot or cold, depending on time of year and weather conditions.  A cold snap means its freezing for everyone, and then as the landlord cranks up the heating it overshoots and turns into a sauna.  Summer is unbearably hot given the amount of windows letting heat in.  Rarely is it an ideal temperature for anyone, but as its an older crappy building this is to be expected.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 29, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks. discuss toilet provision by all means.
> 
> I'd like to ban all references to ID politics on this thread as anyone wanting to take the discussion that way should take it to the existing really long thread on that subject >>>


With you all the way sister


----------



## JudithB (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I've often noticed that showerheads are placed too high for me too, though not my current one because I had installed myself and got in the bath to work out exactly where I wanted it.


Showerheads!

I expect I am not the only one who holds it in one's hand to keep one's hair dry because it is too difficult to reach and operate the thing that lowers the head.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

I’ve only scanned the thread, but have we had the “pockets” talk yet?

(Someone posted a great essay on another thread about clothing design - I’ll see if I can look it up when I have a minute)


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 29, 2019)

That thread is here.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> - or translation programs that when asked to translate 'He is a nurse' & 'She is president' into turkish that hasn't got gendered pronouns, then back in to english it became 'She is a nurse' & 'He is president'


That's the programme.  I tried the translation- google gave a choice, one with both she, the other both he.  So it's not all software, what was cited was an example of bad practice.  I wonder to what extent the other examples reflect the current state of AI- after all facial recognition software that doesn't recognise black faces is failing dismally to do its job properly, as is job finder software that ignores women applicants which is clearly not going to always get the best candidate.

I was more struck by the point that by default services like Alexa and Siri- which users boss around- are identifiable as female while satnav- which instructs the user- has a male voice.  The underlying assumptions there are pretty clear, as soon as someone points them out.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 29, 2019)

One of the dangers of AI algorithms is the inherent assumption many people tend to have that they must be neutral and fair because they are applied by a machine.  But they are neither of those things because even under sophisticated machine learning approaches, the machine is being given its priorities and assumptions by a human.  A generally white male human with no social science educational background, at that.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I was more struck by the point that by default services like Alexa and Siri- which users boss around- are identifiable as female while satnav- which instructs the user- has a male voice.  The underlying assumptions there are pretty clear, as soon as someone points them out.



Virtually all Satnavs have a female voice as default, because apparently most people find female voices more cordial and calming


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2019)

mr steev said:


> Virtually all Satnavs have a female voice as default, because apparently most people find female voices more cordial and calming


yeh a point i first encountered in michael crichton's 'the andromeda strain'


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

mr steev said:


> Virtually all Satnavs have a female voice as default, because apparently most people find female voices more cordial and calming


That's not what the programme said, however ours is female, but whether that was default or changed I can't remember.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> That thread is here.



It wasn't that one, but thanks for looking.  I think it was FabricLiveBaby! that posted it, it was a pretty detailed history of clothing design, but there is a lot of stuff on the subject if you Google "female clothing history pockets".


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

mr steev said:


> Virtually all Satnavs have a female voice as default, because apparently most people find female voices more cordial and calming



And they don't yell stuff at you like "NOT THAT LEFT!!, THE *OTHER* LEFT!!!".

(default female voice on my satnav is quite stern)


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

kabbes said:


> One of the dangers of AI algorithms is the inherent assumption many people tend to have that they must be neutral and fair because they are applied by a machine.  But they are neither of those things because even under sophisticated machine learning approaches, the machine is being given its priorities and assumptions by a human.  A generally white male human with no social science educational background, at that.


No doubt, but for AI to do it's job properly it simply can't ignore 50% of the population or fail to recognise all non-caucasian facial features.  Which makes me wonder the extent to which these cited examples are historic, or cherry picked (as with the Turkish translation).


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Kitchens are my bugbear too - sinks are usually too low to wash up comfortably without getting lower back pain (I'm 5'11", so slightly above average for a man), but some cupboards are too high to reach.


I'm 6'3", so all sinks and basins, standard height worksurfaces and office furniture is too low.  I understand the points made upthread about cupboards and so on being too high, but frankly I'd love the option to get a comfortable working height by something as simple as standing on steps. For the most part there really isn't any solution, so, like a lot of tall people I too get backache from using space designed for those shorter than us.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I'm 6'3", so all sinks and basins, standard height worksurfaces and office furniture is too low.  I understand the points made upthread about cupboards and so on being too high, but frankly I'd love the option to get a comfortable working height by something as simple as standing on steps. For the most part there really isn't any solution, so, like a lot of tall people I too get backache from using space designed for those shorter than us.


not to mention, i expect, the occasional bruised head from low doorways


----------



## mr steev (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> That's not what the programme said, however ours is female, but whether that was default or changed I can't remember.



Hmm. I've never heard a male voice on a satnav (unless it's been changed to Brian Blessed). There is a gender stereotyping going on though, on top of the research of what voices people prefer. Women have historically been the secretary/assistant/librarian etc


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention, i expect, the occasional bruised head from low doorways


It's remarkable how short previous generations were.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Apr 29, 2019)

As an aside...

Although I think this is relevant as part of a larger discussion about how we/the system create outcomes based on erroneous and arrogant first principles:


This article outlines the problem with the way the majority of sociology and psychology studies take their samples from a small band of people, and then apply findings to the wider collective.

WEIRD is an acronym for Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic.

How normal is WEIRD?



Also a side issue, but also very interesting is the finding that lab mice and rats fear male technicians more than they do female technicians, and this has probably skewed findings for decades. Some of what I’ve read suggests that it has long been recognised, but nothing was done about it, either to study or to remedy the problem, and I can’t help help but wonder if that inertia was based in some kind of patriarchal lockdown.

Lab mice fear men but not women, and that's a big problem for science


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2019)

mr steev said:


> Hmm. I've never heard a male voice on a satnav (unless it's been changed to Brian Blessed). There is a gender stereotyping going on though, on top of the research of what voices people prefer. Women have historically been the secretary/assistant/librarian etc


historically men were librarians, among them mao zedong, casanova, liebniz. it started to become a predominantly female profession in the nineteenth century because women were cheaper to hire, so when dewey of dewey decimal fame promoted the recruitment of women he wasn't intending to be progressive but economical.


----------



## Winot (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I'm 6'3", so all sinks and basins, standard height worksurfaces and office furniture is too low.  I understand the points made upthread about cupboards and so on being too high, but frankly I'd love the option to get a comfortable working height by something as simple as standing on steps. For the most part there really isn't any solution, so, like a lot of tall people I too get backache from using space designed for those shorter than us.



*6'4" fistbump*

When we had our kitchen built we had them raise the surfaces by about 2-3" (there is a standard plinth that they can use). We don't have any high cupboards or shelves and my OH and kids (who are all relatively tall) don't have a problem with the surface height.

Kitchen design is an argument for associative mating.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Also a side issue, but also very interesting is the finding that lab mice and rats fear male technicians more than they do female technicians, and this has probably skewed findings for decades.



That's pretty fascinating.  I expect the inertia might just have been down to it being one of many, many, many things that need more attention and don't seem to get looked at - ask any scientist and they'll bend your ear for ages about their particular peeves. 

But I can see how supervisors of grad students might be saying the experiments should be focused on the mice and not the experimenters, and/or pushing their own existing avenues of research (you get an effect where visible research in an area leads to more researchers picking up the baton, so the distribution of stuff being looked at gets very lumpy).

Also (unscientifically, obviously), when it comes to dealing with experiments involving mice, every one I've ever met except one has been female (the experimenters, not the mice).


----------



## Thora (Apr 29, 2019)

Getting medication while pregnant (otc stuff like decongestant or hay-fever spray) is the one that really winds me up. You can't find out what the actual risk is (probably no real risk) but it's easier just to say no to pregnant women, "be on the safe side".

Also car seat belts never fit me.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 29, 2019)

All experiments contain assumptions, bias and subjectivity.  The different between quantitative and qualitative research is that the former pretends this doesn’t exist whereas the latter explicitly discusses it.


----------



## Thora (Apr 29, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> There's no easy answer to this one, I'm a bloke and am _always_ hot. Doesn't mean I expect an office temperature to conform to my specifications though. The one point I would make is that it's inherently easier to warm up, than it is to cool down. In a cold office one can wear extra layers, in a hot office there are few options available whilst maintaining standards of decency. But what does really rile me is how cold people get all the sympathy... "Oh no, you're cold! that's awful, we must find a way to warm you up". Compared to "why is that man sweating all over his keyboard? looks minging, glad I'm not him...".
> 
> When you can't think straight, when the sweat's making your eyes sting, when your armpits are like swamps, when you'd rather die than spend another fucking day in a stiflingly warm, oppressive office... I'd give _anything_ to be a cold person...


Are you objecting to women wanting the world to conform to their specifications?
Or pointing out women actually don't have it that bad and should stop complaining?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 29, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Also a side issue, but also very interesting is the finding that lab mice and rats fear male technicians more than they do female technicians, and this has probably skewed findings for decades. Some of what I’ve read suggests that it has long been recognised, but nothing was done about it, either to study or to remedy the problem, and I can’t help help but wonder if that inertia was based in some kind of patriarchal lockdown.
> 
> Lab mice fear men but not women, and that's a big problem for science



That's interesting - and makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.


----------



## Thora (Apr 29, 2019)

I love that on a thread about feminism and a world designed for men, so many posts are about how ACTUALLY its really hard being tall and hot and male


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

Thora said:


> I love that on a thread about feminism and a world designed for men, so many posts are about how ACTUALLY its really hard being tall and hot and male



That’s just to dissuade you from giving it a go.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 29, 2019)

Thora said:


> I love that on a thread about feminism and a world designed for men, so many posts are about how ACTUALLY its really hard being tall and hot and male


Wait until we start discussing sexual assault in a few weeks time...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Wait until we start discussing sexual assault in a few weeks time...



Do we have a schedule for these things now?


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I'm 6'3", so all sinks and basins, standard height worksurfaces and office furniture is too low.  I understand the points made upthread about cupboards and so on being too high, but frankly I'd love the option to get a comfortable working height by something as simple as standing on steps. For the most part there really isn't any solution, so, like a lot of tall people I too get backache from using space designed for those shorter than us.



You can also get backache and shoulder problems from constantly reaching up, and steps aren't always safe, especially in a kitchen which is likely to have floors that aren't the safest to place steps on. Plus you're more likely to be hit by a falling object because you're having to grab and swipe at things rather than simply reach for them. 

I agree it's a difficult situation though, where few people will win. But if you're going to have an average at all (and sometimes you do have to) it should be an average that actually reflects the average user rather than the average designer or installer. Or, with office furniture, they should install items that can be adjusted for the user. Chairs have been for a long time but there's not much point in adjusting the chair if it means you can't use the keyboard or screen properly.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

One exception I can think of is when I went to Uni, my first year was in a women's hall which had just gone mixed.  The bath was too small, not in a "looks silly" kind of way, but just enough to be kind of painful after a bit for an average-sized bloke (which I am).

Would be annoying to feel slightly the wrong size almost all the time, so I can identify.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 29, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> What is most disturbing is that this is getting to be insitiutionalised in algorithms. Such as the Turkish translation.
> 
> Its moving beyond men making gender bias to algorithms* doing it as part of the way they have been set up.[*QUOTE]
> I think the algorithms are nothing new or 'beyond'. Gender bias is part of the way we are all set up. As many of the non-tech examples on this thread suggest
> ...


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

8ball said:


> One exception I can think of is when I went to Uni, my first year was in a women's hall which had just gone mixed.  The bath was too small, not in a "looks silly" kind of way, but just enough to be kind of painful after a bit for an average-sized bloke (which I am).
> 
> Would be annoying to feel slightly the wrong size almost all the time, so I can identify.



Odds are that was just crappy design though. Baths aren't better smaller just because you're small.


----------



## Manter (Apr 29, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can't recall if it was that programme or another R4 one that was talking about the inbuilt prejudice in the way computers discriminated against women eg:
> - not selecting CVs of perfectly qualified women for a job shortlist
> - or translation programs that when asked to translate 'He is a nurse' & 'She is president' into turkish that hasn't got gendered pronouns, then back in to english it became 'She is a nurse' & 'He is president'
> chnology more and more.
> ...


That was a different programme. I heard that one. Quite shocking


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Odds are that was just crappy design though. Baths aren't better smaller just because you're small.



If I was smaller it would have been fine.  I really think it was just that.
They'd put a new block on recently and the baths in that bit were fine... I found out... incidentally...


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> You can also get backache and shoulder problems from constantly reaching up, and steps aren't always safe, especially in a kitchen which is likely to have floors that aren't the safest to place steps on. Plus you're more likely to be hit by a falling object because you're having to grab and swipe at things rather than simply reach for them.
> 
> I agree it's a difficult situation though, where few people will win. But if you're going to have an average at all (and sometimes you do have to) it should be an average that actually reflects the average user rather than the average designer or installer. Or, with office furniture, they should install items that can be adjusted for the user. Chairs have been for a long time but there's not much point in adjusting the chair if it means you can't use the keyboard or screen properly.


I'd like to think there's a way round this, but I'm not that hopeful.  I worked in a place with (very expensive) adjustable desks once but very seldom saw one that had been changed.  To start with I'd raise mine, but it was always back to standard when I came in for the next shift so eventually I gave up.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I'd like to think there's a way round this, but I'm not that hopeful.  I worked in a place with (very expensive) adjustable desks once but very seldom saw one that had been changed.  To start with I'd raise mine, but it was always back to standard when I came in for the next shift so eventually I gave up.



You could have a fixable, adjustable keyboard and mouse stand - they exist and are cheaper than adjustable desks- and allow the monitor to be adjusted in height (which is usually fairly easy but not always done). Then you have the desks slightly high so that people don't have the uncomfortable situation where their legs don't fit under the desk, but the lowest position of the keyboard stand etc is comfortable for short people and can be made higher for the taller people. The other stuff on the desk is unlikely to be much of an issue. 

Hotdesking makes this much more difficult obvs but I loathe hotdesking anyway.

It's the sort of thing companies that advise on adjustments for disability advise on, but it applies to everyone.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

8ball said:


> If I was smaller it would have been fine.  I really think it was just that.
> They'd put a new block on recently and the baths in that bit were fine... I found out... incidentally...



It would have been fine, but it's not like the women would have requested a smaller bath.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It would have been fine, but it's not like the women would have requested a smaller bath.



No, I expect they just put smaller baths in to save a little space.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

mango5 said:


> The AI 'gaffes' we hear about are entirely a result of doing the job as specified. 50% of the population are used to putting up with badly designed stuff. Why assume the examples are biased?



No company is going to deploy phone or door opening security software that fails to perform its basic function because it doesn't recognise any black people, are they?  Nor are many employers likely to buy CV scanning software that routinely ignores candidates with a female sounding name.  That's speculation: donation to the server fund if you can find any current, up to date, examples of real world AI that systematically works like that.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> No company is going to deploy phone or door opening security software that fails to perform its basic function because it doesn't recognise any black people, are they?  Nor are many employers likely to buy CV scanning software that routinely ignores candidates with a female sounding name.  That's speculation: donation to the server fund if you can find any current, up to date, examples of real world AI that systematically works like that.



Is Amazon a big enough company to count?

Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women - Reuters

And although I think AI not recognising people with darker skin (and it absolutely does and should never have been put on the market with those biases in its functioning) is an interesting topic I would personally prefer if this thread were about women rather than becoming a general thread about discrimination.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Is Amazon a big enough company to count?
> 
> Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women - Reuters




_But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way._


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> _But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way._



After years of using it. And if they were, you can bet other companies were.

And a lot of companies either wouldn't care about software that screened out female-sounding names or would think it was fantastic. Great, now we don't ever have to pay maternity pay and we can blame it on the software!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> After years of using it. And if they were, you can bet other companies were.
> 
> And a lot of companies either wouldn't care about software that screened out female-sounding names or would think it was fantastic. Great, now we don't ever have to pay maternity pay and we can blame it on the software!



Why was the machine doing that?


----------



## scifisam (Apr 29, 2019)

8ball said:


> Why was the machine doing that?



The article explains it. It looked at the CVs of previous successful and unsuccessful applicants and filtered positively for the words that were used in the successful CVs, and filtered negatively for the words used in the unsuccessful ones. One of the main things it discovered was that resumes that included the word "women" as in "women's chess club" tended not get hired in the past, because women have always had problems being hired in the tech industry, so it flagged those terms as negative. So it perpetuated a previously-existing problem.

It was more subtle than that, too: 



> Instead, the technology favored candidates who described themselves using verbs more commonly found on male engineers’ resumes, such as “executed” and “captured,” one person said.



Men are socialised to use more "aggressive" language than women are. If anyone tries to deny that I'm not going to bother to argue with them. 

There is the possibility to teach female applicants to use those words but that depends on them knowing what words to use, and if you tell everyone what words to use then the AI becomes useless.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> After years of using it. And if they were, you can bet other companies were.


the article says they started work in 2014 and withdrew the s/w in 2015. We all know there *were* systematic discrimination problems with AI, I asked whether there *are now*.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 29, 2019)

Literally helped a friend with an AI photo system that kept rejecting her headshot as "too dark" last year.

The systemic issues that get integrated into AI haven't gone away so the problem hasn't gone away. The worst part is all the systems that don't make such direct, observable decisions though, which are increasingly in use with big data. Do we really trust a finance risk indicator or behavioural threat level predictor for the police to be unbiased? I don't (and I have a degree in AI and worked with big data).


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

scifisam said:


> The article explains it. It looked at the CVs of previous successful and unsuccessful applicants and filtered positively for the words that were used in the successful CVs, and filtered negatively for the words used in the unsuccessful ones. One of the main things it discovered was that resumes that included the word "women" as in "women's chess club" tended not get hired in the past, because women have always had problems being hired in the tech industry, so it flagged those terms as negative. So it perpetuated a previously-existing problem...



Ah, so the data they fed in was based on who they had hired in the past.
Seems it worked perfectly in that sense.  Just told them a few things about themselves that they weren't expecting along with it.

edit:  Smash, bludgeon, grrr!!!


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 29, 2019)

Winot said:


> I think dylanredefined is talking about societal expectation that women should wear fewer clothes than men.


 


mr steev said:


> Virtually all Satnavs have a female voice as default, because apparently most people find female voices more cordial and calming


 I had a California surfer dude on mine and it was hated by so many people .


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> I had a California surfer dude on mine and it was hated by so many people .



My mate had that one when we went on a surfing holiday.
Yes, I did hate it after a week.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 29, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ah, so the data they fed in was based on who they had hired in the past.
> Seems it worked perfectly in that sense.  Just told them a few things about themselves that they weren't expecting along with it.


One of the best uses for this sort of AI/statistical analysis, exposing implicit prejudice.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Literally helped a friend with an AI photo system that kept rejecting her headshot as "too dark" last year.
> 
> The systemic issues that get integrated into AI haven't gone away so the problem hasn't gone away. The worst part is all the systems that don't make such direct, observable decisions though, which are increasingly in use with big data. Do we really trust a finance risk indicator or behavioural threat level predictor for the police to be unbiased? I don't (and I have a degree in AI and worked with big data).


ok. Do you think that systematic discrimination against women built into these systems is there by conscious design or by naivity?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> One of the best uses for this sort of AI/statistical analysis, exposing implicit prejudice.



Yeah, you could set up a firm which tells companies what their *real* company culture is like, but I doubt you'd get many takers.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 29, 2019)

There is a big difference between being an outlying male (which is what the men on this thread are complaining about) and being an average female. Average women are discriminated against not because we are outliers but simply because we are female. 

I bought my car 5 years ago and I can adjust seat height, pitch, steering wheel angle, temparatue on different sides of the car etc but not the height of the seatbelt. If I make the seat high enough so that it isn't cutting into the side of my neck, it's a really uncomfortable (and rubbish) driving position. It would cost very little to make it adjustable but it's not considered necessary 

It was quite hard trying to find a pair of steel toe-capped boots too - I only found one shop that sold them.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I bought my car 5 years ago and I can adjust seat height, pitch, steering wheel angle, temparatue on different sides of the car etc but not the height of the seatbelt. If I make the seat high enough so that it isn't cutting into the side of my neck, it's a really uncomfortable (and rubbish) driving position. It would cost very little to make it adjustable but it's not considered necessary



I believe you get it on some cars, but its considered a "luxury" feature.

Until embarassingly recently I thought the little "switch" on the mirror was a "Mum/Dad" button, because the change in tilt in my folks' cars when I was growing up was exactly the right height to adjust it for their relative height difference.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> ok. Do you think that systematic discrimination against women built into these systems is there by conscious design or by naivity?


How about unconscious design, or neglectful behaviour? In general it's rare that people actively set out to discriminate with AI, but they don't examine their own prejudices and are (or should be) fully aware that their prejudices will affect the final system. These ideas aren't _new_. I doubt seatbelt or body armour manufacturers actively set out to discriminate either yet here we are.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 29, 2019)

Ooh steps - that's another thing. Quite often I have to do two stupid little steps on a stair because the treads are too deep or lift my knee into my chin because the risers are too high. Horrible


----------



## weepiper (Apr 29, 2019)

Sofas. If my back is supported by the sofa back, my legs are sticking out over the edge like a little kid. If my feet are on the floor I need several cushions or I get a sore back.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> ok. Do you think that systematic discrimination against women built into these systems is there by conscious design or by naivity?


Why do you think that question is the central one to this thread?  Do you think human systematic discrimination against women is always by conscious design?  The whole point is that it is a side-effect of the way the system is set up, rather than being malevolent by intent.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> ok. Do you think that systematic discrimination against women built into these systems is there by conscious design or by naivity?


You really are struggling with this aren't you. Do you think your binary options and assumption that the examples given are 'cherry picked' are naive or consciously anti-feminist?


----------



## Saunders (Apr 29, 2019)

Seriously hope we’re not blaming the patriarchy for putting cupboards and shelves at the wrong height. 
Ffs.
On the other hand, I just bought an ironing board from Aldi. TOTALLY Right-hand user orientated. Bloody up/down lever on the WRONG side.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 29, 2019)

Saunders said:


> Seriously hope we’re not blaming the patriarchy for putting cupboards and shelves at the wrong height.


 why on earth do you hope this? Does the sheer enormity and ubiquity of female disadvantage feel too much to bear even thinking about? Your comparison with left handedness is dismissive and minimising and shit.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 29, 2019)

Saunders said:


> Seriously hope we’re not blaming the patriarchy for putting cupboards and shelves at the wrong height.
> Ffs.
> On the other hand, I just bought an ironing board from Aldi. TOTALLY Right-hand user orientated. Bloody up/down lever on the WRONG side.



Been here for a year with just 13 messages to his name and now chooses to speak in order to pour scorn on a feminist thread


----------



## killer b (Apr 29, 2019)

Saunders said:


> Seriously hope we’re not blaming the patriarchy for putting cupboards and shelves at the wrong height.


That is, in fact, exactly what were doing.


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 29, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, you could set up a firm which tells companies what their *real* company culture is like, but I doubt you'd get many takers.


Well... on the flip side there are people like Textio using AI to help companies write more gender neutral job adverts: Bias meter | Reveal hidden gender bias in your writing


----------



## Edie (Apr 29, 2019)

mango5 said:


> why on earth do you hope this? Does the sheer enormity and ubiquity of female disadvantage feel too much to bear even thinking about? Your comparison with left handedness is dismissive and minimising and shit.


Sometimes only a mango5 put down will do   x


----------



## Sue (Apr 29, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I have to wear a small men's polo shirt for uniform because the mechanic's shirts are not available in a women's cut. It's like a tent on me.


A female colleague mentioned this today. We both started work recently at a software company and got a t shirt when we joined. When we were asked for our size, I said medium and, of course, got a man's medium which is far too big. My colleague -- who's very petite -- asked for small and, of course the men's small is bloody enormous on her. Not that I'd ever wear it -- it might come in handy for painting -- guess it's more the lack of thought.


----------



## JudithB (Apr 29, 2019)

A small derail...

I am a massive GoT fan and I cannot believe how many fanboys are hating on Arya this evening. Sorry boys, girls can kick ass. 

Bet her armour fit


----------



## 8ball (Apr 29, 2019)

JudithB said:


> A small derail...
> 
> I am a massive GoT fan and I cannot believe how many fanboys are hating on Arya this evening. Sorry boys, girls can kick ass.
> 
> Bet her armour fit



SPOILERS!!!!


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, you could set up a firm which tells companies what their *real* company culture is like, but I doubt you'd get many takers.


Yeah there are a fair few organisations attempting to make money from helping others to understand and deal with various biases, many of them charities.
Some outfits have been trying to to make an effective 'business case' against discrimination for decades. Scoping the problem and proposing solutions is much easier than actually dealing with the problem.


----------



## Poot (Apr 30, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Yeah there are a fair few organisations attempting to make money from helping others to understand and deal with various biases, many of them charities.
> Some outfits have been trying to to make an effective 'business case' against discrimination for decades. Scoping the problem and proposing solutions is much easier than actually dealing with the problem.


Yeah, that's true. It's all about perception. Like the gender pay gap issue. Everyone looks really good now that they've 'addressed' it.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Been here for a year with just 13 messages to his name and now chooses to speak in order to pour scorn on a feminist thread


Perhaps I'm missing something but I wonder why you describe Saunders as male?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something but I wonder why you describe Saunders as male?


Because there’s something about the wind-up entitled MRA nature of the troll that just screams it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 30, 2019)

8ball said:


> I believe you get it on some cars, but its considered a "luxury" feature.
> 
> Until embarassingly recently I thought the little "switch" on the mirror was a "Mum/Dad" button, because the change in tilt in my folks' cars when I was growing up was exactly the right height to adjust it for their relative height difference.


things you should have worked out years ago thread >>>>>


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

Edie said:


> Sometimes only a mango5 put down will do   x





mango5 said:


> Does the sheer enormity and ubiquity of female disadvantage feel too much to bear even thinking about?


TBH I think a lot of the time for most people the answer to my question is "yes".
ETA myself included.


----------



## newbie (Apr 30, 2019)

mango5 said:


> You really are struggling with this aren't you. Do you think your binary options and assumption that the examples given are 'cherry picked' are naive or consciously anti-feminist?


I don't think it's somehow anti-feminist to be skeptical about claims made for how AI behaves in 2019 based on evidence from some years ago.   That evidence led to incomplete data and introduced bias being widely identified as central challenges. I certainly don't want to appear to defend all things AI, but I recognise that the machines are learning, as are the humans who manipulate the algorithms and provide the core data sets. The Amazon software mentioned was withdrawn as not fit for purpose, partly because it discriminated against women, yet other recruitment AI is now in use. Claims of systematic bias against non caucasian faces have been around for years yet AI recognition is starting to be deployed for document free passage through high security airports. It's not anti-anybody to want evidence of current practice being as discriminatory as it was a few years ago.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

Prof Gina Neff is my starting point on gender /AI issues.
Gina Neff


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

newbie said:


> It's not anti-anybody to want evidence of current practice being as discriminatory as it was a few years ago.


True,. But you seem to resist the idea that progress is not being made. The point of many of these threads is to look at the continuing discriminatory environment in recognition that many things are not improving at all.


----------



## newbie (Apr 30, 2019)

mango5 said:


> True,. But you seem to resist the idea that progress is not being made. The point of many of these threads is to look at the continuing discriminatory environment in recognition that many things are not improving at all.


I don't doubt the generality of your latter point and have no desire to frustrate that intention.  This sub-thread grew out of a radio programme that cited specifics that imo don't really still appear to stack up, that's all.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

Luckily there are sufficient examples outside that radio programme for this to be a serious conversation elsewhere, interlinked with related topics as indicated upthread.


> To break the cycle of gender imbalance, it is critical to ensure that women at all stages of their careers are being inspired to actively take part in the development and use of new technologies. As outlined above, our research suggests that this is currently not the case in AI, and we see similar trends in other new technologies such as blockchain – as new skills emerge, the old biases persist.


from here 
Will AI make the gender gap in the workplace harder to close?
And 





> Gartner predicts that by 2022, 85% of AI projects will deliver erroneous outcomes due to bias in data, algorithms or the teams responsible for managing them


From here Why we need to solve the issue of gender bias before AI makes it worse

Here's a bit more info on the Turkish translation example, surely you can't insist on waiting for 'evidence' about the improvements made in 2019 before taking the info behind these (hastily googled) discussions seriously. 
Artificial intelligence is demonstrating gender bias – and it’s our fault


----------



## scifisam (Apr 30, 2019)

newbie said:


> I don't think it's somehow anti-feminist to be skeptical about claims made for how AI behaves in 2019 based on evidence from some years ago.   That evidence led to incomplete data and introduced bias being widely identified as central challenges. I certainly don't want to appear to defend all things AI, but I recognise that the machines are learning, as are the humans who manipulate the algorithms and provide the core data sets. The Amazon software mentioned was withdrawn as not fit for purpose, partly because it discriminated against women, yet other recruitment AI is now in use. Claims of systematic bias against non caucasian faces have been around for years yet AI recognition is starting to be deployed for document free passage through high security airports. It's not anti-anybody to want evidence of current practice being as discriminatory as it was a few years ago.



Huh? You're actually discounting the Amazon software because they decided to stop using it? I mean, it's good that they stopped, but that doesn't mean their previous use of it ceased to exist or that all recruitment AI is suddenly better than the one used by an enormous company with tons of money.

"Incomplete data."


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

Further to the thread title, a forthcoming book 'The virgin and the plough' takes the analysis of patriarchy and technology more broadly, not just digital.

Technology, Paternity, Patriarchy
Note for searches you need American spelling of plough


----------



## keithy (Apr 30, 2019)

Anyone wondering why this happens just needs to read some of the posts by men on this thread lol.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 30, 2019)

Which specific posts? If you can't detail your points I can't engage with you. Once you do I can find a flaw and delegitimise your argument.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 30, 2019)

Here's a thing from the FT about increasing internal dissatisfaction with the way AI systems work, even within the companies concerned, and the absurd token efforts over "AI ethics": Subscribe to read | Financial Times



> In response to criticism not only from campaigners and academics but also their own staff, companies have begun to self-regulate by trying to set up their own “AI ethics” initiatives that perform roles ranging from academic research — as in the case of Google-owned DeepMind’s Ethics and Society division — to formulating guidelines and convening external oversight panels.
> 
> The efforts have led to a fragmented landscape of efforts that both supporters and critics agree have not yet had demonstrable outcomes beyond igniting a debate around the topic of AI and its social implications.
> 
> ...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 30, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> So you know how unpleasant it is to be horribly hot?


yes of course I do, I'm a menopausal harridan.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 30, 2019)

Thora said:


> I love that on a thread about feminism and a world designed for men, so many posts are about how ACTUALLY its really hard being tall and hot and male



Yes. We don't live in bespoke world and a lot of cars/objects/environments etc are designed for the 'average'. It just seems to me that the average is too often the male average. One size rarely fits all.

I would like to draw attention to the systematic design that has not just inconvenient but has been detrimental or even deadly to 51% of the population who isn't male


----------



## Gromit (Apr 30, 2019)

Seems relevant...

When will you next buy a phone?



> When Apple announced it was discontinuing its iPhone SE, which has a 4in screen, Caroline Criado-Perez, author of a new book called Invisible Women, tweeted that the tech giant had "failed to update the only phone it makes that fits the average woman's hand size".
> "Weak applause all round from my arthritic hands," she continued in the now-deleted thread on Twitter in September 2018.



Do you agree?

[anecdotal evidence only] 
From what I've seen out and about women tend to go for the biggest handset they can get their hands on so this criticism surprised me.

I personally wanted a big handset. Tried one in store. Saw one handed typing was impossible on one and thought fuck that I'll stick to normal sized phones thanks.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 30, 2019)

I was born in the 60s in a world very much designed for men. I was socialised to be meek, obedient in preparation for my future role of wife and mother. (thank fuck feminism and queer liberation saved me from that!)

The 11+ exam at the time allowed more boys to pass with a lower score.
The equal pay act didn't come in til I was 10 and the equal education act after I had started secondary school. I went to a school not equipped to provide 'male' subjects - metal work, tech drawing or A level physics. As a young women I felt I had to try very hard to get taken seriously in education and in work.   I feel the design of education and political system through my formative years put me a disavantage.

This was a common saying "Whatever *women* do they *must* do *twice* as well as men to be thought half as good." I've just looked that quote up and found it has an ending that I didn't know "Luckily, this is not difficult."


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2019)

There were moves back in late 70s and early 80s to make architecture that was designed by women.

Matrix Feminist Design Cooperative – Making Difference: Architectures of Gender



> This means a change of role of the architect. The architect should help the users to realize their own needs and help to express them, rather than imposing ideas and offering ready-made designs. Therefore in their projects, they attempted to develop participatory design methods that value women’s involvement in all stages of the evolution of a building – from recognizing the need of a building until its final use.



These feminist architects tried to break down the mystification of design to encourage women to plan spaces.

This has been forgotten. With cuts and Thatcher this kind of feminist community. planning didn't last.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 30, 2019)

Re computing. A lot of women worked in computing before the 70s. When women could be legally paid less than men, could be legally sacked when they became pregnant or when they married. 

At some point women began to be excluded from computing, whether that was legally, or consciouly or unconsciously -  but the fact is the computing industry became more male at some point. 

Am I wrong in thinking that if the data that fed the A1 resulted in an anti female bias - there must have been bias in the employment practises before A1. If the programs that some tech companies used had this bias up to 5 years ago then there must be a historic gender inbalance in these companies from before that time. More of the people with over 5 year experience must be disproportionately male. that fact that this is being raised as an issue now is good - but how long will it take HR to adjust such gender inbalance in employment?

I think that everyone, what ever their gender, absorbs the bias of the society they are raised in and the culture all around them. When we all have conscious and unconscious bias against women it takes conscious effort to examine it and act against it.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 30, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> There were moves back in late 70s and early 80s to make architecture that was designed by women.
> 
> Matrix Feminist Design Cooperative – Making Difference: Architectures of Gender
> 
> ...


I would have liked to have been an artitect, but I didn't have the opportunity to do tech drawing O level.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I would have liked to have been an artitect, but I didn't have the opportunity to do tech drawing O level.




Did you see in the article about Matrix feminist architects that they designed Lambeth women's workshop. Probably early 80s.

The workshop taught women joinery.

There was a lot of these small projects around in early 80s. Encouraging women into learning skills that traditionally men only did.

These projects were a step towards moving on from a world designed by men.

It's sad that all this went.

There is a paucity of imagination now.

I was talking to a Council officer recently. Her job was to help single mothers on the estate into work. Her idea was to encourage them to set-up cooking type business

I did ask why not set up courses in skills like joinery etc.

Her view was that was to difficult and these women cooked at home anyway. I did say this is reinforcing gender stereotypes.

She didn't have answer to that.

Apart from fact that these days there is little or no funding to run projects.

My point is without resources gender stereotypes get replicated as it's easier than providing support to help change them.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Seems relevant...
> 
> When will you next buy a phone?
> Do you agree?
> ...


We don't give a shit about your surprise, anecdotal evidence and personal preferences. Whether or not we _agree_ with a woman who has done a ton of well received and published work on this is irrelevant to whether she is right about it or not.
Luckily we can depersonalise this 
Apple’s big screens are bad news for women, or anyone with small hands


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Her view was that was to difficult and these women cooked at home anyway.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 1, 2019)

great programme on bbcR4 this morning called new ways of seeing  BBC - New Ways Of Seeing - Media Centre  


> How is technology changing the way we see? The artist James Bridle (pictured) reimagines John Berger’s Ways Of Seeing for the digital age and reveals the internet’s hidden infrastructure.
> In 1972, Berger’s seminal TV series and book changed perceptions of art and set out to reveal the language of images. Of course, that was before the internet, smartphones, and social media took hold.
> 
> How do we see the world around us now? And, who are the artists urging us to look more closely?
> ...


 lots of people talking about the themes we have been discussing here. Well worth a listen


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> View attachment 169457


It would be really nice to avoid examples of women having these attitudes. We know many do, and that it has an impact.  We live in a world of facepalm, please don't rub it in.  Gramsci's point about resources is the key issue in response to the OP


friendofdorothy said:


> Females are 51% of the population but the world its systems, technology, medicine and so much more are not designed with us in mind. Why?





friendofdorothy said:


> This issue makes me livid.


I'm getting rather grumpy and impatient too.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Apart from fact that these days there is little or no funding to run projects.
> 
> My point is without resources gender stereotypes get replicated as it's easier than providing support to help change them.


  'feminism' and 'queer' liberation weren't taught in class and weren't well resourced or publicly funded. How did they suceed? Challanging stereotypes and looking at our own unconcious bias is something we can all do. Things get replicated only if we don't all examine our own thoughts and actions. In the 70s and 80s feminism mostly took place among small groups of women in CR consciousness raising groups in each others houses - passing on ideas and sharing books and knowledge.

Surely with wide access to the internet such meeting of ideas should be easier, as we are doing here. However I think trolls try to shut down debate eg whataboutery, what about the menz, etc. My knowledge of social media begins and ends with urban so I'd love to hear from people about experiences of discussing feminist topics on line.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 1, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I bought my car 5 years ago and I can adjust seat height, pitch, steering wheel angle, temparatue on different sides of the car etc but not the height of the seatbelt. If I make the seat high enough so that it isn't cutting into the side of my neck, it's a really uncomfortable (and rubbish) driving position. It would cost very little to make it adjustable but it's not considered necessary



Get a 'Seat Belt Adjuster Clip' off ebay.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> Get a 'Seat Belt Adjuster Clip' off ebay.


Why should women have to spend more to get the world to fit our bodies?


----------



## DownwardDog (May 1, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Why should women have to spend more to get the world to fit our bodies?



They shouldn't but she's got the car she's got and the clip would make it less unpleasant to drive hence my suggestion.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Did you see in the article about Matrix feminist architects that they designed Lambeth women's workshop. Probably early 80s.
> 
> The workshop taught women joinery.
> 
> ...


Mrs model was on a free women-only carpentry course at an fe college recently, so some things like that are out there


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

DownwardDog said:


> They shouldn't but she's got the car she's got and the clip would make it less unpleasant to drive hence my suggestion.


I'm pretty sure she wasn't asking for suggestions. Your response to her post is the kind of thing this thread is about, i.e. not making it easier to find adjustments but the fundamental design issues.


----------



## LeytonCatLady (May 1, 2019)

scifisam said:


> This is a really minor thing, but I like geeky t-shirts and an awful lot of them are only for men, or there are technically some available in a woman's shape but they're never in stock. Obvs women can wear men's t-shirts, and some do, but the shape doesn't suit most women - some don't care, but I do. Went around Forbidden Planet the other day and they had one women's shape t-shirt in the entire shop, as well as about 100 men's t-shirts.



I feel you, it's the same for me with band T-shirts. Often, when you do get one specifically in a "ladies'" size, it's in white or pink instead of the black/dark colour I personally prefer. And don't get me started on the lack of pockets in women's jeans. Not all of us want to carry a handbag around. Thank God for rucksacks.

Also, as a guitarist, I've had one or two comments about "why are your tits hanging over your guitar?" I refuse to be shamed out of playing it just because whoever designed the instrument didn't have women in mind.


----------



## Gromit (May 1, 2019)

mango5 said:


> We don't give a shit about your surprise, anecdotal evidence and personal preferences. Whether or not we _agree_ with a woman who has done a ton of well received and published work on this is irrelevant to whether she is right about it or not.
> Luckily we can depersonalise this
> Apple’s big screens are bad news for women, or anyone with small hands


No need to bite my head off. I was only asking for your opinion.

And obviously I was aware that anecdotal evidence doesnt count for much which is why I labeled it in square brackets.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

I'm tempted to ask the mods for a thread ban for you on all matters relating to women.
In the meantime do fuck off, Gromit.

Why does society not trust women? 
Should female footballers be paid the same as males?
Statement festival: 'Man-free' event found guilty of discrimination
Literary expert twat resigns from the Bronte Society after hugely capable woman awarded patron role
https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...exual-harassment.355030/page-12#post-15301795


----------



## cheesethief (May 1, 2019)

LeytonCatLady said:


> I feel you, it's the same for me with band T-shirts. Often, when you do get one specifically in a "ladies'" size, it's in white or pink instead of the black/dark colour I personally prefer. And don't get me started on the lack of pockets in women's jeans. Not all of us want to carry a handbag around. Thank God for rucksacks.


Why don't women's jeans have pockets in them?


----------



## LeytonCatLady (May 1, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> Why don't women's jeans have pockets in them?


They do, but not usually ones deep enough to carry your wallet/phone etc. Blokes' jeans seem to have deeper pockets for that exact purpose.


----------



## Winot (May 1, 2019)

Saw this recently which might be useful:

with POCKETS! – because we just want pockets


----------



## Poot (May 1, 2019)

I love this image. I wish I'd thought of this.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

Short answer: patriarchy in the fashion industry  The Gender Politics of Pockets
Long answer: patriarchy in the fashion industry 


> This study situates pockets as significant gendered objects in the dress and lives of men and women in the period from the 1790s to 1914. Using surviving examples and a diverse range of visual and documentary sources, it examines the role of pockets in the consumption of personal possessions and money, and explores how pockets occupied a special place in relation to the body and its gestures. By revealing differences in the way men and women used their pockets, the study concludes that pockets embodied change and complexity within the consumption of fashion and the construction of gender.


Burman, Barbara (2002) Pocketing the difference: pockets and gender in nineteenth-century Britain. _Gender & History_, 14 (3), 447-469. (doi:10.1111/1468-0424.00277).


----------



## eoin_k (May 1, 2019)

Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of pockets as well. We're all too often conscripted into the role of walking handbags for the women in our lives who can't fit their keys, phone or wallet into their own jeans.


----------



## kabbes (May 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of pockets as well. We're all too often conscripted into the role of walking handbags for the women in our lives who can't fit their keys, phone or wallet into their own jeans.


Thus increasing the association between femininity and helplessness.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 1, 2019)

Often when we are going out my partner will ask if I am taking a bag with me as he wants to put his keys and stuff in it to keep them safe and.or he doesn't want them weighing his pockets down.


----------



## Sue (May 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of pockets as well. We're all too often conscripted into the role of walking handbags for the women in our lives who can't fit their keys, phone or wallet into their own jeans.


I've only experienced this the other way round. 'SInce you're taking a bag anyway, could you fit in my jacket/book/camera/bottle of water...'


----------



## Sue (May 1, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Often when we are going out my partner will ask if I am taking a bag with me as he wants to put his keys and stuff in it to keep them safe.


Hah.


----------



## cheesethief (May 1, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Short answer: patriarchy in the fashion industry  The Gender Politics of Pockets
> Long answer: patriarchy in the fashion industry
> 
> Burman, Barbara (2002) Pocketing the difference: pockets and gender in nineteenth-century Britain. _Gender & History_, 14 (3), 447-469. (doi:10.1111/1468-0424.00277).


This isn't exactly my area of expertise so this may be a silly question, but surely in 2019 there are lots of women designing women's clothes - do they not address the pocket shortcomings? It sounds like there's a ready market for it out there!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Re computing. A lot of women worked in computing before the 70s. When women could be legally paid less than men, could be legally sacked when they became pregnant or when they married.
> 
> At some point women began to be excluded from computing, whether that was legally, or consciouly or unconsciously -  but the fact is the computing industry became more male at some point.
> 
> ...


The history of gender in computing is interesting (well, it's something I find interesting as I work in computing) but pretty typical. Originally nobody had an idea of the potential of algorithmic information processing anyway, and it was treated as a bit of a routine job so palmed off to women, plus some of this happened during WW2 when a lot of the available staff were women (Bletchley Park had loads of women doing really high-level stuff). Once it became obvious that this was important and the job became higher status, it started to become more male dominated.

But there's a significant cultural side-point to this - in the 80s and 90s there was a cultural shift towards anything to do with computers being treated as male, which started from childhood. Computer games were not initially treated as "boys' toys" but marketing increasingly encouraged this. On the one hand you can say that this is ruthless demographic-based advertising practice, and it does coincide with the development of the concept of being able to target a whole suite of products to a particular demographic, but I don't think it is independent of the change in the nature of the professional role. Gender-biasing a particular area doesn't come out of nowhere. There's no intrinsic reason computers couldn't be seen as "girly" even if there was going to be a distinction at all.

Basically I agree that gender bias in tech arises from broader social attitudes. We can address it specifically with "women in tech" conferences and "teach girls to code" projects and so on, but I always think those are going to be most successful if they are also a way to attack the structures that brought about the problems in the first place. It's not just an issue with computer tech as an area - developers work in a world run by bog standard corporate management.


----------



## Manter (May 1, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> This isn't exactly my area of expertise so this may be a silly question, but surely in 2019 there are lots of women designing women's clothes - do they not address the pocket shortcomings? It sounds like there's a ready market for it out there!


Yes. More and more women’s clothes have pockets- but lots don’t because they make a garment ‘bulky’ especially around the hips. This, a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 1, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Often when we are going out my partner will ask if I am taking a bag with me as he wants to put his keys and stuff in it to keep them safe and.or he doesn't want them weighing his pockets down.


 glasses


----------



## scifisam (May 1, 2019)

BBC London news is currently talking about some facial recognition software that the Met have been using. It's ridiculously ineffective - it was used just six times at Stratford Westfield and got it wrong every time, and in the other larger trial it was wrong 96% of the time. But the Met _still _want to continue rolling out its usage! A charity whose name I didn't catch (maybe Liberty?) intends to sue them if they do it because apparently all the women and ethnic minorities it looked for were misidentified.

It's been used at protests and the Notting Hill Carnival.

I've looked online but can't yet find a source with the information that was just on the news, but I'll look again tomorrow. And of course the news is iplayer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 1, 2019)

scifisam said:


> BBC London news is currently talking about some facial recognition software that the Met have been using. It's ridiculously ineffective - it was used just six times at Stratford Westfield and got it wrong every time, and in the other larger trial it was wrong 96% of the time. But the Met _still _want to continue rolling out its usage! A charity whose name I didn't catch (maybe Liberty?) intends to sue them if they do it because apparently all the women and ethnic minorities it looked for were misidentified.
> 
> It's been used at protests and the Notting Hill Carnival.
> 
> I've looked online but can't yet find a source with the information that was just on the news, but I'll look again tomorrow. And of course the news is iplayer.


The UK-based electronic privacy groups have been mentioning this for a while - I'll see if I can find something. IIRC the system was just so bad it wasn't even slightly helpful. But you can sell the cops or military any old shit in this area, it's a huge market as there's very little oversight regarding "does it even fucking work".

eta: here's a Guardian story - UK police use of facial recognition technology a failure, says report


----------



## scifisam (May 1, 2019)

Jesus, that is ridiculous:



> The Met used facial recognition at the 2017 Notting Hill carnival, where the system was wrong 98% of the time, falsely telling officers on 102 occasions it had spotted a suspect.
> 
> The technology failed to pick out any suspects during the Met’s trial at the previous carnival.



So it completely and utterly failed and they carried on using it anyway. I understand that you have to give technology a chance to learn but that's just insane.

And of course the only way they'll have known they got it wrong is by stopping people and demanding ID. So that's 102 people stopped. What happened if they didn't have ID on them, I wonder? Were they held until they could produce it?

Also this:



> The report says US research shows the technology is particularly inaccurate identifying minority ethnic women.



Although that must be a slightly more advanced version of the tech because it's hard to be worse than 100% wrong. (Though some people do give it a really good try).


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2019)

mango5 said:


> It would be really nice to avoid examples of women having these attitudes. We know many do, and that it has an impact.  We live in a world of facepalm, please don't rub it in.  Gramsci's point about resources is the key issue in response to the OP
> 
> 
> I'm getting rather grumpy and impatient too.



To be fair I took Puddy_Tat face palm at frustration at way Council officers go on.

The example in question the Council. officer agreed that women should be able to do non traditional jobs. Then undercut that by saying in the present situation of cuts this was not  going to happen. So getting women to do cooking was the sensible option for now.

I belong to a couple of community groups so regularly meet Council officers.

I regularly get told by Council officers/ officials from outsourced Council services that I'm not "sensible". That I'm not realistic.

Its not that they have unconscious for example sexist attitudes. Far from it. They agree. But think in present economic situation I'm not being realistic. A world designed by women is something they would agree with. But that is for some as unspecified future date.

This is how oppression is now perpetuated. Overt sexism has gone to a large extent. Its now reformulated as a problem that will be dealt with at a future date. That keeps getting put back.

Imo that's more insidious and difficult to deal with.

Imo in late seventies early eighties there was an historical/ political moment when it looked like ideas like designed world for women etc would become mainstream.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

Gramsci I could just as easily have levelled the criticism at you for providing the example  which could have been written in a gender neutral way if the point was about council workers. 
 FWiW I think you and Puddy_Tat are both sound and can take the critique but this thread seems like a reasonable place to ask that examples of such attitudes aren't attributed to women if that's not the the point of the anecdote.


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yes. More and more women’s clothes have pockets- but lots don’t because they make a garment ‘bulky’ especially around the hips. This, a whole other can of worms.


Why do women buy clothes they don't like? Not like there is a shortage of choices. Most stores have double size (compared to blokes clothes) amounts of stuff to sell. See also pink razors.


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of ... .


Of course not. We all lose out in different ways.  That's the point. Women lose out more, for a multitude of reasons that deserve their own threads.
A world designed by women over umpteen centuries would doubtless be awful too. But that thought experiment is meaningless here


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 1, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Gramsci I could just as easily have levelled the criticism at you for providing the example  which could have been written in a gender neutral way if the point was about council workers.
> FWiW I think you and Puddy_Tat are both sound and can take the critique but this thread seems like a reasonable place to ask that examples of such attitudes aren't attributed to women if that's not the the point of the anecdote.



dunno really.

i'm not sure i'd really spotted the gender of the person making the facepaw-worthy comment in Gramsci 's post.

having said that, is it less, more, or differently facepaw-worthy that (in this instance) a woman seems to have gone along with accepting gender related limitations / boundaries?   i can't answer this from a woman's perspective.  from where i'm sitting, i can find gay men being against gay rights / prejudiced against what they consider the 'wrong sort of gay people' pretty damn facepaw-worthy...


----------



## mango5 (May 1, 2019)

Thing is, while that attitude is universally facepalmworthy it's the kind of example often used against women in this kind of debate. It touches a nerve.


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Why do women buy clothes they don't like? Not like there is a shortage of choices. Most stores have double size (compared to blokes clothes) amounts of stuff to sell. See also pink razors.


Why do men do this?


----------



## weepiper (May 1, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Why do women buy clothes they don't like? Not like there is a shortage of choices. Most stores have double size (compared to blokes clothes) amounts of stuff to sell. See also pink razors.


I don't buy clothes I don't like but the shops are nonetheless full of them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 1, 2019)

Santino said:


> Why do men do this?



Because women only have themselves to blame or something....


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2019)

Listened to the radio four New Ways of Seeing programme mentioned by friendofdorothy 

BBC Radio 4 - New Ways of Seeing, Digital Justice

Its one of several. This one was repeated this evening.

This one was about how technology of IT is reinforcing gender and racial stereotypes.

So the three artists in programme try to subvert technology or use it in way that means people can control it.

The work of Stephanie Dimkins reminded me of the Matrix feminist architects of the early 80s. Working with people to develop their own algorithms.

Zach Blas work was redesigning technology to subvert gender stereotypes.

Morehshin Allahyar looked at possibilities of 3D technology.

What I liked about all of them is that they didn't reject technology. They show that things don't have to be the way they are. As one of them says at end this is about (alternative) world building. 

Its also entirely realistic. They are using existing cutting edge technology. This isn't purely utopian. 

I found a few links to the artists in the programme.

about

http://www.morehshin.com/3d-additivist-manifesto/

Queer Technologies | Zach Blas

Relevant to this thread together these artists show how using technology worlds can be designed that go beyond the traditional binary of gender. What Zach calls hetero normative.


----------



## wayward bob (May 1, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Surely with wide access to the internet such meeting of ideas should be easier, as we are doing here. However I think trolls try to shut down debate eg whataboutery, what about the menz, etc. My knowledge of social media begins and ends with urban so I'd love to hear from people about experiences of discussing feminist topics on line.



i was a member of a uk feminist parents' board for a while, 15 or so years back. iirc it was all female posters (a spinoff from a more mainstream parenting board, so pretty tightly focussed on the parenting aspect). i found it a genuinely empowering/inspiring experience, a chance to listen to and be heard by people i thoroughly respected/admired. the first times i met internet people "irl" were connections i made there.

sadly it imploded horribly messily at a point when i was least able to cope with it. made me wary of any kind of genuinely _open_ online engagement for a long time after. but i still think of it fondly as my first real internet "home" and wonder how everyone's getting on still.


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

Santino said:


> Why do men do this?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2019)

saw this which some of you may be interested in


Tie-on Pockets and Her Story in the Long Eighteenth Century


----------



## Santino (May 2, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> saw this which some of you may be interested in
> 
> View attachment 169558
> Tie-on Pockets and Her Story in the Long Eighteenth Century


The IHR is currently being boycotted by academics and students in support of outsourced workers at the University of London.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2019)

Santino said:


> The IHR is currently being boycotted by academics and students in support of outsourced workers at the University of London.


er not quite right, events being held within the ihr (and other institutes of the central university of london) are currently subject to a boycott, so keep an eye on the location which may be subject to change; in addition, i don't suppose the boycott extends to the upcoming book.


----------



## scifisam (May 2, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Why do women buy clothes they don't like? Not like there is a shortage of choices. Most stores have double size (compared to blokes clothes) amounts of stuff to sell. See also pink razors.



Because within your budget there often _is_ a shortage of choices. 

Pink razors have annoying marketing but they still work perfectly well as razors and if there are multiple razors in one bathroom it can be handy knowing whose razor is whose.


----------



## 8ball (May 2, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> saw this which some of you may be interested in
> 
> View attachment 169558
> Tie-on Pockets and Her Story in the Long Eighteenth Century



Tie-on Pockets is a cruel name to give a child.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> Tie-on Pockets is a cruel name to give a child.


she was korean, pockets is the forename as it were


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 2, 2019)

Winot said:


> Saw this recently which might be useful:
> 
> with POCKETS! – because we just want pockets





eoin_k said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of pockets as well.





cheesethief said:


> This isn't exactly my area of expertise so this may be a silly question,  ...


 yes it it silly question



TopCat said:


> Why do women buy clothes they don't like? .


*This is p&p - not the fucking threads and dreads forum! *I really don't want to hear what anyone thinks of womens clothes here.

An analysis of gendered roles the fashion industry re-enforces well that would be more welcome. The fashion industry exploitation that traps (often female) workers making the tons of throw away clothes  and the many female consumers that are brought up to think they must buy this crap from childhood (new wardrobe for your sindy doll), bombarded with adverts to buy it, to keep up, to be acceptable amongst their peers.

Nor do I want any more fucking 'helpful' links to things to buy to make my female self fit the world better. I want the world to fit 51% of the human population better.

8ball and Pickman's model why do you think here is a good place for sniggering? Do we need distraction in case it's all tooo serious? maybe us women haven't got a sense of humour maybe. Take it elsewhere, please.

Thank you mango5 - well said I think Gromit should fuck off too.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 2, 2019)

Its not just products and objects that are not designed for women,  but education, politics, heath care, systems, ways of seeing, they way the work place is organised, the way the world works - I want us to challenge *why *things are as they are - how and why in these supposedly post feminist 21st century days is the world still isn't designed for women. How do we challenge it?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 2, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Nor do I want any more fucking 'helpful' links to things to buy to make my female self fit the world better.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 8, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Its not just products and objects that are not designed for women, but education, politics, heath care, systems, ways of seeing



and transport.

longish piece on the 'london reconnections' blog recently here (i've not read it in detail yet)


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and transport.
> 
> longish piece on the 'london reconnections' blog recently here (i've not read it in detail yet)



We definitely need more female statisticians.

Declaration of interest:  female statistician on my team is on maternity leave and am on a generally male-dominated team - applications welcome (from both sexes)


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and transport.
> 
> longish piece on the 'london reconnections' blog recently here (i've not read it in detail yet)



That's written by a friend of mine. He's one of the soundest people around.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

They were talking to the author about this on bbc Radio 4 this morning.

*Medical controversies*

Start the Week 

Andrew Marr discusses scientific breakthroughs and missteps with Joshua Mezrich, Angela Saini, Caroline Criado Perez and Richard Ashcroft.

BBC Radio 4 - Start the Week, Medical controversies



> Caroline Criado Perez exposes the gender biases in medical and scientific research. She argues that women have often been excluded from the data which has had a huge impact on the efficacy of the pills prescribed, and the treatment offered.


Interesting talk about women's symptom are recorded/taught as 'atypical' because the average human = average male.


----------



## stuff_it (May 20, 2019)

A rare instance of the world being designed for women - Bedford trucks optionally came with a "ladies" steering wheel that was 2" wider than the standard "gent's" version. In a time before power steering, a wider diameter meant you were using a longer lever to turn the wheel, thus making it easier. They're pretty common in lorries from just after the war when a lot of women were driving trucks. I've had a lot of male friends complain that they could barely get their legs under the steering wheel in their FG because there wasn't much leg room with the larger "ladies" wheel installed. 

I wonder if there are other instances of stuff like this - simply massively undocumented.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

probably designed for the women of the ATS who kept supplies moving during WW2. 

Like you say probably a rare instance.


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> They were talking to the author about this on bbc Radio 4 this morning.
> 
> *Medical controversies*
> 
> ...



I was going to post this up.

She also said drug trials used the "typical male". So often treatments are if not dangerous not geared to women's bodies.

I looked up Caroline Criado Perez. The book is "invisible women". About how data is making assumptions based on the supposedly typical male.

Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez – a world designed for men


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

When it come out in paperback I'd like to read Invisible Women.

The Guardian reviewer implies its like old school feminism. A list of facts of how the world is designed around the men.

Given that , as women posters have pointed out here, that the old issues haven't gone away this book is precisely what this thread is about.




> The problem with feminism is that it’s just too familiar. The attention of a jaded public and neophiliac media may have been aroused by #MeToo, with its connotations of youth, sex and celebrity, but for the most part it has drifted recently towards other forms of prejudice, such as transphobia. *Unfortunately for women, though, the hoary old problems of discrimination, violence and unpaid labour are still very much with us.* We mistake our fatigue about feminism for the exhaustion of patriarchy. A recent large survey revealed that more than two thirds of men in Britain believe that women now enjoy equal opportunities.



So return to straightforward social research is in order.

Not that there is not a place for theory.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I was going to post this up.
> 
> She also said drug trials used the "typical male". So often treatments are if not dangerous not geared to women's bodies.
> 
> ...


link on the OP too

I was alarmed about the female heart attacks being undiagnosed as women typically present with symptoms like indigestion and not with chest pain - but these symptoms are described in text books as 'atypical' as they are not typical for men


> Women in Britain are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack: heart failure trials generally use male participants.


 she raised questions about the data on chemo, statins and even aspirin.


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I was alarmed about the female heart attacks being undiagnosed as women typically present with symptoms like indigestion and not with chest pain - but these symptoms are described in text books as 'atypical' as they are not typical for men
> she raised questions about the data on chemo, statins and even aspirin.



I was staggered that a scientific discipline like medicine could not produce textbooks that described how heart attack symptoms in women are different.

Just proves how normalised it is that the world is set up around the male body.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I was staggered that a scientific discipline like medicine could not produce textbooks that described how heart attack symptoms in women are different.
> 
> Just proves how normalised it is that the world is set up around the male body.



so was the author - that is the point of her book. Its all so 'normal' its invisble - that she had to dig around in data to find this stuff. That science reproduces the gender bias is what most of us would not expect.

I have a young relative (studying for masters in micro biology, doing research on human pathegens) who has been told that women don't really belong in the lab ffs - so it seems sexism in research / education /medicine is alive and well.



Gramsci said:


> So return to straightforward social research is in order.
> 
> Not that there is not a place for theory.


 ? I can't see how this is about social research, explain please.


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> so was the author - that is the point of her book. Its all so 'normal' its invisble - that she had to dig around in data to find this stuff. That science reproduces the gender bias is what most of us would not expect.
> 
> 
> ? I can't see how this is about social research, explain please.




Caroline Criado Perez is, I think, using secondary sources, to put together her book. She is using studies and data that already exists. I would call that using social research. Nothing wrong with that. And its good way to put forward an argument.

Pure theory is , as example, Judith Butler's Gender trouble. (Gender is performative)

Which when I did Feminist theory was a key book.

Feminism contains both. Research based and theory.


----------



## mango5 (May 20, 2019)

I think this thresd is substantially about lived experience supported by social research, where that exists in useful form.  Social research illuminating gender bias is never going to be 'straightforward'. Most women's feminism exists because of life experience rather than theory. 

I bet it's hard to find and create primary data because of sexism in research and male gender defaults in most research methodologies. This is one of Perez's points I think. Incidentally I think many women publish research (novels, anything really) without a full first name because using first initials disguises their gender as an author, which is seen as beneficial. 
Yes of course some men do this too in certain situations but as ever the scale is weighted against women being published.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

Gramsci your language is woolly - I couldn't work out what your point was.

I studied feminism in consciousness raising groups in womens sitting rooms and took part in feminist actions before feminist theory had a 'reading list'. I used to read everything feminist thing I could get my hands on at one point (mostly pre 1984) so my knowledge of theory since maybe patchy. I've not had to _study_ feminism - I've *had *to live it. I've had no choice.

I was more interested in _living_ deviant gendered behaviour and exploring gender parody as a life style, than studying it as pure theory, or as Butler would say about gender 'yer doing it'. (no doubt someone with a degree in it will come along and tell me I misunderstood her 'Gender Trouble')

None of this will help me when I go to the docs and am prescribed some medication that could harm me / not help me, based on biased research. Or if a gp tells me that I've got indigestion...


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Gramsci your language is woolly - I couldn't work out what your point was.
> 
> ...



You asked me what this had to do with social research.


Caroline Criado Perez is using existing data and research to show how , for example, medicine is based around the typical male body to the detriment of healthcare for women.


----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> They were talking to the author about this on bbc Radio 4 this morning.
> 
> *Medical controversies*
> 
> ...


Most staggering example of this for me is pregnancy and childbirth. Remarkably little proper science and research, and so the fault is don’t. ‘Can I take x medicine while pregnant? No one has ever bothered to check, so don’t.’ The stuff they quote at you on risks around childbirth etc is mostly based on small, out dated studies... I could go on. Leaves the whole think subject to myth and ‘woo’ science. 

And someone will be along soon to say ‘oh, well it’s really hard to do studies where a baby is involved....’ like that’s a limit to human ingenuity we should just accept


----------



## wayward bob (May 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> And someone will be along soon to say ‘oh, well it’s really hard to do studies where a baby is involved....’ like that’s a limit to human ingenuity we should just accept


well, this is in part the basis of some of the bias in medical trials, isn't it? women who have a possibility of becoming pregnant are excluded in case of unforseen effects on a hypothetical foetus. i don't know whether they bother to look for celebate/post-menopausal/lesbian women or just recruit "men only". which edges into the current abortion debate where the rights of the unborn are increasingly held above those of the already born...


----------



## Poot (May 21, 2019)

I would actually go even further and suggest that the headache/sciatica/hayfever/whatever of a pregnant woman is not even considered to be a problem. After all, it doesn't affect the baby. Not even that the rights of the baby are held above the mother's, but that the mother's struggles are entirely invisible.

Sorry but as a menopausal woman I am getting a bit fed up of 'this is entirely normal'.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 21, 2019)

This is going to sound like a really stupid question but why are things still this way?  Women have been active in science, design, medicine, academia for many years now, so why is our environment still designed for men?


----------



## kabbes (May 21, 2019)

Because we live with half-changed minds in a half-changed world.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This is going to sound like a really stupid question but why are things still this way?  Women have been active in science, design, medicine, academia for many years now, so why is our environment still designed for men?


perhaps the people who employ the designers are in so many cases men? and who pays the piper...


----------



## wayward bob (May 21, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Because we live with half-changed minds in a half-changed world.


i read this as half-charged, which also works


----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

Poot said:


> I would actually go even further and suggest that the headache/sciatica/hayfever/whatever of a pregnant woman is not even considered to be a problem. After all, it doesn't affect the baby. Not even that the rights of the baby are held above the mother's, but that the mother's struggles are entirely invisible.
> 
> Sorry but as a menopausal woman I am getting a bit fed up of 'this is entirely normal'.


Yes agree. My hearing loss was dismissed in four separate appointments, it took three appointments to get some sort of care for the mess they had made of my pelvic floor, my morning noon and night sickness was making my life a misery, but was dismissed as a laundry issue... I could go on. 

I’ve not reached menopause yet, but I can completely see it will be the same. You just have to look at how many women say periods, skin, moods etc have gone mad after childbirth and that’s not even medically a ‘thing’


----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This is going to sound like a really stupid question but why are things still this way?  Women have been active in science, design, medicine, academia for many years now, so why is our environment still designed for men?


I think this is where the pay gap, lack of women in senior roles etc makes a difference. Leadership in business, industry, science etc etc is predominantly male. The people who run the journals and universities and research institutes and so on. Where there are a few women, they are not in sufficient numbers, power or at seniority to reshape the world. It takes a certain bravery to sit in a meeting and say ‘well, actually, have we looked at this from a specifically female perspective’. You get looked at with incredulity, dismissed as emotional or angry or single issue.... and that’s from ‘neutral’ men who don’t understand that there is an issue- there are actively hostile men too. But even neutral men- if you ask a question in a meeting from an explicitly female perspective they may well not have the data, it’s going to delay anything, they assume it’s in the mix somewhere etc. You don’t want to be that woman who delays everything and causes problems and everyone misses a financial target, because you are pushing something that you thing is right but is seen as an outlier or ‘not strictly relevant’. It’s a miserable place to be (I’ve done it. After a year and a half of every meeting feeling like a fight, and ending up so stressed I was in the loo sobbing after meetings- women, so emotional, eh?- I resigned)

 And that’s before we get into the fact that it’s a man’s world and women who have clawed their way to the top and positions of influence often think and behave in quite a ‘male’ way. It wouldn’t occur to many of them to ask.

This is why I think we need women on boards and leadership teams and in positions of power in significant numbers (and other diverse voices), and why I am in favour of quotas to break the back of some of this. I think the dismissal of equal pay, role in business etc etc concerns as white middle class feminism-mockery of lean in et al- misses the point- lone voices can’t change the world. It’s all linked. If we want this world to be better, we need more women’s (and BAME, non public school, etc etc) voices not just heard but empowered and considered. That isn't happening by itself- I think time has come to force it.


----------



## kabbes (May 21, 2019)

Early signs of frontotemporal dementia get missed in women as well because, as it is an early-onset dementia, it tends to coincide with the menopause.  The characteristic changes in personality get waved away as just being what happens at that time of life.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> I’ve not reached menopause yet, but I can completely see it will be the same. You just have to look at how many women say periods, skin, moods etc have gone mad after childbirth and that’s not even medically a ‘thing’



My sister went to see a Dr when she started getting hot flushes, really heavy periods every 3 weeks, insane mood swings that she's never had with her periods but was told that it couldn't possibly be the menopause as she was too young. When clearly, that's exactly what it was. She knows her body, has had periods all her adult life and there had been a massive change. But no, too young for that to be happening.


----------



## Edie (May 21, 2019)




----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> My sister went to see a Dr when she started getting hot flushes, really heavy periods every 3 weeks, insane mood swings that she's never had with her periods but was told that it couldn't possibly be the menopause as she was too young. When clearly, that's exactly what it was. She knows her body, has had periods all her adult life and there had been a massive change. But no, too young for that to be happening.


Oh, I’ve so many things like this. And even the discussion about menopause being that it’s the end of something- end of sexuality or desirability or something. A friend calls it becoming an elder- which feels a completely different positive take


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> Oh, I’ve so many things like this. And even the discussion about menopause being that it’s the end of something- end of sexuality or desirability or something. A friend calls it becoming an elder- which feels a completely different positive take



I agree.  And I think of my hot flushes as power surges!


----------



## wayward bob (May 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> View attachment 171651


kid1 went to see the leonardo drawings at the museum the other day and was amused at how bad his understanding of female anatomy was. he'd only seen dissected male human bodies and female animals, and came up with a pretty poor fantasy mash-up of the two. depressing to realise how little we've actually moved on since...


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I agree.  And I think of my hot flushes as power surges!


I do too now that I temper them with black cohosh. I am unstoppable at the minute.


----------



## trashpony (May 21, 2019)

There’s a really old book by John Berger called Ways of Seeing which focuses a lot on the way that the female body is twisted into impossible positions in art to increase the allure of the woman.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> My sister went to see a Dr when she started getting hot flushes, really heavy periods every 3 weeks, insane mood swings that she's never had with her periods but was told that it couldn't possibly be the menopause as she was too young. When clearly, that's exactly what it was. She knows her body, has had periods all her adult life and there had been a massive change. But no, too young for that to be happening.


Same thing happened to me. 'No, too young, come back when you haven't had a period for over a year.' Nonsense!


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 21, 2019)

trashpony said:


> There’s a really old book by John Berger called Ways of Seeing which focuses a lot on the way that the female body is twisted into impossible positions in art to increase the allure of the woman.


I have that.


----------



## wayward bob (May 21, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I have that.


me too. bet i've never read it though


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2019)

The episode about that in the TV version of Ways of Seeing was interesting - you can watch it (and the rest of the series) here: UbuWeb Film & Video: John Berger - Ways of Seeing, Episode 2: Women in Art (1972)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 21, 2019)

trashpony said:


> There’s a really old book by John Berger called Ways of Seeing which focuses a lot on the way that the female body is twisted into impossible positions in art to increase the allure of the woman.



Reminds me of the old days of page 3, when the model was twisted in such a way that you could see her tits and her arse.


----------



## scifisam (May 21, 2019)

Da Vinci and most artists of his time also often depicted children as bizarre creatures who had the proportions of adult men, just scaled down. It's a window into what strange lives these men - and their male customers - were leading, where women and babies were peripheral beings. 

On a more positive point, there's a very persuasive argument that the Venus of Willdendorf, and probably some older African fertility statues, were sculpted by women, because they look like some women would see themselves while looking down at their own bodies, than like you'd sculpt an image of a woman from looking at them from the front (the legs and shoulders are especially tiny compared to the rest).





trashpony said:


> There’s a really old book by John Berger called Ways of Seeing which focuses a lot on the way that the female body is twisted into impossible positions in art to increase the allure of the woman.



It's weird how influential that book is. I mean, it is an interesting book, but it's very odd. And it was on my university course years ago and was on Jay's too - I was able to lend her my copy.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 21, 2019)

San Francisco has banned use of facial recognision software by police and other city depts. 

San Francisco bans facial recognition in US first


> In particular, opponents argued the systems are error prone, particularly when dealing with women or people with darker skin.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 21, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It's weird how influential that book is. I mean, it is an interesting book, but it's very odd. And it was on my university course years ago and was on Jay's too - I was able to lend her my copy.


 Think it was a TV programme and on school reading lists back in the 70s. It was considered quite revolutionary back then. I considered it sexist even as a young woman and it is notable how few female artists he included (where there any?) -  but must admit I haven't looked at it since. 

I had to abandon a student project on designing a poster about women in history for lack of available images in 1982. Women's works were notable by their absence in literature /art /history - you had to search really hard until the feminist revolution in publishing in the 80s, with the womens press, virago, pandora etc redressing the inbalance.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 21, 2019)

I'm not feeling very well right now and and decided to check my peak flow lung thingy - in searching for what is normal/ low. I found this, which not the thing I was looking for but the first thing I found was:


> The average total lung capacity of an adult human male is about 6 litres of air.


 it does go on to give male/female figures in charts later - but that is at the top in the intro paragraph. Default human again.


----------



## Poot (May 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> I think this is where the pay gap, lack of women in senior roles etc makes a difference. Leadership in business, industry, science etc etc is predominantly male. The people who run the journals and universities and research institutes and so on. Where there are a few women, they are not in sufficient numbers, power or at seniority to reshape the world. It takes a certain bravery to sit in a meeting and say ‘well, actually, have we looked at this from a specifically female perspective’. You get looked at with incredulity, dismissed as emotional or angry or single issue.... and that’s from ‘neutral’ men who don’t understand that there is an issue- there are actively hostile men too. But even neutral men- if you ask a question in a meeting from an explicitly female perspective they may well not have the data, it’s going to delay anything, they assume it’s in the mix somewhere etc. You don’t want to be that woman who delays everything and causes problems and everyone misses a financial target, because you are pushing something that you thing is right but is seen as an outlier or ‘not strictly relevant’. It’s a miserable place to be (I’ve done it. After a year and a half of every meeting feeling like a fight, and ending up so stressed I was in the loo sobbing after meetings- women, so emotional, eh?- I resigned)
> 
> And that’s before we get into the fact that it’s a man’s world and women who have clawed their way to the top and positions of influence often think and behave in quite a ‘male’ way. It wouldn’t occur to many of them to ask.
> 
> This is why I think we need women on boards and leadership teams and in positions of power in significant numbers (and other diverse voices), and why I am in favour of quotas to break the back of some of this. I think the dismissal of equal pay, role in business etc etc concerns as white middle class feminism-mockery of lean in et al- misses the point- lone voices can’t change the world. It’s all linked. If we want this world to be better, we need more women’s (and BAME, non public school, etc etc) voices not just heard but empowered and considered. That isn't happening by itself- I think time has come to force it.


So true. I think all of the Feminism threads that have popped up recently are very useful and interesting but for me, this sort of thing is the absolute bedrock of feminism and the reason for a lot of the other stuff. It's how you end up with a bunch of old men thinking that they are the very best people to decide about who gets to have an abortion by a qualified doctor, for example.

Most things in life come from a male point of view. That's because men talk about themselves as the default in a way that women don't: the man on the street, the working man, he's the man for the job, mankind, businessmen, Man and wife, Mr and Mrs Anthony Smith, and before anyone corrects me, yes we COULD use the female alternative in some cases, but people generally just don't. And then they all uppity if you point it out. We are always an afterthought, and that even applies (sad to say) when we are talking about ourselves sometimes! 

If we can't change this very basic stuff, by consciously employing women in higher places and LISTENING then there is very, very little hope for the rest of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

Poot said:


> So true. I think all of the Feminism threads that have popped up recently are very useful and interesting but for me, this sort of thing is the absolute bedrock of feminism and the reason for a lot of the other stuff. It's how you end up with a bunch of old men thinking that they are the very best people to decide about who gets to have an abortion by a qualified doctor, for example.
> 
> Most things in life come from a male point of view. That's because men talk about themselves as the default in a way that women don't: the man on the street, the working man, he's the man for the job, mankind, businessmen, Man and wife, Mr and Mrs Anthony Smith, and before anyone corrects me, yes we COULD use the female alternative in some cases, but people generally just don't. And then they all uppity if you point it out. We are always an afterthought, and that even applies (sad to say) when we are talking about ourselves sometimes!
> 
> If we can't change this very basic stuff, by consciously employing women in higher places and LISTENING then there is very, very little hope for the rest of it.


not to mention the man on the clapham omnibus


----------



## mango5 (May 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention the man on the clapham omnibus


You're right. No need to add him to scales. His existence does not tip the balance.


----------



## mango5 (May 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> The episode about that in the TV version of Ways of Seeing was interesting - you can watch it (and the rest of the series) here: UbuWeb Film & Video: John Berger - Ways of Seeing, Episode 2: Women in Art (1972)


There's currently an update/reworking for Radio 4: 'new ways of seeing' with a digital perspective.  Recordings, resources and transcripts available here James Bridle / New Ways of Seeing. At first glance, in the light of this thread, the gender perspective is conspicuous by its absence.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

mango5 said:


> You're right. No need to add him to scales. His existence does not tip the balance.


Yeh, the balance already tipped before he was added to the list


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

mango5 said:


> There's currently an update/reworking for Radio 4: 'new ways of seeing' with a digital perspective.  Recordings, resources and transcripts available here James Bridle / New Ways of Seeing. At first glance, in the light of this thread, the gender perspective is conspicuous by its absence.


can you suggest a work by a woman on the subject which covers the gender perspective?


----------



## Sweet FA (May 21, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Reminds me of the old days of page 3, when the model was twisted in such a way that you could see her tits and her arse.


*Kevin Bolk’s Bootylicious ‘Avengers’ Movie Poster Takes On Superhero Sexism*
HuffPost is now a part of Oath


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 21, 2019)

The "more women in positions of power" or "more women MPs, more women in the boardroom" school of thought addresses nothing about what they do when they get there. If those women simply shore up systems of oppression and exploitation of working class women then it's pointless.


----------



## Poot (May 21, 2019)

S☼I said:


> The "more women in positions of power" or "more women MPs, more women in the boardroom" school of thought addresses nothing about what they do when they get there. If those women simply shore up systems of oppression and exploitation of working class women then it's pointless.


I disagree. I don't think it needs considering. I think more women should be in positions of power and I think they should be visible. The oppression of wc women is a strawman (or woman heh heh. Bloody hell it's everywhere!). It badly needs to be addressed but there is no point worrying about the gender of the people doing the oppressing.


----------



## mango5 (May 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> can you suggest a work by a woman on the subject which covers the gender perspective?


Not off the top of my head, which is unsurprising once we accept the premise of a world where women are anomalous rather than instrumental in how the world is conceived.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Not off the top of my head, which is unsurprising once we accept the premise of a world where women are anomalous rather than instrumental in how the world is conceived.


I would be surprised if berger and bridle were the sole sources on the subject, I'll have a proper look in the morning


----------



## mango5 (May 21, 2019)

Poot said:


> I disagree. I don't think it needs considering. I think more women should be in positions of power and I think they should be visible. The oppression of wc women is a strawman (or woman heh heh. Bloody hell it's everywhere!). It badly needs to be addressed but there is no point worrying about the gender of the people doing the oppressing.


 yeah, the idea that women have to be better than men at equality and stuff denies us the privilege of being as mediocre as the next guy. The ability to be shit and get away with it is worth a lot and not at all pointless.


----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Da Vinci and most artists of his time also often depicted children as bizarre creatures who had the proportions of adult men, just scaled down. It's a window into what strange lives these men - and their male customers - were leading, where women and babies were peripheral beings.
> 
> On a more positive point, there's a very persuasive argument that the Venus of Willdendorf, and probably some older African fertility statues, were sculpted by women, because they look like some women would see themselves while looking down at their own bodies, than like you'd sculpt an image of a woman from looking at them from the front (the legs and shoulders are especially tiny compared to the rest).
> 
> ...


Random aside- I’ve always wondered why those figures are seen as pregnant women. Most look to me like older women- probably those who have had children in the past- with the thickening and softening and spreading that comes with age. I wonder if it’s because men see ‘good fat’ as pregnancy, so something fat and venerated must be pregnancy. Whereas in the ancient world wouldn’t longetivity have held much more mystery and allure?


----------



## Manter (May 21, 2019)

S☼I said:


> The "more women in positions of power" or "more women MPs, more women in the boardroom" school of thought addresses nothing about what they do when they get there. If those women simply shore up systems of oppression and exploitation of working class women then it's pointless.


Yeah, read my post. If there are one or two women in positions of power who got there by clawing their way through established structures and being as much like the establishment as possible, they can’t/won’t change the world.

But imagine if half, more than half, of the decision makers were female. Then maybe we could see some change.

And the same for BAME, non traditional backgrounds etc- imagine if there were enough to not say ‘look we can success on your terms’ but ‘your terms aren’t even valid any more’

Edit- and also I find the ‘you’re not intersectional enough/concentrating on the right things’ dismissal of feminist issues fucking annoying. Give women 50+% of the power, influence, decision making and money in society, and then we can argue about which women- rather than holding it out of reach and telling us we have to be better to get any, or making our empowerment conditional.


----------



## mango5 (May 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I would be surprised if berger and bridle were the sole sources on the subject, I'll have a proper look in the morning


Not sure I care about who has done the theorising, but I was interested to note that gender issues have been downplayed in the contemporary revisiting.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Not sure I care about who has done the theorising, but I was interested to note that gender issues have been downplayed in the contemporary revisiting.


Yeh which prompted my question, as berger's work must, surely, have been built on by some feminists in the past 47 years


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 21, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yeah, read my post. If there are one or two women in positions of power who got there by clawing their way through established structures and being as much like the establishment as possible, they can’t/won’t change the world.
> 
> But imagine if half, more than half, of the decision makers were female. Then maybe we could see some change.
> 
> ...


Propelling women to the top echelons of organisations obviously has some element of benefit to improving equality/diversity within present neoliberalism, but better to smash the structures of capitalism and class for the benefit of all.


----------



## mango5 (May 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> ... and also I find the ‘you’re not intersectional enough /concentrating on the right things’ dismissal of feminist issues fucking annoying. Give women 50+% of the power, influence, decision making and money in society, and then we can argue about which women- rather than holding it out of reach and telling us we have to be better to get any, or making our empowerment conditional.


This.


----------



## colacubes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Propelling women to the top echelons of organisations obviously has some element of benefit to improving equality/diversity within present neoliberalism, but better to smash the structures of capitalism and class for the benefit of all.



You’re right. We should definitely wait for that. Come the glorious revolution I’m sure all the posh privately educated white boys that seem to be out front in those campaign groups will absolutely make sure that happens 

On a serious note there’s a mass of academic evidence that the huge increase in female representation in Parliament (especially post 1997) meant that women’s issues were increasingly looked at and acted on. There’s also a much wider body of work going back to the 1960s on “descriptive representation” and it’s benefits (and downsides). It’s very interesting and all that I’ve read has made me come to the conclusion that an increase in representation is always a good thing even if they’re not the “right” people. And yes there is a problem with class in politics and something needs to be done about it. And intersectionality helps with that to an extent, but in terms of speed of progress let’s just get on with it.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

colacubes said:


> ... there’s a mass of academic evidence that the huge increase in female representation in Parliament (especially post 1997) meant that women’s issues were increasingly looked at and acted on. There’s also a much wider body of work going back to the 1960s on “descriptive representation” and it’s benefits (and downsides).



Do you have any links, please?  I'm particularly interested in anything that casts light on whether the gains for women as a whole  have been in absolute terms, or relative to men.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2019)

colacubes said:


> You’re right. We should definitely wait for that. Come the glorious revolution I’m sure all the posh privately educated white boys that seem to be out front in those campaign groups will absolutely make sure that happens


You're right. We need privately educated white women like CCP leading the way


----------



## colacubes (May 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Do you have any links, please?  I'm particularly interested in anything that casts light on whether the gains for women as a whole  have been in absolute terms, or relative to men.



I’m on the move so can’t link but Jane Mansbridge, Suzanne Dovi, Sarah Childs and Rosie Campbell are all good academics on this as a starter.


----------



## colacubes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> You're right. We need privately educated white women like CCP leading the way



Better than a privately educated white man imo


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2019)

I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

colacubes said:


> I’m on the move so can’t link but Jane Mansbridge, Suzanne Dovi, Sarah Childs and Rosie Campbell are all good academics on this as a starter.


Ta.  I'll take a look.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group


Everyone knows power corrupts


----------



## Poot (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group


We don't know - that's the point. How about giving women more power and finding out?

You seem to think that having women in a boardroom is linked to the oppression of the working classes when it isn't - it probably doesn't make any difference. That's not the argument here. It doesn't make the argument any less valid, it makes it a separate argument.

We could argue that there should be more wc people in power and I would absolutely support that. But it's a different topic. I don't like all the top-down shit either but that shouldn't hold women back.


----------



## Edie (May 22, 2019)

colacubes said:


> You’re right. We should definitely wait for that. Come the glorious revolution I’m sure all the posh privately educated white boys that seem to be out front in those campaign groups will absolutely make sure that happens
> 
> On a serious note there’s a mass of academic evidence that the huge increase in female representation in Parliament (especially post 1997) meant that women’s issues were increasingly looked at and acted on. There’s also a much wider body of work going back to the 1960s on “descriptive representation” and it’s benefits (and downsides). It’s very interesting and all that I’ve read has made me come to the conclusion that an increase in representation is always a good thing even if they’re not the “right” people. And yes there is a problem with class in politics and something needs to be done about it. And intersectionality helps with that to an extent, but in terms of speed of progress let’s just get on with it.


That’s interesting. I never know what to think about this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group



One could argue that having more women in power means they will be less inclined to imitate men, feel more comfortable focusing on issues that are traditionally characterized as  only affecting 'women' and incrementally change will occur.

I don't see it as an either/or thing...we shouldn't have to wait for a 'revolution' and one catalytic moment...we can continue to chip away and dismantle now.


----------



## Poot (May 22, 2019)

Yeah, and it's a extra pressure to put on women to say 'you can have a place on a board but only if you behave in a certain way', that would be like being back at square one. Men don't have to do that (even though they obviously should! But, you know, separate argument).


----------



## colacubes (May 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> That’s interesting. I never know what to think about this.



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00495.x

Unless you've got academic access you won't be able to read the whole thing, but you can see the abstract of this paper on the subject. Anyway, it showed through a comparison between men and women Labour MPs during the 1997 Parliament that the female MPs were more likely to sign early day motions regarding women's and feminist issues than the male MPs. These were issues re stuff like VAT on sanitary products, domestic violence etc. It's interesting as a comparison as the narrative at the time was that the women who had just been elected to Parliament in huge numbers had 'failed' as women due to their lack of rebellion against the government on certain issues at the time (which was obviously not levelled at newly elected men). A lot of these women were middle-class professionals and no doubt privately educated in many cases. But their presence meant that issues that might not otherwise have been raised in Parliament. So it matters imo.


----------



## scifisam (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group



Do you feel the same about BME representation? I think most people accept that it's helpful to see people like yourself in positions of power. That applies to women too, doesn't it? 

It's a false dichotomy, anyway. Sure, some people act like having a slightly increased number of women board members solves everything, but it's not like those people were ever going to bother doing anything to help working class women.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Do you feel the same about BME representation? I think most people accept that it's helpful to see people like yourself in positions of power. That applies to women too, doesn't it?


Depends on what they do, I suppose. Are Sajid Javid and Priti Patel forces for good? Is Rakesh Kapoor being paid over £20 million a year good? Etc


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 22, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Do you feel the same about BME representation? I think most people accept that it's helpful to see people like yourself in positions of power. That applies to women too, doesn't it?
> 
> It's a false dichotomy, anyway. Sure, some people act like having a slightly increased number of women board members solves everything, but it's not like those people were ever going to bother doing anything to help working class women.



I's really irritating to be told 'it's not gender/race, it's class' and expected to hold someone's coat whilst fuck all changes. Unless there is increased representation of women and BME people in positions of power, nothing will change if the opposite were true we'd not be having this conversation now. I am not saying that no changes have occurred, but not fast enough and with all the best will in the world the demographics and dynamics need to change otherwise the same structures are perpetuated.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Depends on what they do, I suppose. Are Sajid Javid and Priti Patel forces for good? Is Rakesh Kapoor being paid over £20 million a year good? Etc



Tory capitalist cunts being just that...shock! Yes unfortunately self-focused wrong'uns exist in the BME wider community too but they are not representative of it though, just like Boris, Teresa and Ian Duncan shit are not all there is to know about White people in positions of power.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2019)

Maybe it's the positions, then, not the people, that are the problem.

I can see the value in greater representation for influential women through all areas of society, but empowering ordinary working class women, giving them tools, confidence,  economic stability and opportunities to kick through traditionally closed doors to paths to traditionally male roles is what I'm arguing for here.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Maybe it's the positions, then, not the people, that are the problem.
> 
> I can see the value in greater representation for influential women through all areas of society, _*but empowering ordinary working class women, giving them tools, confidence,  economic stability and opportunities to kick through traditionally closed doors to paths to traditionally male roles is what I'm arguing for here.*_




...and I don't really understand why you think anyone here is arguing any different?


----------



## scifisam (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Maybe it's the positions, then, not the people, that are the problem.
> 
> I can see the value in greater representation for influential women through all areas of society, but empowering ordinary working class women, giving them tools, confidence,  economic stability and opportunities to kick through traditionally closed doors to paths to traditionally male roles is what I'm arguing for here.



Why do you think they're mutually exclusive? 

I don't like Sajid David, no, but I don't hold him to a higher standard than other tories just because he's not white. And his presence will still have an effect, unless you think there is no effect at all from seeing people like yourself (or at least more like yourself) in positions of power.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and I don't really understand why you think anyone here is arguing any different?


Because the focus appears to be on getting women into positions of power within the exact same system that has led to huge and disproportionate poverty and hardship for women. As though the simple fact of women being there will be enough to dismantle it and make it all work. It seems to me like arguing for greater opportunities for women to steer the good ship capitalism, when really its course is locked.


----------



## scifisam (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Because the focus appears to be on getting women into positions of power within the exact same system that has led to huge and disproportionate poverty and hardship for women. As though the simple fact of women being there will be enough to dismantle it and make it all work. It seems to me like arguing for greater opportunities for women to steer the good ship capitalism, when really its course is locked.



The focus? It was brought up briefly as part of another post. And nobody ever said it would solve all problems. Some people not on here do that, but like I said a couple of posts before, those people were never going to do anything to help working class women anyway. Or to help anyone, really. They're not the people you're taking to here.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Because the focus appears to be on getting women into positions of power within the exact same system that has led to huge and disproportionate poverty and hardship for women. As though the simple fact of women being there will be enough to dismantle it and make it all work. It seems to me like arguing for greater opportunities for women to steer the good ship capitalism, when really its course is locked.




The _focus_ has been on Tory women representing Tory values...What would happen if we focused on those of women from other parties and their values? Yes the 'superstructure' needs dismantling but again...unless the plan is to do that this very minute it seems to me we do need to be doing other things too. The conversation seems to have become a vague theoretical one about the value of 'reforms' from within, which is everyone's concern.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

If, as colacubes suggests, there's empirical data to show that e.g. descriptive representation results in substantive absolute (as opposed to relative) gains for women under capitalism, then, notwithstanding that, by definition, there can never be equality - wider, equality, not just sex-based - under capitalism, surely it's a no-brainer that  descriptive representation is something we should all work towards?  The exception would be insofar as our efforts to do so perpetuate the system that underpins so much inequality.  But, as long as we're not saying that the *end goal* is proportionate distribution by sex under capitalism, and as long as we don't make ensuring that the top 1% is evenly spilt bt sex whilst ignoring the difficulties faced by the vast majority of women (as much liberal, middle-class feminism seems to), I don't see the problem. (And I don't see anyone on this thread arguing for that.)

Of course we need to show solidarity with that subsection of workers who bear a disproportionate burden of capitalism, and ameliorate that until capitalism is dismantled.  There is no fundamental tension between feminism _per se_ (as opposed to particular versions of it)  and the end of capitalism.  Quite the opposite, neither feminism without anticapitalism nor anticapitalism without feminism make any sense to me.


----------



## Manter (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm just instinctively uncomfortable with top-down change. Changes like pay gap monitoring and paying child benefits to the principal carer rather than the child's father are clearly good things, but in the system that we have more women in the boardroom and other positions of power...how much will they be simply women perpetuating that power? Whose interests will they represent? How many women in power in this system will it take to address these figures? DWP data reveals: women and children continue to be worst affected by poverty - Womens Budget Group


Can they be worse than the current crop of men?

I absolutely agree we need to make a more radical change in all sorts of ways, but privately educated white men fucking us all over vs revolution and implementation of a total workers paradise seems an odd binary to me.

The danger is, of course, that once PEWW have ‘got their way’ they peel off from the fight for change and things are just better enough so that change stagnates. But the challenge then I think is how we build a sustained movement for progressive change, building the case and taking everyone on the journey.


----------



## Manter (May 22, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Because the focus appears to be on getting women into positions of power within the exact same system that has led to huge and disproportionate poverty and hardship for women. As though the simple fact of women being there will be enough to dismantle it and make it all work. It seems to me like arguing for greater opportunities for women to steer the good ship capitalism, when really its course is locked.


but no one is saying that. What I think a number of us agree on is that while the good ship capitalism- and all other ships- are steered by men there is no chance to change course. One or two people who look a bit different CANNOT drive meaningful change. Large numbers can AND are more likely to be intact (mentally and emotionally and philosophically and politically) and are more likely to want to.


----------



## Manter (May 22, 2019)

An example of how fucking fundamentally the world doesn’t work for women- a toilet cubicle. 

Nothing about this makes sense to how women live their lives- what do you do with a kid, or a bag? How do you clear yourself up if you’re dealing with period blood? If you are sat on the loo your hip is holding the sanitary bin closed- if you are standing up you drip on the floor and there is no way to sort that out. How do you clean out a Mooncup if that is your thing? What if you need to wash your hand between stages? What about if you have morning sickness?  Why are there so few cubicles so queues are long?

I could go on: but really fundamentally even the most ‘female’* of spaces in the public realm are not actually designed in a way that works for women. 

*I know, whole level of other issues for trans women, and trans men.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

Manter said:


> but no one is saying that. What I think a number of us agree on is that while the good ship capitalism- and all other ships- are steered by men there is no chance to change course. One or two people who look a bit different CANNOT drive meaningful change. Large numbers can AND are more likely to be intact (mentally and emotionally and philosophically and politically) and are more likely to want to.



I don't think even if the whole crew were women there's any reason to think they would be motivated or able to change the course (albeit, at worst, the course would remain as it is now), but at least that would stop the Captain groping the First Mate at the Christmas party.  Not being flippant; the point is that less 'radical' changes can still bring significant real-world improvements.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2019)

A woman in Canada has done an interesting experiment - in a local council meeting where women and men were pretty evenly represented, she knitted one colour while men spoke and another while women spoke. Fairly predictable results : Knitting shows 'men talk too much'

Women are the worst hit by poverty. I heard on More or Less the other day that when they transferred CB to mothers, the spending on children's and women's clothing increased and spending on men's clothing decreased. So men spend on themselves rather than their children. I suspect if more women were involved at all levels of society, there would be a big shift towards flexibility, better childcare, improved elderly care provision and better services. Women are overwhelmingly responsible for caring in our society so it would benefit everyone if more of us were in decision-making positions. And no, not all women will do that. But the greater the number of women at the top, the greater the chance that some of those more welfare focused policies will start to trickle down.


----------



## mango5 (May 22, 2019)

I think that smashing the patriarchy would give capitalism a good kick in the bollocks. A transformative start to the revolution. Will report back


----------



## Edie (May 22, 2019)

If I had a magic wand or if I suddenly got put in charge I wouldn’t piss about debating this stuff any more. In terms of public offices like the judiciary it would simply be a case of positive discrimination and quotas. Nope yer 90% male so the next X number of judges appointed must be women. End of it. 

Same with MPs. Senior doctors etc. I can’t be arsed with pissing around with this stuff any more. Just get it done.

It won’t solve the issue of unpaid housework and caring duties and poverty that effect working class women disproportionately. But it would make a start in getting issues heard I’m sure.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

trashpony said:


> A woman in Canada has done an interesting experiment - in a local council meeting where women and men were pretty evenly represented, she knitted one colour while men spoke and another while women spoke. Fairly predictable results : Knitting shows 'men talk too much'
> 
> Women are the worst hit by poverty. I heard on More or Less the other day that when they transferred CB to mothers, the spending on children's and women's clothing increased and spending on men's clothing decreased. So men spend on themselves rather than their children. I suspect if more women were involved at all levels of society, there would be a big shift towards flexibility, better childcare, improved elderly care provision and better services. Women are overwhelmingly responsible for caring in our society so it would benefit everyone if more of us were in decision-making positions. And no, not all women will do that. But the greater the number of women at the top, the greater the chance that some of those more welfare focused policies will start to trickle down.



Whilst I don't share your optimism about what would be achieved by more women in power under capitalism (I think you underestimate the importance of roles in the structure, and overestimate the importance of some facets of the identities of those in the roles), I agree it's something we should try (until capitalism ends), because it's better than nothing, and - when recognised that it's not an end in of itself - can't do any harm.


----------



## trashpony (May 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whilst I don't share your optimism about what would be achieved by more women in power under capitalism (I think you underestimate the importance of roles in the structure, and overestimate the importance of some facets of the identities of those in the roles), I agree it's something we should try (until capitalism ends), because it's better than nothing, and - when recognised that it's not an end in of itself - can't do any harm.


I'm a glass full sort of person.


----------



## Athos (May 22, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I'm a glass full sort of person.


I'm more of a 'fuck the glass, swig it from the bottle to numb the pain' kinda guy.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 23, 2019)

Interested item on 'womens hour' on bbcRadio 4 this morning someone talking about how the changes to our benefits system have disproportionaly affected and impoverished women. 

I'll find a link when I can.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I'm a glass full sort of person.



Not “half full”?


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

soz, i prolly picked the wrong thread for the question, but this is active and i'm curious...

are there many afab posters who find themselves on the "members online now" list?

how many women posting here are happy to advertise their textual availability via the tools available?

this is a xenforo thing as much as an urban thing, but still speaks to the ability/inability to own a "public" profile, to me, at least.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> soz, i prolly picked the wrong thread for the question, but this is active and i'm curious...
> 
> are there many afab posters who find themselves on the "members online now" list?
> 
> ...



Side post, but “afab”?


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

assigned female at birth


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> assigned female at birth


 
Thanks.

My first thought (for “urban standard acronym” reasons) was “all feminists are bastards” - but I was pretty certain that was wrong.  at self


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> Thanks.
> 
> My first thought (for “urban standard acronym” reasons) was “all feminists are bastards” - but I was pretty certain that was wrong.  at self


i speak french, which i hoped in a very minor way to pass on to the kids, whether they like it or not.

i got a powder box with a cunning mechanism and a setting for O (ouvert) and F (fermé) and asked kid2 what it stood for...

"Open... ... and ... Fuckin shut... " 

i lolled


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> i speak french, which i hoped in a very minor way to pass on to the kids, whether they like it or not.
> 
> i got a powder box with a cunning mechanism and a setting for O (ouvert) and F (fermé) and asked kid2 what it stood for...
> 
> ...



Well, I hoped you taught them the thing about the letters on the taps.


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, I hoped you taught them the thing about the letters on the taps.


it's a while since i've been on a ferry ...

C=chaud F=froid?


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

btw, are we not verging into feminism and a world designed for french men? (a _totally_ different thing )


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> btw, are we not verging into feminism and a world designed for french men? (a _totally_ different thing )



Well, I quite liked the red and blue on the taps.


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, I quite liked the red and blue on the taps.


occidental normatism


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> occidental normatism



I had you down as the person who speaks normal fucking English and then you come out with that!


----------



## scifisam (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> soz, i prolly picked the wrong thread for the question, but this is active and i'm curious...
> 
> are there many afab posters who find themselves on the "members online now" list?
> 
> ...



I'm not. You're right, though, that there might be a difference between how many women have made the effort to make sure they're not in the members online list as opposed to men. I think it's sensible for anyone to do and a lot of the men on here have been on social media for a long time, so they might do it too. 

There's another site that I've been on for about 17 years and a lot of people there still assume I'm male. If you can't see someone, they're male.


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

scifisam said:


> If you can't see someone, they're male.


my assumption here is that the invisible posters are predominantly women. mysterious that we might want to hold onto a vestige of anonymity? or entirely fucking rational?


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> my assumption here is that the invisible posters are predominantly women. mysterious that we might want to hold onto a vestige of anonymity? or entirely fucking rational?



Although the male posters can also turn into bats whenever they want.

This post may have been breaking certain ‘patriarchy club’ rules, but I won’t tell them if you don’t.


----------



## mango5 (May 23, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> my assumption here is that the invisible posters are predominantly women. mysterious that we might want to hold onto a vestige of anonymity? or entirely fucking rational?


You might be overthinking this. IIRC when this has been discussed before loads of posters don't think about making their online status invisible, and/or forget they've done it. The reasons are varied. But I don't remember gendered differences but of course its highly unlikely that the topic was ever raised


----------



## wayward bob (May 23, 2019)

mango5 said:


> You might be overthinking this.


checks time of post. yup


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Toilets! are new buildings built with more cubicles for women yet?



Two female loos for every male one, demand experts


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 171850
> Two female loos for every male one, demand experts


If only! 

Reality is other way round


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2019)

Manter said:


> If only!
> 
> Reality is other way round


Toilets whether for men or women so rarely receive the consideration they deserve, and certainly simply in number of toilets women lose out. The starting point seems equality in square feet but inequality in every other way.


----------



## MickiQ (May 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 171850
> Two female loos for every male one, demand experts


I totally agree with this, one truly great advantage of being a man is the ability to piss standing up and the throughput in male loos is far greater than it is in female ones. The last time I went the theater with Mrs Q, I was done before she had even reached the khazi door and she was still queueing in the corridor. Even if female loos contained the same number of cubicles as male loos contained urinals and cubicles combined they would still lose out due to taking longer per individual.


----------



## mango5 (May 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Toilets whether for men or women so rarely receive the consideration they deserve, and certainly simply in number of toilets women lose out. The starting point seems equality in square feet but inequality in every other way.


Woman lose out more


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 23, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> ....Even if female loos contained the same number of cubicles as male loos contained urinals and cubicles combined they would still lose out due to taking longer per individual.


Yes - male clothing has been cleverly deisgned so that you don't have to strip half off before being able to pee which means a massive time saving. Women might have many layers of garment to be removed before going to the loo.

Plus the possibility of dealing with a period while you're in there.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Yes - male clothing has been cleverly deisgned so that you don't have to strip half off before being able to pee which means a massive time saving. Women might have many layers of garment to be removed before going to the loo.
> 
> Plus the possibility of dealing with a period while you're in there.



It must take some real prior planning of when and where you're likely to need a wee.  It's not like public loos are terribly abundant these days either.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> It must take some real prior planning of when and where you're likely to need a wee.  It's not like public loos are terribly abundant these days either.



It can cause real anxiety.  Even makes me not bother going out sometimes.


----------



## colacubes (May 23, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It can cause real anxiety.  Even makes me not bother going out sometimes.



Yep. I often cancel night’s out when I’ve got my period for that very reason, especially if it’s somewhere unfamiliar.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It can cause real anxiety.  Even makes me not bother going out sometimes.



That's really shit. 

edit:  sometimes on nights out, decisions get made based on the toilets at a certain place, plans may change etc. but actually cancelling things isn't something I've experienced with friends.  Then again, it's probably influencing who comes out in ways I don't know - it's not like anyone is likely to say that's the reason for not coming out.  I find Wetherspoons pubs, now I come to think of it, seem to have too many cubicles in the men's bit.  I wonder whether that's the result of some committee arguments over how many are needed for each gender, with someone refusing to back down on absolute equal numbers.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> It must take some real prior planning of when and where you're likely to need a wee.  It's not like public loos are terribly abundant these days either.


It is definitely a factor to take into consideration when there's a potential night out at the other end of the Northern Line. Knowing I'll be dying for a pee all the way home puts me right off.

And er, not "terribly abundant" ? Try non-existant. Those pop up loos that cater only for men really fuck me off. Where are we supposed to have a slash? Oh yeah - wait until you get home.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> It is definitely a factor to take into consideration when there's a potential night out at the other end of the Northern Line. Knowing I'll be dying for a pee all the way home puts me right off.
> 
> And er, not "terribly abundant" ? Try non-existant. Those pop up loos that cater only for men really fuck me off. Where are we supposed to have a slash? Oh yeah - wait until you get home.



Yeah, I was being a bit sarcastic with the "not terribly abundant" thing.  
Those pop up loos are really about stopping men pissing in all manner of random places (and so things become even more unjust because of women being better behaved).  I took a look at a couple of "better public loos" sites, and the ones I saw didn't say anything about these specific issues, just that there are not enough of them.  I'd support any campaign for making things better, but the normal search terms are just bringing up arguments about gender-neutral toilets.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I was being a bit sarcastic with the "not terribly abundant" thing.


 



8ball said:


> Those pop up loos are really about stopping men pissing in all manner of random places (and so things become even more unjust because of women being better behaved).


We're not better behaved by the way....we just can't piss in the street without getting semi-naked. If we could piss in the street as easily as men, we would. Trust me


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 23, 2019)

It probably sounds a bit trivial moaning about toilets, but it can really cause problems in so many places.  Theatre/gigs/concerts - massive queue for the ladies in the intervals.  Shopping centres - massive queues for the ladies.  Airports - massive queue for the ladies.  Train stations - no toilets.  Festivals - don't even mention them.


----------



## 8ball (May 23, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It probably sounds a bit trivial moaning about toilets, but it can really cause problems in so many places.  Theatre/gigs/concerts - massive queue for the ladies in the intervals.  Shopping centres - massive queues for the ladies.  Airports - massive queue for the ladies.  Train stations - no toilets.  Festivals - don't even mention them.



If it's stopping you doing what you want to do socially, or is even a significant factor, then I don't think that's trivial.  It's a direct impingement on freedom.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 23, 2019)

I also don't think it's trivial. It is an enormous pain and a very obvious example of women's needs just not being adequately catered for.


----------



## MickiQ (May 23, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> male clothing has been cleverly designed so that you don't have to strip half off before being able to pee which means a massive time saving. Women might have many layers of garment to be removed before going to the loo.


Serious Question (though it might not seem so) Why is that you think? There are parts of the world of course where women are given little choice in what to wear in public but here in the West, there are no (or at least far fewer) restrictions and I suspect most designers of clothes for women these days are probably actually women themselves.
So even allowing for the inevitable forced on the designers by their customers biology, Why isn't is more being done to make women's outfits more practical?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Woman lose out more


Yeh that's what I said


----------



## Mrs Miggins (May 23, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Serious Question (though it might not seem so) Why is that you think? There are parts of the world of course where women are given little choice in what to wear in public but here in the West, there are no (or at least far fewer) restrictions and I suspect most designers of clothes for women these days are probably actually women themselves.
> So even allowing for the inevitable forced on the designers by their customers biology, Why isn't is more being done to make women's outfits more practical?


I don't know. Someone smarter than me will have to answer that.
It just seems rather handy the way trousers favour whipping out your todger for a quick and easy pee.


----------



## Poot (May 23, 2019)

Look. It takes women longer to go to the loo. Not because we choose to, it just does. So let's work with that fact and provide twice as many loos for women. It's not rocket science!


----------



## smmudge (May 23, 2019)

I didn't realise until I saw floor plans for our office recently that men have 25% more facilities to pee than women do. And many areas (admin and call centre) have more women than men.


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2019)

In my last job I worked in a large shop. The staffroom was in a separate block around the corner on another street entirely. There are two toilets in the staffroom and one in the shop itself (not for use by customers, just staff) When I started there was no sanitary bin in any of the toilets (I used to wrap my tampon wrappers etc in paper towel and surreptitiously stick them in the big communal wheelie bin on the street). When another woman started they finally realised they had to provide something. Of course they put the bin in one of the toilets in the staffroom, so we had to traipse round the corner every time we needed to deal. This was a business employing two women and forty odd men.


----------



## Poot (May 23, 2019)

Slightly related: a conversation today with a colleague began with him saying 'you know those big posters in the loos that tell staff how to behave on site..?'

Er, no?


----------



## Winot (May 23, 2019)

Urban75 has been an education for me in relation to the problems of dealing with periods. I think Mrs W must have struck lucky over the years. I appreciate the lesson particularly as I have 2 daughters.


----------



## mango5 (May 23, 2019)

It's tricky when women start talking about bleeding and continence issues because it really rams home how we live in a world designed for men. Following Pickman's model's point about equal floor space and inequality, it seems as if there _simply isn't enough room_ for women to deal with everyday health and sanitation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2019)

mango5 said:


> It's tricky when women start talking about bleeding and continence issues because it really rams home how we live in a world designed for men. Following Pickman's model's point about equal floor space and inequality, it seems as if there _simply isn't enough room_ for women to deal with everyday health and sanitation.


Toilets whether for men or women should receive greater attention so adequate facilities are provided for all, even in flagship buildings like the British museum's great court the often lengthy queues for women show the inadequacy of provision. It's a disgrace that equal space should ever have been supposed to mean any genuine equality of service


----------



## mango5 (May 23, 2019)

Equality of service is really not the solution when equality is determined by men. Queueing is a drastically overplayed issue because most visible to men. Provision and positioning of sanitary facilities is of more concern, as illustrated on recent pages.


----------



## Poot (May 23, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Equality of service is really not the solution when equality is determined by men. Queueing is a drastically overplayed issue because most visible to men. Provision and positioning of sanitary facilities is of more concern, as illustrated on recent pages.


Yes! The visibility of the queue! 'Look, they're queuing, it must be because they take too long'. End of thought process.


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2019)

Poot said:


> Yes! The visibility of the queue! 'Look, they're queuing, it must be because they take too long'. End of thought process.


No idea that we have a third reason to need the toilet... Men only need a cubicle for a shit. We need one all the time, and often we don't even 'need the toilet' in any way they can identify with at all.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 23, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> So even allowing for the inevitable forced on the designers by their customers biology, Why isn't is more being done to make women's outfits more practical?





Mrs Miggins said:


> I don't know. Someone smarter than me will have to answer that.
> It just seems rather handy the way trousers favour whipping out your todger for a quick and easy pee.



Longish skirt, with stockings and no knickers used to work for me when I was younger and not on a period. Made it possible to piss into those trough urinals in the mens loos too, but that was in women-only dyke clubs with no men about.  Didn't seem to be a popular choice clothing choice with any other women I knew. 

Short of carrying a she-wee thingy about - women will always have to remove some clothing to piss/deal with periods.


----------



## kabbes (May 23, 2019)

The depressing thing is that (getting heteronormative for a second for the sake of simplicity of the point) most men do actually live with a woman and so for almost every woman who experiences a problem, there _should_ be a man who has empathy and understanding for what that lived experience involves.  The fact that this is not the case speaks volumes about the level of true empathetic communication that exists in most relationships.


----------



## MickiQ (May 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Longish skirt, with stockings and no knickers used to work for me when I was younger and not on a period. Made it possible to piss into those trough urinals in the mens loos too, but that was in women-only dyke clubs with no men about.  Didn't seem to be a popular choice clothing choice with any other women I knew.
> 
> Short of carrying a she-wee thingy about - women will always have to remove some clothing to piss/deal with periods.


Mildly impressed with this, not certain I should be but I am. Many years ago the Q's were at a public loo where the ladies was closed so my son and I stood guard whilst his mother and sisters used the gents. Mrs Q was fascinated by the steel trough and the idea that men just stood and pissed against the wall like dogs (her words). I apologised for the state of them but she assured me that ladies public loos are usually pretty disgusting as well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

JudithB said:


> There is something I feel might be a nasty MRA meme called "learn to code" all over twitter at the moment. I wonder if there is reference to this fact or if it is pure reference to gamergate



Yep, I had a face-to-face row with an MRA about this, upset his flabby white arse by mentioning Ada Lovelace, who he'd never heard of. Told him to get out his phone and Google her, and then to shut his misogynistic, ignorant gob, because idiots annoy me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Lupa said:


> On the whole kitchen height issue. I decided that my very home made kitchen would have no high presses at all. At 5ft 2inches it was going to be impossible to reach anything other than things on the lower part of a wall press  si I ditched that completely.
> I've only got the lower presses and worktop. And I stacked the 4 presses(2x2)that were meant to go on the wall...in order to make a set of low shelves sat on the floor at the other side of the room.



My late wife was 5ft. When we re-did our kitchen, I lowered all the counter-tops and cupboards by 170mm, and lowered wall-mounted cupboards to 1300mm. No hardship at all to do, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> I had a California surfer dude on mine and it was hated by so many people .



"Like, you might want to hang a left round about now, man".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Hopefully it doesn't come over all MRA to suggest that men suffer from the patriarchy of pockets as well. We're all too often conscripted into the role of walking handbags for the women in our lives who can't fit their keys, phone or wallet into their own jeans.



Greebo loved it when combats/cargo trousers came into fashion. Pockets galore!!! She no longer needed a fuck-off big shoulder bag for her stuff!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I don't buy clothes I don't like but the shops are nonetheless full of them.



Chuckling to myself right now, remembering your "pink pens" critique a few years back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Its not just products and objects that are not designed for women,  but education, politics, heath care, systems, ways of seeing, they way the work place is organised, the way the world works - I want us to challenge *why *things are as they are - how and why in these supposedly post feminist 21st century days is the world still isn't designed for women. How do we challenge it?



Greebo picked French, German, Physics, Biology and Chemistry as A levels. Guess which she got the most encouragement from teachers for?

Yep, languages. The science teachers at her school asked her "are you sure?". It was only after her Dad had one of his nuclear strops at the head, that the teachers stopped trying to put her off.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Equality of service is really not the solution when equality is determined by men. Queueing is a drastically overplayed issue because most visible to men. Provision and positioning of sanitary facilities is of more concern, as illustrated on recent pages.


Yeh. You seem to be taking issue with something I have observed rather than proposed, ignoring my 'adequate facilities should be provided for all'. Adequate for women involves, as you say, access to sanitary facilities, to sufficient cubicles to accommodate users' needs, etc etc. It involves placing women at the front of the design process at an early stage of the planning process, whereas at the moment architects, mostly men, all too often impose their views on clients and provide designs which don't meet how buildings actually work or what people actually need. Where there are queues it *could* suggest people are taking too long. But it would indicate to me rather there are likely to be too few cubicles or basins or soap dispensers or hand driers, or problems with provision of sanitary facilities - that there's a design flaw in the facility than in the users. Having seen the same flaws in design in gents toilets in buildings both here and abroad I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised there were extra faults in the ladies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I's really irritating to be told 'it's not gender/race, it's class' and expected to hold someone's coat whilst fuck all changes. Unless there is increased representation of women and BME people in positions of power, nothing will change if the opposite were true we'd not be having this conversation now. I am not saying that no changes have occurred, but not fast enough and with all the best will in the world the demographics and dynamics need to change otherwise the same structures are perpetuated.



It's class AND/OR sex AND/OR race etc. As you say, demography and the associated dynamics - and politics - need to accommodate the cross-cutting nature of the shared oppressions and of the group-specific ones, otherwise they're valueless to all - except, of course, those who benefit from current power-relations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Poot said:


> I disagree. I don't think it needs considering. I think more women should be in positions of power and I think they should be visible. The oppression of wc women is a strawman (or woman heh heh. Bloody hell it's everywhere!). It badly needs to be addressed but there is no point worrying about the gender of the people doing the oppressing.



The gender? Isn't gender a set of not-very-helpful stereotypes forced on people by patriarchy?


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Longish skirt, with stockings and no knickers used to work for me when I was younger and not on a period. Made it possible to piss into those trough urinals in the mens loos too, but that was in women-only dyke clubs with no men about.  Didn't seem to be a popular choice clothing choice with any other women I knew.
> 
> Short of carrying a she-wee thingy about - women will always have to remove some clothing to piss/deal with periods.


Still not easy though. The dribble bit at the end goes down your leg


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Manter said:


> Still not easy though. The dribble bit at the end goes down your leg



Hah, Greebo had the same complaint!  She was convinced it had been designed by a bloke, probably a virgin with only a book-learning knowledge of female genitals.
I miss her little rants.


----------



## 8ball (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> The gender? Isn't gender a set of not-very-helpful stereotypes forced on people by patriarchy?



Gender in the sense of differential expectations that people with differently-sexed bodies should behave in particular ways, you mean? 

Just clarifying because sometimes we confuse each other on these threads by using words a little differently to each other.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

S☼I said:


> The "more women in positions of power" or "more women MPs, more women in the boardroom" school of thought addresses nothing about what they do when they get there. If those women simply shore up systems of oppression and exploitation of working class women then it's pointless.



My personal experience as someone whose always done working class jobs is that the gender or race of the person who owns the company or is in managerial role makes no difference.

Some one can get on with some are awful. 

Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make a difference.

I've worked in women owned companies and men owned companies. When the chips are down male and female bosses behave in the same way.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You seem to be taking issue with something I have observed rather than proposed, ignoring my 'adequate facilities should be provided for all'. Adequate for women involves, as you say, access to sanitary facilities, to sufficient cubicles to accommodate users' needs, etc etc. It involves placing women at the front of the design process at an early stage of the planning process, whereas at the moment architects, mostly men, all too often impose their views on clients and provide designs which don't meet how buildings actually work or what people actually need. Where there are queues it *could* suggest people are taking too long. But it would indicate to me rather there are likely to be too few cubicles or basins or soap dispensers or hand driers, or problems with provision of sanitary facilities - that there's a design flaw in the facility than in the users. Having seen the same flaws in design in gents toilets in buildings both here and abroad I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised there were extra faults in the ladies.


Surely you don't need direct responses to your banal observations, diagnosis and insights about the hugely damaging (for women) impact of a world designed for men that might in fact turn out to be somewhat flawed for everyone (men) .  
The thing that's missing from your posts is any sense of anger or urgency. Women have no choice but to take these things deeply personally.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

8ball said:


> Gender in the sense of differential expectations that people with differently-sexed bodies should behave in particular ways, you mean?
> 
> Just clarifying because sometimes we confuse each other on these threads by using words a little differently to each other.



Yep, differential expectations that are pretty stereotyped STILL.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make that much difference.


Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom. 

We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> My personal experience as someone whose always done working class jobs is that the gender or race of the person who owns the company or is in managerial role makes no difference.



The SEX or race, do you mean, given that "gender" is a social construction that places people in roles, whereas sex is an immutable biological material reality?



> Its a myth that getting more women into positions into the boardroom or running business will make that much difference.
> 
> I've worked in women owned companies and men owned companies. When the chips are down male and female bosses behave in the same way.



I don't entirely agree. A few bosses, usually ones who've worked their way up from the bottom, are genuinely socialistic, but MOST aren't, not least because they way they've been "educated" to be bosses (this includes a majority of MBAs, in my experience) is based around seeing workers as objects - as assets to be "sweated", and disposed of, rather than seeing them as people who bring valuable experience to the workplace. A good example of this view of workers as objects is the rankness of the current "apprenticeship" system. Rather than teaching someone a trade with which they can form their own business/be an independent trader, young people are being subjected to cookie-cutter training that produces drones to work for established businesses. It's all about feeding capitalism, and until that approach ends, no-one except the bosses will get fair treatment, although the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hah, Greebo had the same complaint!  She was convinced it had been designed by a bloke, probably a virgin with only a book-learning knowledge of female genitals.
> I miss her little rants.


Like and don’t like, iyswim. Hugs x


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.
> 
> We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.



I was basing this on my personal experience.

I have actually worked in women owned business.

I didn't find their managerial style or way they dealt with workforce any more or less exploitative than the a male owned business.

So, basing this on my personal experience and not just theory I would say its a myth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.
> 
> We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.



Absolutely. Of course, under patriarchy, that's unlikely to happen any time soon. Look at the misogynistic blowback that's taking place in many states where equality is legislated, but not a reality! The US is rank with it, as is Australia, most of Europe, most of South and South-east Asia, and let's not even get started on the former Soviet Union! For every gain by feminism, feminists seem to have to put years of effort not only into new gains, but into retaining existing gains.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.


This simple point seems to be very difficult for some of our putative comrades to grasp.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Why must this be a myth? We're not talking about sprinkling a few more women that men can tolerate around the boardroom.
> 
> We can't really test the effects of equal representation until 51% of powerful positions are occupied by women in a systemic and sustained way, with the freedom to fuck things up just as much as the guy next door used to.


God I want to see that. Even tried! Not this ‘few women who are men in skirts* and don’t scare us too much’ 

*By which I mean accept working constructs, norms, patterns, judgements assumptions etc set by men. Not drag queens


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Manter said:


> Like and don’t like, iyswim. Hugs x



I do see what you mean. Thank you. Saw your lad and TN the other day, asked "what, no sticks?". TN sighed and said "they're in the backpack".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> This simple point seems to be very difficult for some of our putative comrades to grasp.



What's utterly weird to me, is that if you substitute "black people" for women, and "white people" for men, those same putative comrades will TOTALLY grasp it. It's almost like there's some kind of self-programming that doesn't allow them to acknowledge material reality.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do see what you mean. Thank you. Saw your lad and TN the other day, asked "what, no sticks?". TN sighed and said "they're in the backpack".


I found a waitrose bag under his bed the other day and wondered what on earth it was. 

Sticks 

(I do love that half of Brixton as well as far flung places seems to know and be amused by the stick obsession)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2019)

Manter said:


> God I want to see that. Even tried! Not this ‘few women who are men in skirts* and don’t scare us too much’
> 
> *By which I mean accept working constructs, norms, patterns, judgements assumptions etc set by men. Not drag queens



Drag queens in boardrooms would just give most of those former public schoolboys the horn.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Drag queens in boardrooms would just give most of those former public schoolboys the horn.


Could make some of my days much more interesting, mind


----------



## 8115 (May 24, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I was basing this on my personal experience.
> 
> I have actually worked in women owned business.
> 
> ...


I always thought you were male? If you're male you might not notice the difference. If you're female I'm really sorry. Also you need a tipping point.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> The SEX or race, do you mean, given that "gender" is a social construction that places people in roles, whereas sex is an immutable biological material reality?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't entirely agree. A few bosses, usually ones who've worked their way up from the bottom, are genuinely socialistic, but MOST aren't, not least because they way they've been "educated" to be bosses (this includes a majority of MBAs, in my experience) is based around seeing workers as objects - as assets to be "sweated", and disposed of, rather than seeing them as people who bring valuable experience to the workplace. A good example of this view of workers as objects is the rankness of the current "apprenticeship" system. Rather than teaching someone a trade with which they can form their own business/be an independent trader, young people are being subjected to cookie-cutter training that produces drones to work for established businesses. It's all about feeding capitalism, and until that approach ends, no-one except the bosses will get fair treatment, although the poor treatment men get, will still objectively be better than the poor treatment women get.



Sorry a few pages back I mentioned theory and was told personal experience comes first.

I'm talking about personal experience of working for men and women. I have actually worked in women owned business.

So my post was about my personal experience of seeing if their is any difference.

From my position as a worker no.

I've always worked in SMEs.

Actually In my experience people who worked their way up from the bottom ok personally but when the business has problems they will shaft you. That is how capitalism works. Getting 50% women running business isn't going to change that.

This isn't having a go at anyone. Its how the system works.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I was basing this on my personal experience.
> 
> I have actually worked in women owned business.
> 
> ...


I'll bet that had those women been in the company of loads of other senior women then at least some people would have noticed a difference in the workplace. Possibly even 51% of those people.

But don't worry. You can still treat the potential improvement (for women at least) as a fantasy because it's never going to happen because the world is designed for men.

ETA I've just realised that some male posters still haven't twigged that this thread is about addressing problems of patriarchy over problems of capitalism


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'll bet that had those women been in the company of loads of other senior women then at least some people would have noticed a difference in the workplace. Possibly even 51% of those people.
> 
> But don't worry. You can still treat the potential improvement (for women at least) as a fantasy because it's never going to happen because the world is designed for men.



What I'm saying is that under a Capitalist system a boss / manager whether male or female , when the chips are down , will need to be exploitative.

I'm talking from personal experience here. I remember female co worker of mine being really critical of our female boss.

What I'm taking issue with is the argument that if get more women running business or in boardrooms that will make a big difference.

It would make for more equality in the boardroom or business.

Which is a step forward but it won't mean less exploitation for men and women in the working class.

And I am basing this on personal experience not just theory.


----------



## trashpony (May 24, 2019)

You’re talking about capitalism under patriarchy though. If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?


----------



## Poot (May 24, 2019)

Eta ^^^ what trashpony says.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

This really isn't about women bosses it's about equal gender balance from bottom to top. 
But your specific lived experience of women bosses says any possible benefit of a gender balanced workplaces is theoretical and mythical. Not real.


----------



## 8ball (May 24, 2019)

trashpony said:


> If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?



I'm going to suggest the markets may take some persuading.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Surely you don't need direct responses to your banal observations, diagnosis and insights about the hugely damaging (for women) impact of a world designed for men that might in fact turn out to be somewhat flawed for everyone (men) .
> The thing that's missing from your posts is any sense of anger or urgency. Women have no choice but to take these things deeply personally.


When recently where I work proposed major changes to the working environment including enlarging the toilets in the library I sent some suggestions in about that, including some of the points that have been made on the thread. So I've tried to make a difference about this in the real world: only to find out it's not a priority and won't receive funding. While I'd agree with you that engaging staff in changes to the design of their workplace shouldn't be controversial strangely architects don't like it. How have you fared trying to improve the facilities where you work?


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

trashpony said:


> You’re talking about capitalism under patriarchy though. If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?



It could still continue. I don't think patriarchy is essential for capitalism.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 24, 2019)

Gramsci you seem to have said the same thing 3 times now, we heard you. 



mango5 said:


> ETA I've just realised that some male posters still haven't twigged that this thread is about addressing problems of patriarchy over problems of capitalism



Are women more oppressed by patriachy or by capitalism - I'd say both. I'm don't want to be told there's nothing I can do about the oppression of women, without overturning the whole system of capitalism. Again.

Whether female bosses change anything isn't really the point - I don't like living in a world controlled by mega companies mostly run by men, ingrained with a culture that favours men, not giving women opportunity to work and progress, while usually paying them less. So often we can only survive by playing by male rules and acting in ways that men find acceptable.

I'm not sure there any political system anywhere that has ever been designed for the needs of women? I'm not keen on our capitalist system, but this is the world where we have to live and I only have this lifetime.  I want to look at ways that the needs of 51% of the population can be addressed. Now. It's long overdue. 

I don't think there is just one single way to approach the continuing oppression of women. We have to each do what we can in our ways with our own abilities - whether that's challenging gender stereotypes, raising children, challenging our law makers, challenging medical practice, shining a spotlight on the bad practice of big companies, working in whatever job we can get, fighting abuse, challenging the boys only clubs where ever we find them, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 24, 2019)

Raising awareness of how the world is designed for men is just one way of being able to start changing things.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Gramsci you seem to have said the same thing 3 times now, we heard you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because several posters commented on my posts. Bringing up interesting points. ive got a few more to make. If that's ok by you.

Btw:

In my old housing Coop one of the things I ( with a couple of other members) argued for, and got, was that we would aim for a gender balance in the Coop membership. Something we succeeded in doing. So unusually for a Coop had equal numbers of men and women houded.  It did change the dynamic.


----------



## mango5 (May 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> When recently where I work proposed major changes to the working environment including enlarging the toilets in the library I sent some suggestions in about that, including some of the points that have been made on the thread. So I've tried to make a difference about this in the real world: only to find out it's not a priority and won't receive funding. While I'd agree with you that engaging staff in changes to the design of their workplace shouldn't be controversial strangely architects don't like it. How have you fared trying to improve the facilities where you work?


This thread explicitly points out that there is nothing strange about deprioritising improvements and a systemic lack of enthusiasm for a world designed for women as much as for men  
I’m more interested in reducing unsecure and fractional contracts and improving workforce engagement with the unions in the places I work. It sure beats writing meaningless memos about toilets.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> This thread explicitly points out that there is nothing strange about deprioritising improvements and a systemic lack of enthusiasm for a world designed for women as much as for men
> I’m more interested in reducing unsecure and fractional contracts and improving workforce engagement with the unions in the places I work. It sure beats writing meaningless memos about toilets.


Yeh. I've served on union branch committees, including taking responsibility for liaison with cleaners, the most marginalised members of staff in the institution, so i've experience of that field. A long campaign to bring them back in-house is about to be crowned with success. However, being as this is a thread about design i have posted about design. It's not every day an opportunity appears to arise to do something to influence workplace design so when opinions were sought I submitted mine. I don't see an inconsistency between working to further and improve workers' contracts, their invisible working environment, and trying to make the physical workplace more suitable, and tbh it feels weird to have your non-design related priorities used as a put-down on a thread about design. While it may atm not be a priority for management their decisions elsewhere in the plans meant this will need to be revisited as the number of people needing to use the toilets is about to rise significantly. I think this will concentrate minds and see funds made available.


----------



## mango5 (May 25, 2019)

I don't care about your workplace organising activities. I'm not having this pissing contest with you.

Your myopic approach to the notion of ’a world designed for men’ is a good illustration of the problem.  The overarching topic is about the effects on women lives, many of which require the kinds of ’non–design responses’ you find weird on this thread. For example I think it's weird in this context to overlook the specific requirements of women when advocating for suitable toilet and sanitation provision in favour of using ’user demand’ to focus minds.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 25, 2019)

I'm not sure why feminism threads always descend into blokes explaining feminism to women.

Actually I am but I'm not happy about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I don't care about your workplace organising activities. I'm not having this pissing contest with you.
> 
> Your myopic approach to the notion of ’a world designed for men’ is a good illustration of the problem.  The overarching topic is about the effects on women lives, many of which require the kinds of ’non–design responses’ you find weird on this thread. For example I think it's weird in this context to overlook the specific requirements of women when advocating for suitable toilet and sanitation provision in favour of using ’user demand’ to focus minds.


I don't want any sort of contest with you. I haven't used user demand to focus minds, that's just how things are ending up - it is a consequence of the decision that's been made that the current facilities inadequate in both design and capacity (I am thinking here specifically of the women's toilets) will remain inadequate in design and complaints resulting from the pressure on capacity is, I think, more likely to succeed where arguments I made failed. I fully appreciate that the design of toilets (for example) has an effect on users' lives which doesn't start or end with their use: and that greater female representation among decision-makers may improve matters. I don't find non-design responses weird on this thread, I find them weird in the specific context of being used as you have. I don't know the details of your union activity, but I wish you well with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'm not sure why feminism threads always descend into blokes explaining feminism to women.
> 
> Actually I am but I'm not happy about it.


I've by no means intended to explain feminism but only meant to dip my toe in and make a couple of points I felt worth making. I am sorry if it's come across as mansplaining.


----------



## spanglechick (May 25, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Da Vinci and most artists of his time also often depicted children as bizarre creatures who had the proportions of adult men, just scaled down. It's a window into what strange lives these men - and their male customers - were leading, where women and babies were peripheral beings.
> 
> On a more positive point, there's a very persuasive argument that the Venus of Willdendorf, and probably some older African fertility statues, were sculpted by women, because they look like some women would see themselves while looking down at their own bodies, than like you'd sculpt an image of a woman from looking at them from the front (the legs and shoulders are especially tiny compared to the rest).
> 
> ...



Hmm.  I dunno.  Apart from the lack of arms that’s pretty much my body shape.  No tricks of perspective needed.


----------



## spanglechick (May 25, 2019)

It might be that some of the anti patriarchal effects of having 51% female management aren’t felt by men.  

@gramsci’s womanboss might have been pretty good at dealing with support with menopause.  

Which, as an aside:

I work in a traditionally somewhat better sector for representation (secondary education) - but increasingly (over the last thirty-ish years) there is a mystifying lack of post menopausal women.  As schools have become run more as businesses, there seems to be no place for The Crone, unless she is Senior Management or an ancillary worker (LSA, Catering, Admin).


----------



## Sue (May 25, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I work in a traditionally somewhat better sector for representation (secondary education) - but increasingly (over the last thirty-ish years) there is a mystifying lack of post menopausal women.  As schools have become run more as businesses, there seems to be no place for The Crone, unless she is Senior Management or an ancillary worker (LSA, Catering, Admin).



A friend was saying exactly this last night. We're both in our mid/late 40s and admittedly work in very male environments (different software development companies). But there's a very notable lack of anyone older who's not senior management and in terms of women, well we're about it. 

(I've a lot of female friends of a similar age in technical jobs. Must ask them their thoughts.)


----------



## Red Cat (May 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Gramsci you seem to have said the same thing 3 times now, we heard you.
> 
> 
> 
> Are women more oppressed by patriachy or by capitalism - I'd say both. I'm don't want to be told there's nothing I can do about the oppression of women, without overturning the whole system of capitalism. Again.



It's not really about whether women are more oppressed by capitalism but that women are exploited by capitalism because that's how it works. There are arguments about to what extent women are further exploited due to unpaid labour and reproduction and to what extent patriarchy determines that. So it's not really an either/or - the oppression of women takes place in our society within a context of exploitation, so questions about whether that oppression can be minimised when it is so intimately entwined with our economic system seem reasonable to me. I don't know the answers. 

I think we can be fairly certain that 'dismantling' capitalism (is this a very masculine way of thinking?) isn't really an option. How do we change things in ways that develop individual and collective agency in the here and now? These are longstanding political questions aren't they? How do we, whoever we are,  link our understanding with our practice? I don't know the answer to that either.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

Sue said:


> A friend was saying exactly this last night. We're both in our mid/late 40s and admittedly work in very male environments (different software development companies). But there's a very notable lack of anyone older who's not senior management and in terms of women, well we're about it.
> 
> (I've a lot of female friends of a similar age in technical jobs. Must ask them their thoughts.)


from observation a similar story in libraries even tho they're predominantly staffed by women


----------



## izz (May 25, 2019)

Sue said:


> A friend was saying exactly this last night. We're both in our mid/late 40s and admittedly work in very male environments (different software development companies). But there's a very notable lack of anyone older who's not senior management and in terms of women, well we're about it.
> 
> (I've a lot of female friends of a similar age in technical jobs. Must ask them their thoughts.)


<derail, apologies>
This "Oh we must have more women in IT but they just don't apply for jobs" hand-wringing that we hear from the industry is nothing more than hypocritical bleating. The IT industry just about tolerates women of child-bearing age so long as they don't, y'know _bear children_. I had lots of experience in various IT roles and wanted to get into games design/coding, sent the cv off to a chorus of silence. Cornered one recruiter and asked him why and he said it was nothing to do with my skills but I'd never work in that area of the industry.

I agree with you, Sue, when I was in IT I knew very few senior women, I was almost always the only woman as well. I left to get into project management, would have loved to do IT PM but the jobs just weren't there at the time.
</derail, apologies>

e2a I've often wondered what would happen if I sent two copies of my cv in for a job, one with my own name and the other with a male name .....


----------



## weltweit (May 25, 2019)

izz said:


> ..
> e2a I've often wondered what would happen if I sent two copies of my cv in for a job, one with my own name and the other with a male name .....


I would give it a go, you could have a discrimination case and could win compensation. I know of an Arab engineer that did just that, (there was a newspaper article) numerous times and won compensation many times. 

However, I also know a small business which a couple of years ago hired a woman for an important role and a couple of months later she declared she was pregnant. They coped, but I was told by one employee they doubted the business would employ another woman of child bearing age.


----------



## mango5 (May 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> from observation a similar story in libraries even tho they're predominantly staffed by women


Yes we know women have internalised or accepted the price of patriarchy. No one is claiming that workplaces dominated by women are - or should be - any kind of feminist utopia; creating such worlpaces as default would be a useful but impossible experiment. Sue certainly wasn't. 

What insidious point are you making with "even tho"?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I've served on union branch committees, including taking responsibility for liaison with cleaners, the most marginalised members of staff in the institution, so i've experience of that field. A long campaign to bring them back in-house is about to be crowned with success. However, being as this is a thread about design i have posted about design.


  I would say this _is_ about how the world is designed. This thread isn't just about how products and buildings are designed - but how systems and policies shape our world too.

Conditions, pay and job security for vast numbers of low paid paid worker have dramatically declined since most firms and public services have out sourced those jobs. I suspect low paid women might be disproportionally affected by this process - anyone know where we can look up stats or more research on this?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 25, 2019)

izz said:


> <derail, apologies>
> This "Oh we must have more women in IT but they just don't apply for jobs" hand-wringing that we hear from the industry is nothing more than hypocritical bleating. The IT industry just about tolerates women of child-bearing age so long as they don't, y'know _bear children_. I had lots of experience in various IT roles and wanted to get into games design/coding, sent the cv off to a chorus of silence. Cornered one recruiter and asked him why and he said it was nothing to do with my skills but I'd never work in that area of the industry.
> 
> I agree with you, Sue, when I was in IT I knew very few senior women, I was almost always the only woman as well. I left to get into project management, would have loved to do IT PM but the jobs just weren't there at the time.
> ...


 I would say this isn't a derail at all. There is all kinds of evidence of how women have been excluded in all sorts of ways from the IT industry - explicitly and 'unintentionally'.  I'm sure its common in other trades/industries/professions too. 

What you say about not employing women of childbearing age is spot on, this is traditionally why women were legally excluded historically, and illegally excluded now. Doen't matter if you have children or not - the idea is there in the employers mind.

I think its easier to see yourself working in an enviroment where people look like you - where you a not in a minority. I started my career in book publishing as so many women where employed in all depts.  I wouldn't say it was a feminist paradise, most firms were owned/managed by men and a lot of the women in management tended to ape male styles of working.

I like to think the sheer numbers of women in the publishing industry was how feminist publishers were able to establish and grow in the 70s & 80s - which I think did change things for women, as they distributed fiction, history, ideas and theory which would never have been published otherwise. That challenged the patriachy and changed the world.  Shame just about all of those small feminist publishing houses were taken over by the big four eg Virago became a small imprint of HarperCollins so ultimately owned by Murdoch's News international.

Does there ever come a point of over 50% female employees where culture changes?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Yes we know women have internalised or accepted the price of patriarchy. No one is claiming that workplaces dominated by women are - or should be - any kind of feminist utopia; creating such worlpaces as default would be a useful but impossible experiment. Sue certainly wasn't.


 I was not making the claim to the contrary 





> What insidious point are you making with "even tho"?


I am not making an insidious point


----------



## purenarcotic (May 25, 2019)

I dunno what the beef is with PM tbf. 

Anyway, I work at an exclusively female organisation. There are quite a few staff that left and returned on the basis that we are much more flexible in terms of working around people with kids and generally more understanding. We recently opened a housing advice hub and the whole look and feel of it is very different because the CEO remembered what it was like when she was homeless with small kids and how she felt when she walked into a council office. We have a kitchen for women to make tea / coffee / toast / microwave food, a crèche worker, the TV has a Netflix account, we have iPads coming for the older kids etc. I don’t know of any other facility in the city that provides crèche cover when people come for housing advice or to seek emergency accommodation. I don’t know how much these things would be considered by men - I mean Shelter doesn’t provide this (not remotely knocking the excellent advice they offer) and it was us that raised these issues with the council when discussing funding for it. 

But ultimately, when she talks to me about redundancy (I’m the union rep) we both know that she’ll be okay and it’s frontline workers who will take the full force of it. It is better, but only to a limited extent.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 25, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I would say this isn't a derail at all. There is all kinds of evidence of how women have been excluded in all sorts of ways from the IT industry - explicitly and 'unintentionally'.  I'm sure its common in other trades/industries/professions too.
> 
> What you say about not employing women of childbearing age is spot on, this is traditionally why women were legally excluded historically, and illegally excluded now. Doen't matter if you have children or not - the idea is there in the employers mind.
> 
> ...



I wonder about education, especially primary. You'd think that with well over half being women that there would be a change. About 75% of its teachers are women, but men are promoted faster and are disproportionally in senior positions.


----------



## Winot (May 25, 2019)

IME (as a man in a male-dominated profession) senior managers do not understand the problems of juggling childcare responsibilities unless they have had those responsibilities themselves. 

I’m guessing that is true elsewhere too, which given that childcare (and other caring responsibilities) fall mainly on women, would mean that organisations are only going to get better when there are more women in senior management. 

It would be better for society imo if men took a more equal share of those responsibilities too but that can happen as well as greater female representation.


----------



## mango5 (May 25, 2019)

purenarcotic for me Pickman's model seems to be treating each issue as an individual 'design flaw' which only needs a technical response. In addition there's a sense that where women have for some reason been dominant in a workplace, they perhaps *could have* changed the things discussed here.  But they didn't 'even tho' it seemed they were in a position to do so. Like Gramsci he's preoccupied with workplace power and the thought that womenbosses might have influenced things in ways that are invisible to men simply doesn't get considered (see spanglechick's post)  The feminism bit of the thread title is conspicuous by its absence.

I'm pleased they're participating though. I'd never get the chance to engage like this in real life.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> purenarcotic for me Pickman's model seems to be treating each issue as an individual 'design flaw' which only needs a technical response. In addition there's a sense that where women have for some reason been dominant in a workplace, they perhaps *could have* changed the things discussed here.  But they didn't 'even tho' it seemed they were in a position to do so. Like Gramsci he's preoccupied with workplace power and the thought that womenbosses might have influenced things in ways that are invisible to men simply doesn't get considered (see spanglechick's post)  The feminism bit of the thread title is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> I'm pleased they're participating though. I'd never get the chance to engage like this in real life.


that's a really good piece of misreading. I say libraries predominantly staffed by women and you think I've said something about them being dominant in a workplace. Er I didn't say that at all. I can't see how you get from 'more women than men work in libraries' to 'women are dominant'. I really can't. I'm no less perplexed by some of your other readings tbh. And surely you need to explore power in the workplace. Don't see how your influence point really trumps that, in fact it strengthens it.

E2A and as for the feminism bit being conspicuous by its absence, I've argued that women should be involved in the design of spaces which they use, in this instance toilets. It's not a vast step (or it certainly shouldn't be, tho architects seem not to have taken it on board) but I'd hope the empowerment of women, advocating the involvement of women in decisions which affect them - doesn't that at least smack of feminism?


----------



## mango5 (May 25, 2019)

The workplace may not be the key you think it is. Our case on the domestic, intimate issues is overwhelming. The workplace does not address the inconvience or fear - the iterally life limiting aspects of a world designed for men.
Don't tell women how to think about it or deal with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> The workplace may not be the key you think it is. Our case on the domestic, intimate issues is overwhelming. The workplace does not address the inconvient or fear - the iterally life limiting aspects of a world designed for men.
> Don't tell women how to think about it or deal with it.


Yeh there's a huge great load of things I've not dealt with, relationships, sport, hobbies, loads of things. We've been discussing the workplace so I kept on that topic. It's strange, off the boards you've always been quite personable. Yet on the boards, and in particular on this thread over the past four or five days, you've sought out my posts - many of them utterly innocuous like the one where I added the man on the Clapham omnibus to a list of generic sayings - for no obvious reason and seem to be pursuing some beef against me. That's really what it feels like, and I don't know why. I thought maybe it was just me misreading you but I'm not so sure now, it seems no answer meets your exacting standards. It doesn't feel like you're interested in what I have to say, tbh, but you keep coming back and shifting the goalposts as you have here. I've had enough of it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> purenarcotic for me Pickman's model seems to be treating each issue as an individual 'design flaw' which only needs a technical response. In addition there's a sense that where women have for some reason been dominant in a workplace, they perhaps *could have* changed the things discussed here.  But they didn't 'even tho' it seemed they were in a position to do so. Like Gramsci he's preoccupied with workplace power and the thought that womenbosses might have influenced things in ways that are invisible to men simply doesn't get considered (see spanglechick's post)  The feminism bit of the thread title is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> I'm pleased they're participating though. I'd never get the chance to engage like this in real life.



What?

I've posted up that I helped to argue for and got my old Housing Coop to have equal numbers of men and women.

Which was successful and did as I said change the dynamic.

So Im not "preoccupied" by the workplace.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> purenarcotic for me Pickman's model seems to be treating each issue as an individual 'design flaw' which only needs a technical response. In addition there's a sense that where women have for some reason been dominant in a workplace, they perhaps *could have* changed the things discussed here.  But they didn't 'even tho' it seemed they were in a position to do so. Like Gramsci he's preoccupied with workplace power and the thought that womenbosses might have influenced things in ways that are invisible to men simply doesn't get considered (see spanglechick's post)  The feminism bit of the thread title is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> I'm pleased they're participating though. I'd never get the chance to engage like this in real life.


I thought that too.  Both posters seem to demand attention in a way that distracts form the femininism part of this discussion.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2019)

mango5 said:


> purenarcotic for me Pickman's model seems to be treating each issue as an individual 'design flaw' which only needs a technical response. In addition there's a sense that where women have for some reason been dominant in a workplace, they perhaps *could have* changed the things discussed here.  But they didn't 'even tho' it seemed they were in a position to do so. Like Gramsci he's preoccupied with workplace power and the thought that womenbosses might have influenced things in ways that are invisible to men simply doesn't get considered (see spanglechick's post)  The feminism bit of the thread title is conspicuous by its absence.
> 
> I'm pleased they're participating though. I'd never get the chance to engage like this in real life.



To make it clear. On basic equal rights level across society men and women should have equal pay for same job, CEOs , owners of business should be fifty fifty men and women.

This is straightforward equal rights. 

What I take issue with is when this gets mixed in with idea that if women were properly represented in jobs with social power things would improve for women in general. spanglechick gave one example, Winot another. 

Its the trickle down effect.

Another example from real life. I've been involved in trying to save an adventure playground. Council regeneration department says it no longer needed and can be sold off to developer. Lambeth council has high proportion of women in senior positions. Two key officers running Regen are women. This hasn't meant that Regen has been more sympathetic. I had a single mother , struggling, tell me that the adventure playground was invaluable. Gave her time for herself and her child a safe place to play. 

So I don't believe getting underrepresented groups into senior positions will make that much difference beyond getting basic equality.


----------



## mango5 (May 25, 2019)

Does getting basic equality include a reduction in #metoo type incidents? I’d take that over an adventure playground any day.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> To make it clear. On basic equal rights level across society men and women should have equal pay for same job, CEOs , owners of business should be fifty fifty men and women.
> 
> This is straightforward equal rights.
> 
> ...


Gramsci Be proud of your efforts getting Gordon Grove adventure playground back into operation. It makes a big difference to a lot of working class women in Loughborough.


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Does getting basic equality include a reduction in #metoo type incidents? I’d take that over an adventure playground any day.



I think both are really important. Adventure playgrounds are important for female children to develop physical skills, to make things in groups, to develop relationships with adults who aren't parents, to give parents a break because there are other adults involved. The local park is in no way comparable. There's only one adventure playground in Birmingham that's miles away from us and I considered it a real lack for everyone.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think both are really important. Adventure playgrounds are important for female children to develop physical skills, to make things in groups, to develop relationships with adults who aren't parents, to give parents a break because there are other adults involved. The local park is in no way comparable. There's only one adventure playground in Birmingham that's miles away from us and I considered it a real lack for everyone.


The adventure playground in Battersea Park used to have me there all day for free. This allowed my mum to do cleaning jobs (for the rich) and get out from under debt and pressure.


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think both are really important. Adventure playgrounds are important for female children to develop physical skills, to make things in groups, to develop relationships with adults who aren't parents, to give parents a break because there are other adults involved. The local park is in no way comparable. There's only one adventure playground in Birmingham that's miles away from us and I considered it a real lack for everyone.


I hadn't considered that there was a distinction before. What does an adventure playground actually have (because I suspect that there aren't any around here either! )


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

Poot said:


> I hadn't considered that there was a distinction before. What does an adventure playground actually have (because I suspect that there aren't any around here either! )



I have to leave the house now, here's one in Germany I was particularly impressed by one that I found online years ago, that should explain what they can be, the children involved in constructing them:

Things We Like:What Happens When Children Build Their Own Three-Story Playgrounds? | Public Workshop

There's probably a good history on them somewhere, lots of very interesting observations made about children's competence and capacity to self direct their own learning and learning by working in groups and assessing risks themselves in that context.  There was something called the Peckham Experiment, I found this on it:

The Pioneer Health Foundation


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

I don't think we can consider women's social role without (re) thinking conceptualisations of childhood.


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2019)

That looks *incredible* Red Cat and certainly better than watching my daughter wait patiently for the noisy kids to finish on the roundabout!


----------



## mango5 (May 26, 2019)

I'm not saying adventure playgrounds aren't important. I am challenging the idea that a world designed for men is centred on the workplace. And the examples given so often imply that womenbosses are failing other women by not being better at the things men notice.

On the social/personal examples given on this thread, men have talked about new insights into how women might have experienced (eg) rave culture or shopping or public transport. Our putative comrades have ignored these.

For them, challenging capitalism is far more important than challenging the effects of patriarchy.  This idea diminishes and minimises the place of women in the world because it assumes that women are equally badly treated by the system. We're not. The system doesn't even recognise the differences in our bodies except where those differences can be further exploited or abused.

As Red Cat suggests dismantling capitalism seem to be a masculine way of thinking. The system is designed for men.


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> The adventure playground in Battersea Park used to have me there all day for free. This allowed my mum to do cleaning jobs (for the rich) and get out from under debt and pressure.



I think Battersea was where the first one o'clock club was too, perhaps they were linked? These were originally to support mothers, now the emphasis is on supporting child development.


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm not saying adventure playgrounds aren't important. I am challenging the idea that a world designed for men is centred on the workplace. And the examples given so often imply that womenbosses are failing other women by not being better at the things men notice.
> 
> On the social/personal examples given on this thread, men have talked about new insights into how women might have experienced (eg) rave culture or shopping or public transport. Our putative comrades have ignored these.
> 
> ...



I'll have a think about this but I'm in and out (looking after children and sick partner!) and should be working on a paper, so not much time for dedicated thinking about other things.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think Battersea was where the first one o'clock club was too, perhaps they were linked? These were originally to support mothers, now the emphasis is on supporting child development.


I'm not sure about  the 1 o'clock club. I do remember how pleased my mum was though (as they took kids for the whole day, for free) as she had been told not to bring me with her to a cleaning job by some Chelsea type.


----------



## Gramsci (May 26, 2019)

Poot said:


> I hadn't considered that there was a distinction before. What does an adventure playground actually have (because I suspect that there aren't any around here either! )



Bit more background here about the distinction. 

Grove Adventure Playground fights for its survival – open day coming up on Sat 16th Feb 2019

( Update looks like Council have finally agree to not build on the land)


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2019)

I think this is a London thing. I can't think of anything like it at all in Scotland - what we call an 'adventure playground' here is not staffed, it's just a big playground with large rustic climbing equipment and maybe a sandpit and a zipline. And they don't exist in cities at all, they're a country park thing.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> As Red Cat suggests dismantling capitalism seem to be a masculine way of thinking. The system is designed for men.



This rather ignores the huge efforts of so many women who have given their all to try and dismantle capitalism. Why do this?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm not saying adventure playgrounds aren't important. I am challenging the idea that a world designed for men is centred on the workplace. And the examples given so often imply that womenbosses are failing other women by not being better at the things men notice.
> 
> On the social/personal examples given on this thread, men have talked about new insights into how women might have experienced (eg) rave culture or shopping or public transport. Our putative comrades have ignored these.
> 
> ...


It'd be nice if you acknowledged the misreading you made of my posts, tho I won't hold my breath. It's utterly bizarre how you laud men who have posted about how women might have experienced rave culture, shopping and public transport but lay into Gramsci and me because we've posted about the workplace. Your double standards here should be obvious even to you, because if you're honest about wanting to look at women's experiences in a world designed for men in the round you'd have raised at some point the absence of the workplace from their analyses. It's curious you seem to separate experiences of shopping from experiences under capitalism as consumption a very core aspect of capitalism. It's the flip side of production after all, and the focus of activity in so many workplaces which produce advertising, design shops, work out how goods should be displayed etc.

A separation of capitalism from patriarchy is, I submit, problematic as the two are so intertwined. What damages one damages the other. The destruction of the current mode of production, capitalism might not uproot and destroy patriarchy would yet deal it a mighty blow and vice versa.

In addition, you only brought up my focus on the workplace after I answered the points you made in response to purenarcotic. Strange that. If it was a genuine criticism rather than shifting the goalposts you'd have mentioned it to pn. I don't know the motive behind the attitude you've taken to me and Gramsci on this thread but I don't think they're really about what we've said. I think you've another reason for acting as you have. I won't continue on this thread which imo you're using for your own purposes rather than a genuine exploration of very real and very important issues as I don't want to engage further with your peculiar beef.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> It might be that some of the anti patriarchal effects of having 51% female management aren’t felt by men.
> 
> @gramsci’s womanboss might have been pretty good at dealing with support with menopause.
> 
> ...


As an aside, I wish there were more positive images of elder women in media, public imagination and so on (not just crone/invisible or looks really young/still hot)


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> This rather ignores the huge efforts of so many women who have given their all to try and dismantle capitalism. Why do this?



I was referring to the word dismantle really! Not ignoring the women who focus on class politics as a means of challenging women's oppression.


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I think this is a London thing. I can't think of anything like it at all in Scotland - what we call an 'adventure playground' here is not staffed, it's just a big playground with large rustic climbing equipment and maybe a sandpit and a zipline. And they don't exist in cities at all, they're a country park thing.



That's everywhere and a more modern definition of a top-down provided playground. This is quite interesting on the history of definitions:

Welcome to the Home of British Adventure Play: An internet resource for  those interested in and passionate about adventure play


----------



## Red Cat (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm not saying adventure playgrounds aren't important. I am challenging the idea that a world designed for men is centred on the workplace. And the examples given so often imply that womenbosses are failing other women by not being better at the things men notice.
> 
> On the social/personal examples given on this thread, men have talked about new insights into how women might have experienced (eg) rave culture or shopping or public transport. Our putative comrades have ignored these.
> 
> ...



I've read this a few times and tbh I'm not sure what you're saying. 

There are various theories of women's oppression, only some emphasise patriarchy, and not all are feminist in that sense. Do you think that a preference for class politics means that women are colluding with men in their own oppression?


----------



## Sweet FA (May 26, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> I wonder about education, especially primary. You'd think that with well over half being women that there would be a change. About 75% of its teachers are women, but men are promoted faster and are disproportionally in senior positions.


Have you got references for that? Would be really interested in seeing it.


----------



## mango5 (May 26, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Do you think that a preference for class politics means that women are colluding with men in their own oppression?


Not at all. 

I would like to understand how a preference for class politics is a better strategy for responding to a world designed for men than ones which don't prioritise it. The class struggle is, perhaps, just as 'designed for men' as the rest of the world.

I think TopCat and I spent a lot of time at the Battersea Park adventure playground in the same decade, for similar reasons. I had safety and relative freedom there. I bet plenty of other young women didn't.  #metoo


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 26, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> Have you got references for that? Would be really interested in seeing it.



Where are all the female headteachers?

Men get promoted more quickly, and 4 other findings from new school leadership research


----------



## Sweet FA (May 26, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Where are all the female headteachers?
> 
> Men get promoted more quickly, and 4 other findings from new school leadership research


Thanks - I thought there'd be a split between primary & secondary heads. I work in primary and for many years the only men in the building were me, the caretaker and one of the cleaners. I've only ever worked under women - heads, deputies, assistant heads, year group leaders etc. I've never been arsed about being a manager but it's always assumed  (and I mean _always) _that the only reason I'm teaching in primary is so I can become a boss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

trashpony said:


> You’re talking about capitalism under patriarchy though. If we ditch patriarchy, what happens to capitalism?



It would be forced to mutate quickly, in order to continue exploiting women as it already does. Women staff most enterprises in Special Economic Zones, women by far outnumber men, in terms of humans trafficked for sex. Women do reproductive labour. Women vastly outnumber men when it comes to unpaid caring responsibilities. Possibly - and hopefully - capitalism would decline and wither on the vine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> It could still continue. I don't think patriarchy is essential for capitalism.



Patriarchy engenders - quite literally - capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> To make it clear. On basic equal rights level across society men and women should have equal pay for same job, CEOs , owners of business should be fifty fifty men and women.
> 
> This is straightforward equal rights.
> 
> ...



"Trickle down" as policy AND practice, doesn't work well enough to even qualify as being fucked up. It's absolute shit.



> Another example from real life. I've been involved in trying to save an adventure playground. Council regeneration department says it no longer needed and can be sold off to developer. Lambeth council has high proportion of women in senior positions. Two key officers running Regen are women.



Neither Sharpe nor Foster have worked for Lambeth for more than 6 months, although Sharpe "moved sideways" to Homes for Lambeth, and from long observation of both, they have a "more male than the males" approach to their jobs.



> This hasn't meant that Regen has been more sympathetic. I had a single mother , struggling, tell me that the adventure playground was invaluable. Gave her time for herself and her child a safe place to play.
> 
> So I don't believe getting underrepresented groups into senior positions will make that much difference beyond getting basic equality.



TBF, I think you're kind of missing the plain fact that while those officers may be women, neither of them are or have been single mothers, and both come from - and maintain - comfortable upper-middle class backgrounds. They barely see working class women as people. I've sat in numerous meetings with them. Their contempt for estate dwellers, people in temporary accommodation, women in refuges etc, has always been palpable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> The adventure playground in Battersea Park used to have me there all day for free. This allowed my mum to do cleaning jobs (for the rich) and get out from under debt and pressure.



It now charges an entrance fee.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> It now charges an entrance fee.


Yeah. Children's Services manager Kathy Tracey brought the charges in. They took all of the adventure play stuff out too and replaced it with top down crap. How much is it now?


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

But hey class is irrelevant apparently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Yeah. Children's Services manager Kathy Tracey brought the charges in. They took all of the adventure play stuff out too and replaced it with top down crap. How much is it now?



Last time I asked a Battersea resident friend - a couple of yrs ago - it was £6 for an "all day pass", and that for an APG with no adventure in it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> But hey class is irrelevant apparently.



No-one has said it's irrelevant, they've said it's not the be all and end all, which is a perfectly fair comment. Engels himself acknowledged (in "The Condition of the Working Class in England") that working class women bore a double burden - that of productive AND reproductive labour. It's about class AND sex AND race.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one has said it's irrelevant, they've said it's not the be all and end all, which is a perfectly fair comment. Engels himself acknowledged (in "The Condition of the Working Class in England") that working class women bore a double burden - that of productive AND reproductive labour. It's about class AND sex AND race.


I'm finding it hard to be lectured on this by a Green Party supporter.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I'm finding it hard to be lectured on this by a Green Party supporter.


Play the ball not the man ffs


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Manter said:


> Play the ball not the man ffs


Oh please.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Oh please.


There are two pages of men bitching at each other, and now you’ve made it personal so we face more of the same. It’s quite, quite ridiculous. This is a thread about feminism not individual’s personal issues with one another


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

This thread is littered with personally driven beef and has many play the man not the ball instances. Your request to me to play the ball not the man as if I was the first is quite something.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So I don't believe getting underrepresented groups into senior positions will make that much difference beyond getting basic equality.


Basic equality might be a start. 



> To make it clear. On basic equal rights level across society men and women should have equal pay for same job, CEOs , owners of business should be fifty fifty men and women.


 But I don't think we are anywhere near yet.  Could it achieve some change in culture that would be beneficial for women if we achieved this, maybe, maybe not, who can say as we are not there yet.  I'd be interested to see any stats on just how represented/paid women are at every level, I suspect it's nowhere near 50/50. 

I would argue its only as increasing numbers of women have made inroads to jobs/trades/professions over the last 100yrs, that the changes have happened. Would we have 'equal pay', maternity benefits at all if women hadn't pushed for it? These things wasn't on the patriachal male agenda til women demanded them. 

You seem to diss what Winot and spanglechick said as the 'trickle down effect' - I thought they were talking about a change in cultural understanding. Wasn't the 'trickle down effect' Tory speak for _it didn't matter if some people got rich, that wealth would trickle down to others_? I don't believe it ever existed.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> This thread is littered with personally driven beef and has many play the man not the ball instances. Your request to me to play the ball not the man as if I was the first is quite something.


Ah come on. VP's picked you up here; I'm interested in your answer to him; not how well you can swerve it. Who cares who's said what beforehand?


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> Ah come on. VP's picked you up here; I'm interested in your answer to him; not how well you can swerve it. Who cares who's said what beforehand?


Not trying to swerve. Can see why it might come across like that. It was more just digging a poster who has a very good knowledge of history and class struggle and then votes Green. 
But not fair and apols to VP. Will answer when I finish work.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

Any ideas on feminism?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Wasn't the 'trickle down effect' Tory speak for _it didn't matter if some people got rich, that wealth would trickle down to others_? I don't believe it ever existed.


More that by _freeing up_ the rich (or more properly capital) - by reducing tax, regulations, union power etc - you would have an overall increase in wealth, the benefits which would be felt across society.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one has said it's irrelevant, they've said it's not the be all and end all, which is a perfectly fair comment. Engels himself acknowledged (in "The Condition of the Working Class in England") that working class women bore a double burden - that of productive AND reproductive labour. It's about class AND sex AND race.


Ok so how do potential and actual female CEO's fit into this?  I think Engels would have said they are the class enemy and that they oppress far more than are oppressed as a result of their sex.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> More that by _freeing up_ the rich (or more properly capital) - by reducing tax, regulations, union power etc - you would have an overall increase in wealth, the benefits which would be felt across society.


yes. like I said a Tory idea with nothing to do with women or changing patriachal culture


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> yes. like I said a Tory idea with nothing to do with women or changing patriachal culture


Well I think Gramsci is trying to draw the analogy between the trickle down wealth and a trickle down of social capital, i.e. just as freeing the up ability of capital/bosses to gain economic capital didn't help most people, ensuring a gender equality of bosses won't see a trickle down of gender equality for most people.

Note I'm not saying I agree with the analogy, or that I think it is a good one, just how (I think) it is connected to the recent discussion.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I think Gramsci is trying to draw the analogy between the trickle down wealth and a trickle down of social capital, i.e. just as freeing the up ability of capital/bosses to gain economic capital didn't help most people, ensuring a gender equality of bosses won't see a trickle down of gender equality for most people.
> 
> Note I'm not saying I agree with the analogy, or that I think it is a good one, just how (I think) it is connected to the recent discussion.


It's certainly worthy of inclusion and debate.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I think Gramsci is trying to draw the analogy between the trickle down wealth and a trickle down of social capital, i.e. just as freeing the up ability of capital/bosses to gain economic capital didn't help most people, ensuring a gender equality of bosses won't see a trickle down of gender equality for most people.
> 
> Note I'm not saying I agree with the analogy, or that I think it is a good one, just how (I think) it is connected to the recent discussion.


Thanks I know what he said and I disagreed with it. He has used the 'trickle down' argument on threads about women before, I disagreed then too.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks I know what he said and I disagreed with it. He has used the 'trickle down' argument on threads about women before, I disagreed then too.


Why do you disagree? If you have posted on this please signpost me.


----------



## scifisam (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Ok so how do potential and actual female CEO's fit into this?  I think Engels would have said they are the class enemy and that they oppress far more than are oppressed as a result of their sex.



Oh FFS.  Do you even know what you're doing here?

Women, know your place!


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Oh FFS.  Do you even know what you're doing here?
> 
> Women, know your place!


Please elucidate?


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Any ideas on feminism?


Anyone who does is looking at this and seeing it's turned into the TopCat show and thinking what's the point.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Leave you to it then. Save you running to Mummy (FM) and screaming ban him again.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Not trying to swerve. Can see why it might come across like that. It was more just digging a poster who has a very good knowledge of history and class struggle and then votes Green.
> But not fair and apols to VP. Will answer when I finish work.


I respect your politics and I generally rate your posts. I don't get you on feminist threads though. Is this all re certain women posters and their views re trans? Manter asked you about the post first and I was kind of just repeating what she said really. You didn't reply to her though.


----------



## TopCat (May 26, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> I respect your politics and I generally rate your posts. I don't get you on feminist threads though. Is this all re certain women posters and their views re trans? Manter asked you about the post first and I was kind of just repeating what she said really. You didn't reply to her though.


Discuss elsewhere?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Why do you disagree? If you have posted on this please signpost me.


 #428 
Stop wasting our time. This thread isn't about class issues, isn't about you and you don't listen. You sucking all the air out of this good discussion.
I'm feeling polite. Now fuck off.


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2019)

This is excruciating. 

TopCat another poster brought up a similar argument several pages back. We discussed it at length then. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. 

And stop spouting Engels. It's really not helpful here.


----------



## Manter (May 26, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> I respect your politics and I generally rate your posts. I don't get you on feminist threads though. Is this all re certain women posters and their views re trans? Manter asked you about the post first and I was kind of just repeating what she said really. You didn't reply to her though.


The women trying to debate on here have a very wide range of views on trans issues, so I suspect this is just about women.


----------



## Gramsci (May 26, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm not saying adventure playgrounds aren't important. I am challenging the idea that a world designed for men is centred on the workplace. And the examples given so often imply that womenbosses are failing other women by not being better at the things men notice.
> 
> On the social/personal examples given on this thread, men have talked about new insights into how women might have experienced (eg) rave culture or shopping or public transport. Our putative comrades have ignored these.
> 
> ...



If your referring to my posts of my three recent examples one has been from the workplace and two not (adventure playground and my old housing Coop).

So in practice most of my (limited) political activity has not been challenging capitalism in the workplace. 

To repeat  in my old housing Coop , I and a few others, did manage to argue for and achieve equal numbers of men and women in the housing Coop. It had been disproportionately male and run by men. Some of them somewhat macho.

This was a cultural change for the better. Which took time. 

On adventure playgrounds. This is about campaigning for childcare. This imo is just as important as workplace struggles. As childcare does still fall on women more as a responsibility trying to keep adventure playground open is going to help local women.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I'm finding it hard to be lectured on this by a Green Party supporter.



I'm a Green Anarcho-Communist. You got a problem with that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> This thread is littered with personally driven beef and has many play the man not the ball instances. Your request to me to play the ball not the man as if I was the first is quite something.



I have no beef with you. I corrected you, and mentioned Engels' position. If you disagree, then elucidate your disagreement. Don't make snide remarks. It doesn't suit you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Ok so how do potential and actual female CEO's fit into this?  I think Engels would have said they are the class enemy and that they oppress far more than are oppressed as a result of their sex.



Engels would have had no concept of female CEOs because - and I'd have thought you'd know your feminist history on this - women were still chattels/property at the time he was writing. 
If he was living now, I've no doubt he'd remark that only a vanishingly-tiny number of women have made the upper tier of power in business, compared to men, and that men still exercise far more oppression, and that women are still more oppressed against both through productive and reproductive labour, than men. Engels, as with Marx, favoured analytical thought, not "what if?" bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Any ideas on feminism?



Now, if he'd picked me up on being a member of a party that seems kind of in love with 3rd wave feminism, that would have been legit. The Green Party, as with the other political parties, seems more attached to liberal feminism, than to anything that came before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I think Gramsci is trying to draw the analogy between the trickle down wealth and a trickle down of social capital, i.e. just as freeing the up ability of capital/bosses to gain economic capital didn't help most people, ensuring a gender equality of bosses won't see a trickle down of gender equality for most people.
> 
> Note I'm not saying I agree with the analogy, or that I think it is a good one, just how (I think) it is connected to the recent discussion.



Gah! Women are discriminated against NOT because they identify as, or are identified as women (gender), but because they are women. It's sex equality (material lived reality), not gender!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks I know what he said and I disagreed with it. He has used the 'trickle down' argument on threads about women before, I disagreed then too.



Sadly, "trickle down" with regard to women, and to others who are oppressed, and with regard to economics, is just piss-weak incrementalism. The sort of crap that says "things will incrementally change", but the "trickle" part tells you how slow it'll be, and how easily the trickle can dry up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 26, 2019)

Poot said:


> This is excruciating.
> 
> TopCat another poster brought up a similar argument several pages back. We discussed it at length then. Please feel free to read it at your leisure.
> 
> And stop spouting Engels. It's really not helpful here.



Engels was my fault. I stated that he mentioned what we'd now call the "double whammy" on women - productive AND reproductive labour - way back more than 170 years ago.


----------



## mango5 (May 26, 2019)

Aw fellas pipe down. This is clearly getting under the skin of a lot of people. As Poot says, this is excruciating.

I am learning about a bazillion new ways I am experiencing the shitty end of the stick, many of which I had not considered in that way before. The nasty social side effects of male violence and default man and medicalised contempt for women's lives and bodies.

A world designed for men touches so many nerves. You can't even conceive of some of them.  Stop telling us about your thinking for a while and everyone else can continue evolving theirs.

ETA not ViolentPanda I get why you sometimes post in flurries


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sadly, "trickle down" with regard to women, and to others who are oppressed, and with regard to economics, is just piss-weak incrementalism. The sort of crap that says "things will incrementally change", but the "trickle" part tells you how slow it'll be, and how easily the trickle can dry up.


There's often a sort of 'trickle sideways' within your own family to deal with, too. If you have to rely on a breadwinner because you are caring for someone, your status becomes almost insignificant. Having to ask your partner for cash utterly, utterly sucks.


----------



## Poot (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Engels was my fault. I stated that he mentioned what we'd now call the "double whammy" on women - productive AND reproductive labour - way back more than 170 years ago.


It actually wasn't directed at you. A feminist thread isn't the best place for a Victorian gentleman of course, but at least your post was coherent and relevant. Topcat's imagined what he might say in order to back his own argument up which was really, really not helpful.


----------



## Gramsci (May 26, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Trickle down" as policy AND practice, doesn't work well enough to even qualify as being fucked up. It's absolute shit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't disagree with most of this. Your putting it more bluntly than I have.

( Foster was in charge for a long time. So things like development plans for the adventure playground were taking place under her watch. )

And I would agree on your Engels comment. I need to have another read of the Condition of the working class in England and also the origins of family, private property and the state.

For his time Engels was progressive in relation to women.


----------



## Poot (May 27, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I wouldn't disagree with most of this. Your putting it more bluntly than I have.
> 
> ( Foster was in charge for a long time. So things like development plans for the adventure playground were taking place under her watch. )
> 
> ...


That's nice of him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2019)

Poot said:


> That's nice of him.



And that's kind of the point, isn't it? Individuals being nice doesn't advance the state of female equality, not when a majority of men are either wilfully ignorant about the oppression of women, or actively collude in that oppression.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks I know what he said and I disagreed with it. He has used the 'trickle down' argument on threads about women before, I disagreed then too.



Perhaps Im not being clear enough. Getting equal numbers of men and women is something I have actually in practice argued for. In relation to an organisation I was in. Successfully.

Here is quote from post I noticed you liked ,not a post by me btw:




> "Trickle down" as policy AND practice, doesn't work well enough to even qualify as being fucked up. It's absolute shit.


----------



## 8ball (May 27, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Perhaps Im not being clear enough. Getting equal numbers of men and women is something I have actually in practice argued for. In relation to an organisation I was in. Successfully.



This might not be popular in the context of a couple of previous posts, but my team at work (doing something pretty obscure in the tech-pharma area) is about 5-strong and has had maybe 12 people pass through over the years, with only 2 women, both of which have been seriously excellent (one has moved on to another company, and the other is on maternity leave atm).  

Thing is, we actually *do* have trouble getting women to apply, and I think a part of it is that there's a reticence (which I guess in some ways is understandable), to join a largely male team.  Also, I don't know to what extent the subject matter has a bearing.  

I'd welcome any thoughts (from the women reading this thread especially) on what might help us with this, because with a small team doing what we do, it's really valuable to have a decent range of perspectives.


----------



## Winot (May 27, 2019)

Why don’t you ask the woman in the team (when she is back from ML)?


----------



## 8ball (May 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> Why don’t you ask the woman in the team (when she is back from ML)?



We've spoken to both of them about this (and I'm friends with both, so if you have any insights I could run them past both of them, which I intend to do anyway).  We're a pretty close-knit bunch. I'm interested in the opinions of people on here, though.  Different perspectives and that.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2019)

8ball said:


> This might not be popular in the context of a couple of previous posts, but my team at work (doing something pretty obscure in the tech-pharma area) is about 5-strong and has had maybe 12 people pass through over the years, with only 2 women, both of which have been seriously excellent (one has moved on to another company, and the other is on maternity leave atm).
> 
> Thing is, we actually *do* have trouble getting women to apply, and I think a part of it is that there's a reticence (which I guess in some ways is understandable), to join a largely male team.  Also, I don't know to what extent the subject matter has a bearing.
> 
> I'd welcome any thoughts (from the women reading this thread especially) on what might help us with this, because with a small team doing what we do, it's really valuable to have a decent range of perspectives.



In my Coop the way we did it was only allowing women to apply. Once we had got the numbers equal we kept it that way.

But that was old Coop. I'm not really sure in regular employment terms you can do that. Tbh I'm not sure if its really allowed in any circumstances. Unless for a few exceptions.

Its also difficult as for most of us we are paid to do a job. We aren't paid to suggest things like equal numbers of men and women. The old " you aren't paid to think" thing.

Its like getting women into non traditional jobs like construction. Ex partner of mine learnt to be carpenter. But that was through local "loony left" Council in 80s. Thats all gone now. She liked it. And was good at it.

Private construction companies aren't going to do it. They can't be bothered.


----------



## 8ball (May 27, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> In my Coop the way we did it was only allowing women to apply. Once we had got the numbers equal we kept it that way.
> 
> But that was old Coop. I'm not really sure in regular employment terms you can do that.
> 
> Its also difficult as for most of us we are paid to do s job. We aren't paid to suggest things like equal numbers of men and women. The old " you aren't paid to think" thing.



Thing is, we get very few applications as it is (the role is seen as kind of intimidating, which is a shame because it's the least boring role I can think of in the company).  And I'm not sure we'd be able to specify women-only in any case.  It's also hard to recruit from outside the company because its *really* specialised.  We've had people from outside who seemed promising based on their CV, but who faltered at interview (almost entirely male applicants in this case too).

But anyway, thoughts welcome.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 27, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'd welcome any thoughts





Gramsci said:


> But that was old Coop. I'm not really sure in regular employment terms you can do that.



again, i'm starting from the perspective of not being a woman, so can't offer any direct first hand thoughts

to the best of my knowledge, UK equalities law generally prohibits 'positive discrimination' (not to be confused with 'genuine occupational qualification') so i'm inclined to think (subject to the usual disclaimers) that advertising a post for 'women only' would be legally on a par with advertising for 'men only' even if the motive is to try and get a more balanced workforce.

although there is a concept of 'positive action' which isn't illegal - don't know a lot about it - this was about the first thing i could find on the subject, and may be worth further research here.

I have certainly seen job adverts that aim to encourage women applying for what is traditionally seen as a 'mans job'- some less cringingly awful than others.  (e.g. the operational end of the transport business - some trying to tackle ideas that might put women off applying, like saying that the physical effort involved in driving a modern bus is no more than in driving a car)

It also used to be the case that some employers would place job adverts in papers like the 'voice' (black community) and / or the 'pink paper' (LGBT community) as well as mainstream press, but not sure that's so easy when it comes to seeking women for jobs, or in a more digital age.

TFL's page on women in transport may be worth a look.



8ball said:


> We've had people from outside who seemed promising based on their CV, but who faltered at interview (almost entirely male applicants in this case too).



does the job advert make what you're looking for / what the job is about clear enough?  I've been after one or two jobs in the past where it's not been what i'd thought and i wished i hadn't bothered - and quite probably the feeling was mutual (the age of 'phone for informal chat before applying' seems largely dead, but probably wastes more time than it saves in the long run)

alternatively, if it's a rare job, should your organisation be thinking about training people who might not have all the 'right' experience?


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2019)

Puddy_Tat I think that is how "loony left" Lambeth did it. They offered women training in construction and took them on after they had finished training.

The public sector always was better than private sector.


----------



## 8ball (May 27, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> does the job advert make what you're looking for / what the job is about clear enough?  I've been after one or two jobs in the past where it's not been what i'd thought and i wished i hadn't bothered - and quite probably the feeling was mutual (the age of 'phone for informal chat before applying' seems largely dead, but probably wastes more time than it saves in the long run)
> 
> alternatively, if it's a rare job, should your organisation be thinking about training people who might not have all the 'right' experience?



Re: your first point.  I think internally at least it's clear, because we let everyone know they can talk to us about the role (and most will be dealing with us in some capacity anyway).  Externally it's a little tougher because equivalent organisations slice up the roles differently, and a lot of it probably sounds pretty esoteric to someone from a different industry.

But we certainly do take people who have the right aptitudes and then train them for the specific skills.  And when they are a little further from the usual places we get people from, then they teach us a lot too, which is what we want.


----------



## scifisam (May 28, 2019)

Is it possible for the job to involve part-time/flexible working or job shares? If it is, those should be emphasised in any job adverts. If it's a possibility but not mentioned some women just won't see the ads because they're filtered out.

Obvs those are useful for lots of men too, but it's still women doing the majority of childcare (oh God nobody ask me for cites for that, nobody can really doubt it's true overall, and it's partly for reasons of biology), so those features really make a difference. 

Manter will have good input on this if she has time.


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

I was involved in a rethink of recruitment to increase women applicants to my company (many years ago now), which worked.  But it was root and branch, not surface level.  We had to look at the cultural baggage that was putting women off and how this got embedded into the way we were looking for recruits.  For example, emphasising “work hard play hard” was encouraging male applicants and discouraging female ones. But it was no good just not including that phrase in the advert, it was also important to consider why the company wanted to include it in the first place.  No point getting the applicants and then having them leave the company once they found out what it was like.  We also had to consider who we were sending to recruitment fairs and how they came across, that kind of thing.

We also radically changed the interview approach.  Unstructured interviews are only good for employing more people that are a lot like the interviewer.  You need to think about the skills and behaviours you are actually looking for and design the structure around finding out who has these.  

A lot of stuff, basically.  There isn’t a simple answer.  One problem you face is that people don’t want to hear that the reason for a lack of women applying might be located in them rather than the applicants.


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Snip//
> Private construction companies aren't going to do it. They can't be bothered.


That’s not true. There are a load of issues with the apprenticeship scheme as it’s currently set up, how the funding works and what you can use it for etc. I see it more used by retailers to develop store managers than by construction to develop traditional skills; but even so there are female-focused schemes, such as Morris Roe’s (and British Gas’)- those are just two I know about, there are undoubtably others.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2019)

Heard about this campaign on radio news this morning.

#FreePeriods — The Pink Protest

One thing they want is VAT to be removed from the cost of sanitary products. Also the cost means some women can't afford them. Which is shocking in a relatively wealthy country like this one.

On program they were talking about schools. Young women whose families can't afford sanitary products.


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

8ball agree with what Kabbes says. And also think about wider diversity. If you focus on women only it can all become a bit pink laptops and manicures on wednesdays (which isn’t what women want). Think about advertising- are you making clear to everyone that this is an open and welcoming team? Language you use, where you advertise, chance to have an informal/off the record chat before applying that it’s made very clear is not used as part of the assessment process etc; also who you use as the ‘face’ of the department (Use a diverse face you attract more diversity). 

You don’t need to dumb down the role- but you do need to look at how you are expressing it. If other organisations cut departments differently you can make that clear in recruitment. If there are attributes that are essential, but you train on others, be really explicit and make sure you aren’t assessing for the stuff you train.  Also worth looking for opportunities to actively go and meet people and ‘sell’ the department. Talk to people and say ‘have you considered...’

The other thing is active recruitment and talent development. Are there people in the organisation who could be good with a couple of other experiences, for example,- can you talk to managers and start to develop a potential pipeline? Or could you offer short term placements? 

Honestly, driving diversity through an organisation isn’t short term....


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Heard about this campaign on radio news this morning.
> 
> #FreePeriods — The Pink Protest
> 
> ...


Delighted you and other men are discovering this stuff at last- but this isn’t a new issue, or a new campaign, and there are loads of charities working in this space. Why the fuck can’t we get heard?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Leave you to it then. Save you running to Mummy (FM) and screaming ban him again.


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

The other thing about recruitment that you have to build in is that as a whole, men apply for roles if they think they meet 50% of the requirements but women only apply if they think they meet 80%.  So you have to be careful about what you are writing down as a “requirement” vs a nice to have, and how you are expressing that request.  Otherwise self-selection will end up doing the filtering you are trying to avoid.


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The other thing about recruitment that you have to build in is that as a whole, men apply for roles if they think they meet 50% of the requirements but women only apply if they think they meet 80%.  So you have to be careful about what you are writing down as a “requirement” vs a nice to have, and how you are expressing that request.  Otherwise self-selection will end up doing the filtering you are trying to avoid.


That stat is a bit dodgy. But the principle is sound


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 28, 2019)

I'm curious to know what is thought about the pioneers. I can see that the first woman doctors, or firefighters, or Prime Ministers could inspire more women. But I can also see them serving as a mechanism for saying 'Look it can be done, so STFU' and so the outliers reinforce the status quo for the rest. Another possibility is that the occasional woman CEO or PM on purpose kicks away the ladder for anybody else.

It really does need to be bottom up, not top down


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> I'm curious to know what is thought about the pioneers. I can see that the first woman doctors, or firefighters, or Prime Ministers could inspire more women. But I can also see them serving as a mechanism for saying 'Look it can be done, so STFU' and so the outliers reinforce the status quo for the rest. Another possibility is that the occasional woman CEO or PM on purpose kicks away the ladder for anybody else.
> 
> It really does need to be bottom up, not top down


The point a load of us have made again and again is that the odd one or two to make blokes feel better, but who have to conform to patriarchal standards to get there- is absolutely not the solution in any way. 

More than half of all positions of power (and we are not talking about CEOs- we are talking about novelists, journalists, academics, talking heads, think tanks etc etc- anyone in a position to shape how we think) being held by women is a different ball game. 

And how does bottom up representation work? We keep working harder and being told we’re not good enough? Too pushy, too aggressive, not committed enough, looking at the wrong issues, not sisterly enough, not intersectional enough, too soft, too emotional, not mathematically minded, not cut-through enough etc etc


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

Thanks for the responses - I see a mixture of things we've tried to do, some we haven't been able to do for assorted reasons, and some new ideas to chew over. 

Regarding job shares - there has been some organisational hostility to that, but I think with one of the team on maternity leave, then if she returns on reduced hours that may be a lever we can use to work on changing that for further applicants. 

Further responses welcome obv.


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

What things haven’t you been able to do and why?


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What things haven’t you been able to do and why?



The kind of "root and branch" stuff you talk about isn't within our reach, we're just a very small team in a much larger organisation (which has its own Diversity & Inclusion things going on, as you'd expect).  There has been some organisational rigidity with regard to things like flexible hours.  We're slowly winning the war there, I think.

Also, because it is such a small team, we are very rarely recruiting and so aren't generally sending people out to recruitment fairs etc.


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> The kind of "root and branch" stuff you talk about isn't within our reach, we're just a very small team in a much larger organisation (which has its own Diversity & Inclusion things going on, as you'd expect).  There has been some organisational rigidity with regard to things like flexible hours.  We're slowly winning the war there, I think.
> 
> Also, because it is such a small team, we are very rarely recruiting and so aren't generally sending people out to recruitment fairs etc.


You can still look within your own team to understand how you’re structurally contributing to the inequality, though.  That’s the point being made.  I get the impression that you think that everything is peachy internally within your team and the problems causing the lack of women applicants is all located externally.  I doubt there’s nothing you can do to engender internal change — more likely, you are facing denial combined with apathy to do the work that creates the change that would be needed.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> You can still look within your own team to understand how you’re structurally contributing to the inequality, though.  That’s the point being made.  I get the impression that you think that everything is peachy internally within your team and the problems causing the lack of women applicants is all located externally.  I doubt there’s nothing you can do to engender internal change — more likely, you are facing denial combined with apathy to do the work that creates the change that would be needed.



No, though that's what my boss reckons (ie. that this is beyond our control).


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> No, though that's what my boss reckons (ie. that this is beyond our control).


Right, so this is what I mean.  It’s not that the problem doesn’t have approaches that can be taken to resolve them, it’s that some layer of management is not actually willing to do it.  Well then guess what?  Things ain’t gonna change.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  If you want change, you have to enact some change.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Right, so this is what I mean.  It’s not that the problem doesn’t have approaches that can be taken to resolve them, it’s that some layer of management is not actually willing to do it.  Well then guess what?  Things ain’t gonna change.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  If you want change, you have to enact some change.



I sense a montage is coming...


----------



## quimcunx (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> This might not be popular in the context of a couple of previous posts, but my team at work (doing something pretty obscure in the tech-pharma area) is about 5-strong and has had maybe 12 people pass through over the years, with only 2 women, both of which have been seriously excellent (one has moved on to another company, and the other is on maternity leave atm).
> 
> Thing is, we actually *do* have trouble getting women to apply, and I think a part of it is that there's a reticence (which I guess in some ways is understandable), to join a largely male team.  Also, I don't know to what extent the subject matter has a bearing.
> 
> I'd welcome any thoughts (from the women reading this thread especially) on what might help us with this, because with a small team doing what we do, it's really valuable to have a decent range of perspectives.



One thing I notice in your post is you say both women are seriously excellent.  What about the other 10?  Are they all also seriously excellent?  Obviously with a ratio of 10/2 it is statistically more likely that one of the 10 is less than excellent. But could there be an element of the women having to be twice as good to get half as far?


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

I just see this as typical male reaction to feminism in microcosm.  Things need to change!  But obviously not things that I need to work at or change in myself.  Other things, that other people can do — they need to change.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> One thing I notice in your post is you say both women are seriously excellent.  What about the other 10?  Are they all also seriously excellent?  Obviously with a ratio of 10/2 it is statistically more likely that one of the 10 is less than excellent. But could there be an element of the women having to be twice as good to get half as far?



I don't think either have been as good as they are _because_ of their gender, but I think having a diverse group (on more counts than just gender) is generally good for the group dynamic.  Everyone on the team always has a mixture of strengths and weaknesses.  

Then there's the question of whether it's even a problem that a team has eg. 5 men and 1 woman when there are other teams that have the reverse skew.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> I just see this as typical male reaction to feminism in microcosm.  Things need to change!  But obviously not things that I need to work at or change in myself.  Other things, that other people can do — they need to change.



On the bright side, it's good that we have you to tell other people that they need to change, and to stop locating the problem in others.


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> On the bright side, it's good that we have you to tell other people that they need to change, and to stop locating the problem in others.


Did I or did I not give an example of a situation where I enacted change that I was actually part of in specific response to your question in the first place?

But this is just the next stage after denial — anger.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Did I or did I not give an example of a situation where I enacted change that I was actually part of in specific response to your question in the first place?
> 
> But this is just the next stage after denial — anger.



I wasn't angry, but it's nice that you are going through the process for me. 
Bargaining next?

Or even something not involving the pissing contest?


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> I wasn't angry, but it's nice that you are going through the process for me.
> Bargaining next?


Was that irony intentional?


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

kabbes said:


> Was that irony intentional?



Whose irony, and what's it worth to you?


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> I don't think either have been as good as they are _because_ of their gender, but I think having a diverse group (on more counts than just gender) is generally good for the group dynamic.  Everyone on the team always has a mixture of strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> Then there's the question of whether it's even a problem that a team has eg. 5 men and 1 woman when there are other teams that have the reverse skew.


The 5/1 and then reverse skew elsewhere is interesting. A diverse team is good because it avoids groupthink (among other things).... plus I wonder how many teams point to the same female-packed team. So ten male teams are ok because they can point at one female team (as happens with leadership- we can’t be sexist, we have a female board member/trustee/advisor/contributor)


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

Manter said:


> The 5/1 and then reverse skew elsewhere is interesting. A diverse team is good because it avoids groupthink (among other things).... plus I wonder how many teams point to the same female-packed team. So ten male teams are ok because they can point at one female team (as happens with leadership- we can’t be sexist, we have a female board member/trustee/advisor/contributor)



I don’t give much of a toss who in management is pointing at what.  Just pondering ways of thinking about degrees of skew where numbers are small.  But an all male team seems likely to lead to all male applicants (and the reverse applying), for various reasons.

I have no direct power re: recruitment or anything like that, by the way, but it’s something we discuss from time to time.

Groupthink is an interesting one.  I think a lot of managers would flounder without it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)




----------



## Steel Icarus (May 28, 2019)

So?


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

Leaving all that stuff on (Bluetooth, 4G, wifi etc.) is going to run your battery down.


----------



## wayward bob (May 28, 2019)

i had a boss who didn't appreciate parcel couriers re-delivering her  *work* post to her home address. i couldn't see the problem (and appreciated the odd redirect).

when i'm approached in a local shop with a parcel cos the dude spotted me is the correct response appreciative or wary? answers on a postcard...


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)

8ball said:


> Leaving all that stuff on (Bluetooth, 4G, wifi etc.) is going to run your battery down.


Yeah, it's not like I can have a reason to have stuff running on my own phone without needing the implications of doing so mansplained to me ..

Feels like that reading these threads recently too...men missing the point over and over again, squating these threads just in case there's an opportunity to remind us of something we aren't trusted to know/have considered ourselves.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)

The conversation recently has reminded me of being told by some twit of a manager at an events company that whilst he thought the concept of positive discrimination was/is really bad he'd love to 'put together' an all female 'crew' as it's a rarity and had 'market' value.

 He sat there almost drooling, proud as punch of his great idea completely missing the irony...it was fine as long as he got the glory, he didn't actually give a shit about improving the lot of women.


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, it's not like I can have a reason to have stuff running on my own phone without needing the implications of doing so mansplained to me ..
> 
> Feels like that reading these threads recently too...men missing the point over and over again, squating these threads just in case there's an opportunity to remind us of something we aren't trusted to know/have considered ourselves.



You are, as always, an inexhaustible well of good humour.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)

'Smile love it might never happen'


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 28, 2019)

Nevermind that it has happened and continues to...


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 28, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> View attachment 172527


Yes I noticed that too


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

wayward bob said:


> i had a boss who didn't appreciate parcel couriers re-delivering her  *work* post to her home address. i couldn't see the problem (and appreciated the odd redirect).
> 
> when i'm approached in a local shop with a parcel cos the dude spotted me is the correct response appreciative or wary? answers on a postcard...


I’d be really wary if work post was redirected home by anyone other than about three people (immediate team/HR) and think stalker


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah, it's not like I can have a reason to have stuff running on my own phone without needing the implications of doing so mansplained to me ..
> 
> Feels like that reading these threads recently too...men missing the point over and over again, squating these threads just in case there's an opportunity to remind us of something we aren't trusted to know/have considered ourselves.


Yeah. Lots of pages of men telling women they aren’t doing feminism right. Some well meaning but misguided, some malicious. 

Worth saying, mind, that I really welcome men into these conversations. I just hate the pages of willy waving that break out periodically. Genuinely well intentioned conversation- even if occasionally a bit off the mark- I also really welcome. It’s the hyper-masculine point scoring with a side serving of barely concealed misogyny that grates as it then takes all the decent men off down a rabbit hole.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 28, 2019)

Interested piece in the paper about Parkinson being unrepentant for the sexist way he interviewed Helen Mirren in the 1975. It was 'of its time' he says. 'No harm done' he says. 

His kind of blatant 'how can I take you serious if you have breasts' talk certainly blighted my younger life. Certainly that kind of personal talk was rife when I started work. Perhaps its usually expressed less blatently today - but as I hear from my female young relatives it certainly hasn't disappeared completely.


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

I don’t really know where this goes, but I watched a really interesting interaction recently. Bakerloo line on the way into work. Youngish (30 ish), attractive woman in a suit reading a book on theoretical physics. Not phd stuff, but the difficult end of popular science. 

One of those random things happened which makes everyone on the tube move around and make eye contact and sort of interact with each other in a way we Londoners normally avoid. And someone remarked as all the kerfuffle was settling down, what’s that you’re reading. Woman turned it so the cover was facing the man who had asked, (who said wow, impressive) and then sort of laughed and said ‘not that I understand half of it, mind’. 

And that was what struck me as interesting. She clearly did understand. She was engrossed before we all had to faff around and she was interrupted. But she felt the need to minimise or dismiss her own cleverness, and two men looked at her with one of those assessing looks  (felt like ‘hot and clever but not too clever or threatening- want’). 

It was fascinating. And I was left wondering whether men do that self deprecating thing (I don’t remember often seeing it) and whether, if she’d been older/less stereotypically feminine and attractive she’d have done it either. Maybe if you are freed from the chains of conventional sexual attractiveness a bit you are freed to not give a fuck. 

Anyway. Fascinating to watch


----------



## Manter (May 28, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Interested piece in the paper about Parkinson being unrepentant for the sexist way he interviewed Helen Mirren in the 1975. It was 'of its time' he says. 'No harm done' he says.
> 
> His kind of blatant 'how can I take you serious if you have breasts' talk certainly blighted my younger life. Certainly that kind of personal talk was rife when I started work. Perhaps its usually expressed less blatently today - but as I hear from my female young relatives it certainly hasn't disappeared completely.


IME in some areas it has gone entirely. I don’t encounter anything that blatant in my working life any more. It’s just ceased to exist. But all the insidious attitudes that underlay it- well, they are still there


----------



## 8ball (May 28, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes I noticed that too



If this is a reference to overspending on my post account, I did want to respond to those who had posted in response to me earlier (although the ratios went a bit awry), but I appreciate there would have been quite a few without that, so I’ll leave the thread alone from here and let the numbers correct themselves naturally. 

<reports own post and retires to Banville>


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2019)

Manter said:


> That’s not true. There are a load of issues with the apprenticeship scheme as it’s currently set up, how the funding works and what you can use it for etc. I see it more used by retailers to develop store managers than by construction to develop traditional skills; but even so there are female-focused schemes, such as Morris Roe’s (and British Gas’)- those are just two I know about, there are undoubtably others.



From people I know who work in the construction industry they paid themselves for the City and Guilds in plumbing and electrical work. Not the companies they work for. Its not cheap.

The construction industry now works using so called "self employment" and subcontracting. One might work for a company but they treat you as "self employed". So they have no obligations to you regarding anything from maternity leave , sick pay, holiday pay.

I tried to look up British Gas. Looks like they get help from the European Social fund.

Employers aren't into training people properly with their own money.

Construction industry have also used EU as source of trained labour. Reducing cost to them of training. My electrician friend works mainly with Romanians.

Business in this country has had it easy since Thatcher's time.

What this country has is cheap flexible labour force. And low productivity. Suits Capital.

it historically was so called loony left Councils like in Lambeth who really tried to encourage and support women to get proper training in construction trades. My point is that these things are forgotten and should be brought back.

Imo it needs left government in power now who would do the same.


----------



## Santino (May 28, 2019)

Manter said:


> I don’t really know where this goes, but I watched a really interesting interaction recently. Bakerloo line on the way into work. Youngish (30 ish), attractive woman in a suit reading a book on theoretical physics. Not phd stuff, but the difficult end of popular science.
> 
> One of those random things happened which makes everyone on the tube move around and make eye contact and sort of interact with each other in a way we Londoners normally avoid. And someone remarked as all the kerfuffle was settling down, what’s that you’re reading. Woman turned it so the cover was facing the man who had asked, (who said wow, impressive) and then sort of laughed and said ‘not that I understand half of it, mind’.
> 
> ...


I think that to a degree both men and women (not all men, not all women) play down their interest in 'difficult' or obscure subjects, but I'm sure that there's a different dimension to that down-playing for women.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 29, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yeah. Lots of pages of men telling women they aren’t doing feminism right. Some well meaning but misguided, some malicious.
> 
> Worth saying, mind, that I really welcome men into these conversations. I just hate the pages of willy waving that break out periodically. Genuinely well intentioned conversation- even if occasionally a bit off the mark- I also really welcome. It’s the hyper-masculine point scoring with a side serving of barely concealed misogyny that grates as it then takes all the decent men off down a rabbit hole.



Worth saying to whom Manter  ? Me or some of the men reading this thread?

Honestly, the hyper-masculine stuff is the easy shit to deal with, like an out and out racist...you know our starting point...it's out there and can be owned, challenged or avoided...the needling 'cheer up love' because you dare to point out that they are flooding the thread with _'hmmm, what about this I don't actually care about' _rubbish...'_oh, I will think about that, 'I'm learning' _whilst mansplaining the irrelevant as standard...no, that is the boring stuff and no matter how much we say, _could you just think about_, or _hmm  maybe if you could just read and learn/stop posting and think etc_. Nope, the response is there must be something wrong with you/me as a woman, _'cheer up love'_... _'you on the blob'_ ..._'I'll go now before you run to mother/have me banned etc'_


----------



## Manter (May 29, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Worth saying to whom Manter  ? Me or some of the men reading this thread?
> 
> Honestly, the hyper-masculine stuff is the easy shit to deal with, like an out and out racist...you know our starting point...it's out there and can be owned, challenged or avoided...the needling 'cheer up love' because you dare to point out that they are flooding the thread with 'hmmm, what about this I don't actually care about' rubbish...'oh, I will think about that, 'I'm learning' whilst mansplaining the irrelevant as standard...no, that is the boring stuff...and no matter how much we say, could you just think about, or hmm  maybe if you could just read and learn/stop posting and think etc. etc... nope....the response is there must be something wrong with you/me as a woman, 'cheer up love'... 'you on the blob' ...'I'll go now before you run to mother/have me banned etc'...


To the male contributors. I don’t want men to stop posting and thinking, I want them to stop playing games and/or taking over


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 29, 2019)

Manter said:


> To the male contributors. I don’t want men to stop posting and thinking, I want them to stop playing games and/or taking over


I'd like to see at least 51% of posts from women.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 29, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'd like to see at least 51% of posts from women.




It won't change the structure of the boards, you know


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 29, 2019)




----------



## mango5 (May 29, 2019)

We know, @S_I. Thanks for rubbing it in.

51% on this thread was never an aim, I read it as a wistful suggestion to discover an open conversational space where women dominate on the subjects that affect us more than we realise.

Just as the frequently repeated plea/request to men to pipe down is yet another victory for hope over experience 

/humourless harridan


----------



## mango5 (May 29, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


>


Not sure what to think about this. Everyone loses out from the fear and loathing of female bodies as well as the normalisation of bloody slaughter.


----------



## mango5 (May 31, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm getting rather grumpy and impatient too.


I am still grumpy and impatient, an internet age (one whole month) later. 
I found these recordings today, not sure when I'm going to have the patience to watch/listen tho.  tbh I prefer conversation on threads than passive listening to folk on a stage, but they have doubtless thought about these things more than me and might be worth checking out.



			
				Feminist Internet: Recoding Anger podcast said:
			
		

> Shaking off the shame of womxn's rage
> 
> It has been argued that 2018 was the year womxn’s rage filled our screens, and a pivotal time for womxn freely expressing their anger. In this episode, we talk about whether as womxn we are beginning to shake off the shame that comes with being angry, explore different types of anger but crucially, question who in our society is allowed to be angry, and who is not.


Audioboom / The Feminist Internet Podcast: Recoding Anger




			
				Feminist Internet Futures Studio seminar #2: Visibility and representation said:
			
		

> Social media demands intensive processes of self-representation and self-exploitation, and relentlessly commodifies women’s bodies and opinions. It also offers opportunities for women to develop their own voices and enact their (political) agency.
> 
> How should we respond to these demands and possibilities within a feminist framework? What do women look like on the internet – how are they self-styled and represented by others? Who is invested in female identity being constructed in a certain way - corporations? employers? universities? governments? Is that what we want?


----------



## eoin_k (May 31, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> [...]
> Are women more oppressed by patriachy or by capitalism - I'd say both. I'm don't want to be told there's nothing I can do about the oppression of women, without overturning the whole system of capitalism. Again.
> [...]



Would it be opening a can of worms best left closed to respond to this in a way intended as constructive?


----------



## cyril_smear (May 31, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Would it be opening a can of worms best left closed to respond to this in a way intended to as constructive?



Would I be opening a can of worms to say women are ultimately oppressed by biology?


----------



## eoin_k (May 31, 2019)

Can I just say... I'm not actually with him. (Just posting that makes me feel like a teenager disowning a laddish mate on a night out, but it happens to be the truth.)


----------



## Poot (May 31, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> Would I be opening a can of worms to say women are ultimately oppressed by biology?


No because it's not true. But do go on.


----------



## TopCat (May 31, 2019)

mango5 said:


> We know, @S_I. Thanks for rubbing it in.
> 
> 51% on this thread was never an aim, I read it as a wistful suggestion to discover an open conversational space where women dominate on the subjects that affect us more than we realise.
> 
> ...


It would have been clearer and saved argument if these wishes had been made at the beginning of the three threads. Urban has often been the home of brutal debate but that doesn't mean things can't or shouldn't change. 

I can see the value of conscious raising threads. An environment where natal women and girls can discuss whatever they want without having to endure P&P style interventions. Have threads like this. Make it clear that's it's debate but more than that. A place where women and girls expect to dominate. 

Where a few digs can be made without blokes getting too offended. Where there is less male disruption. Urban has always been a free for all but perhaps needs to change. 

I won't stay clear of such threads. But I won't argue. My daughter was reading here and was shocked at how I came across. I don't like that. I explained some of the beef because it's 20 years since I joined Urban and 18 years since a poster in these threads belittled my opening up of being raped and made it very clear that they cared nothing for men or their struggles. No solidarity. 

This made a lasting impression. I don't want to fall out more with anyone here. So whatever I will stay clear of posting in CR threads but my will read and think etc.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 31, 2019)

I’m very sorry that that happened to you, TC, nobody should feel belittled by sharing an experience of rape. I hope that Urban has moved on a bit since then, it certainly feels it has in the short time I’ve been posting here.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jun 1, 2019)

Use of male mice skews drug research against women, study finds


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 1, 2019)

I'd always thought the use of male human subjects was to do with research ethics. Young, healthy women who would make appropriate trial subjects tend to be fertile. Not to deny women bodily autonomy, but this throws up questions about the unintended consequences of giving the pharmaceutical industry more access to women's bodies and the downsides to becoming potential guinea pigs. (There's something here about a world designed for men not being only about male privilege, but also about how men and women have experienced exploitation differently through the sexual division of labour.)*  Admittedly, the mice case shows that there's more going on here, but are there suggestions of how to overcome this with human subjects? Given the sharp practices involved in trials conducted in places like Africa, this gets bound up with all those other issues of wealth and power. That's not to say that women shouldn't demand better healthcare, or that the gendered aspects of technology don't need to be looked at critically... just trying to think through some of the issues this brings up.

* With women generally getting the low paid, or unpaid, low status, low 'skill' share of labour, as we should all recognise, so hopefully this is not taken as anti-feminist mansplaining.


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I'd always thought the use of male human subjects was to do with research ethics. Young, healthy women who would make appropriate trial subjects tend to be fertile. Not to deny women bodily autonomy, but this throws up questions about the unintended consequences of giving the pharmaceutical industry more access to women's bodies and the downsides to becoming potential guinea pigs. (There's something here about a world designed for men not being only about male privilege, but also about how men and women have experienced exploitation differently through the sexual division of labour.)*  Admittedly, the mice case shows that there's more going on here, but are there suggestions of how to overcome this with human subjects? Given the sharp practices involved in trials conducted in places like Africa, this gets bound up with all those other issues of wealth and power. That's not to say that women shouldn't demand better healthcare, or that the gendered aspects of technology don't need to be looked at critically... just trying to think through some of the issues this brings up.
> 
> * With women generally getting the low paid, or unpaid, low status, low 'skill' share of labour, as we should all recognise, so hopefully this is not taken as anti-feminist mansplaining.


Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 1, 2019)

Manter said:


> Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications


At a glance, it looks like I was chatting shit. One mention of how fertility is an issue that needs to be managed, but no sense of it being a major reason for women's exclusion historically. All to do with much more clearly normative bullshit.


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> At a glance, it looks like I was chatting shit. One mention of how fertility is an issue that needs to be managed, but no sense of it being a major reason for women's exclusion historically. All to do with much more clearly normative bullshit.


Yup


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 1, 2019)

Manter said:


> Yup


It's a line of argument that gets deployed to rationalise the status quo though, right? If not formally in a hand-wringing way as part of wider public discourse. I'm not just making this shit up?


----------



## Manter (Jun 1, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> It's a line of argument that gets deployed to rationalise the status quo though, right? If not formally in a hand-wringing way as part of wider public discourse. I'm not just making this shit up?


Yes absolutely. It’s ‘think of the children’ taken to its ultimate, really. How can you argue when there are babies involved?! 

Except that research involves a huge number of things, many of which would have no impact on a foetus, and there are all sorts of techniques now that mean even invasive tests can be modelled for women


----------



## Poot (Jun 5, 2019)

You could handle it' said the leader of the free world, pointing to his wife. 

D-Day veteran, 93, makes flirty remark about Melania Trump to US President

Yeah, I know, cheap shot, and I'm no fan of Melania Trump either, but no one deserves to be treated as property.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 5, 2019)

Manter said:


> I don’t really know where this goes, but I watched a really interesting interaction recently. Bakerloo line on the way into work. Youngish (30 ish), attractive woman in a suit reading a book on theoretical physics. Not phd stuff, but the difficult end of popular science.
> 
> One of those random things happened which makes everyone on the tube move around and make eye contact and sort of interact with each other in a way we Londoners normally avoid. And someone remarked as all the kerfuffle was settling down, what’s that you’re reading. Woman turned it so the cover was facing the man who had asked, (who said wow, impressive) and then sort of laughed and said ‘not that I understand half of it, mind’.
> 
> ...




No. Men do not self deprecate. Ever. 
And it's sad to read that story


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 5, 2019)

Lupa said:


> No. Men do not self deprecate. Ever.


Are you serious?


----------



## Athos (Jun 5, 2019)

In the past I've interviewed men and women in respect of whom I've been familiar with their work.  Typically, the men claim credit for the work of others, whereas women often credit their team for their own achievements!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 5, 2019)

Poot said:


> You could handle it' said the leader of the free world, pointing to his wife.
> 
> D-Day veteran, 93, makes flirty remark about Melania Trump to US President
> 
> Yeah, I know, cheap shot, and I'm no fan of Melania Trump either, but no one deserves to be treated as property.




It.

This thing


This object

Yes Mr 93 year old letch you can not only make inappropriate comments about my wife I will insult her further by letting you think you would be 'up to the job'.

Uff, they are both disgusting.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 5, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Are you serious?



My post was in response to Manters about the woman with the physics book saying she didnt understand half of it...in a self deprecating way. I seriously doubt a man studying the same book would have come out with similar in order to make someone else feel whatever...

In terms of their accomplishments/ qualifications/ job experience...knowledge... I have never met a man yet who dumbed themselves down the way the woman in Manter's post did.

I'd like to say that there probably are men who when asked about the physics book they're reading turn and say "I don't understand half of it", but I just don't think it would happen.

On another tack...I'll never forget being told how menstruation works... by a guy...as if he had experienced it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> In the past I've interviewed men and women in respect of whom I've been familiar with their work.  Typically, the men claim credit for the work of others, whereas women often credit their team for their own achievements!



I really hope this is starting to change.  Younger women haven't so much been brought up to be modest and self deprecating.  It's us older ones who were force fed the idea of never "showing off".


----------



## Poot (Jun 6, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I really hope this is starting to change.  Younger women haven't so much been brought up to be modest and self deprecating.  It's us older ones who were force fed the idea of never "showing off".


Hmm. I don't know about that. The word 'sassy' seems to have entered my daughter's vocabulary. I hate it.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 6, 2019)

I think there is a very male hypobolic self-deprecation that ends being exactly the opposite:

'A little place in Scotland' is an enormous house

'I dabble in art' which means a massive private collection 

'I'm quite handy in goal'


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> Hmm. I don't know about that. The word 'sassy' seems to have entered my daughter's vocabulary. I hate it.



But isn't "sassy" seen as a positive thing?


----------



## Athos (Jun 6, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> But isn't "sassy" seen as a positive thing?



Why are men or boys never called sassy?


----------



## Poot (Jun 6, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> But isn't "sassy" seen as a positive thing?


It's still very much used as a put-down, from what I can gather. I'm no expert, mind. I am old 

Also, as Athos says about making the distinction, I don't really see why we need a word for it for girls. Like feisty or bossy.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Why are men or boys never called sassy?


Gay men are.


----------



## Athos (Jun 6, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Gay men are.



I didn't know that.  But I think the point remains the same i.e. women (or men perceived to be 'feminine') are expected to be docile, to the extent that there's a slightly mocking term for those who assert themselves ('get above their place'), whereas it's just taken for granted that straight men are assertive.


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2019)

Poot said:


> Hmm. I don't know about that. The word 'sassy' seems to have entered my daughter's vocabulary. I hate it.


Sassy, bossy, feisty, sparky, ‘though she be but little she is fierce’ T-shirts. It’s the same toxic shit


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> I think there is a very male hypobolic self-deprecation that ends being exactly the opposite:
> 
> 'A little place in Scotland' is an enormous house
> 
> ...


And I’m not sure men would do that about a proper work thing that impacted their income.  I’ve never heard an exchange that was ‘can you do x spreadsheet’ (to a woman who could do it standing on her head) and she replies with a doubtful ‘I can try’ 

You’d get ‘yes’ or ‘I’ve never done it before but I can try’ or a discussion about format and parameters- but never that instinctive stepping back


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 6, 2019)

NPR Choice page

In its more pejorative sense it has an unpleasant echo of 'uppity'


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> And I’m not sure men would do that about a proper work thing that impacted their income.  I’ve never heard an exchange that was ‘can you do x spreadsheet’ (to a woman who could do it standing on her head) and she replies with a doubtful ‘I can try’
> 
> You’d get ‘yes’ or ‘I’ve never done it before but I can try’ or a discussion about format and parameters- but never that instinctive stepping back



I dunno. Maybe.

All my life I've done this. To the point it's caused material problems. At work. At home. But especially at work.

Co-workers and bosses have sensed weakness in this. Which in turn has further undermined my confidence in asserting my abilities/knowledge.

Perhaps that underlines your point. That, as a whitecishet middle aged, "middle class" man, it's not expected that I'd be downplaying my abilities/knowledge/experience. So it's assumed that I'm genuinely less able.

But then, in areas that I am (self)confident (my studies for example) I'm discouraged from being assertive as it makes other feel intimidated or "lesser".


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 6, 2019)

I haven't got involved in this thread for many reasons, but I was at a seminar today and it started with a group of people ( a "panel") talking at us (not unusual) . It was "quite good", in that there were two BAME blokes, one white middle aged bloke, one white woman and a BAME woman.  Except that no one had explained to anyone that the "panel" would be perched on high stools, and no one had told these women about that, so they were sat perched in short skirts on these stools, despite being leading people in their field. The men,  were sitting on the same stools with their bulges on display.

It was fairly obvious - the organisers should have figured it out beforehand. 

Very much a world designed for men, even where women at the top of their game are involved. 

(apologies, but I am actually a bit pissed off)(but the women involved were a bit fucked off)


----------



## Manter (Jun 6, 2019)

mx wcfc said:


> I haven't got involved in this thread for many reasons, but I was at a seminar today and it started with a group of people ( a "panel") talking at us (not unusual) . It was "quite good", in that there were two BAME blokes, one white middle aged bloke, one white woman and a BAME woman.  Except that no one had explained to anyone that the "panel" would be perched on high stools, and no one had told these women about that, so they were sat perched in short skirts on these stools, despite being leading people in their field. The men,  were sitting on the same stools with their bulges on display.
> 
> It was fairly obvious - the organisers should have figured it out beforehand.
> 
> ...


Oh. Chairs. The chairs in office receptions that put your knees above your hips so you can’t stand up gracefully- especially if you are in heels. The chairs that cling to your skirt so it rides up during the day. The silly perchy bar stool things. The ‘booths’ where you end up trying to show a colleague stuff on a coffee table where he can see up your skirt, or you are awkwardly close together on some snuggler arrangement in corporate colours... Endlessly irritating things, chairs* 

See also glass staircases, steps that are more than one but less than two pace lengths for the average woman, cupboards and lockers half the women in the office can’t reach....

*(My office has clever ergonomic ones that are about £500 each and are incredibly comfy even after a long day. And a load of silly ones in breakout areas)


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 6, 2019)

Going back a bit to things being designed for men I am reminded of being struck by the change in pram options since men became more involved in pushing the fuckers. 

Back in the day there seemed to be two types, the unwieldy silverline nanny model or the lightweight buggies that were barely bigger than the toy versions. Nowadays they are staggering feats of engineering with myriad choices to consider including 3 wheeled jogging prams because babies should be designed to fit round men's interests rather than womens activities being constrained by and designed around activities for children.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 7, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> Going back a bit to things being designed for men I am reminded of being struck by the change in pram options since men became more involved in pushing the fuckers.



Roll on more men getting into ironing then. Even in their highest position ironing boards are back-breakingly low for me. 

(Note how I drop in that I do the ironing)


----------



## Manter (Jun 7, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> Going back a bit to things being designed for men I am reminded of being struck by the change in pram options since men became more involved in pushing the fuckers.
> 
> Back in the day there seemed to be two types, the unwieldy silverline nanny model or the lightweight buggies that were barely bigger than the toy versions. Nowadays they are staggering feats of engineering with myriad choices to consider including 3 wheeled jogging prams because babies should be designed to fit round men's interests rather than womens activities being constrained by and designed around activities for children.


There was a really interesting podcast about ‘status prams’ (including the fact they are called travel systems ) and how they were invented. It was basically a bloke deciding he wanted something pretty. Let me see if I can find it


----------



## Manter (Jun 7, 2019)

Manter said:


> There was a really interesting podcast about ‘status prams’ (including the fact they are called travel systems ) and how they were invented. It was basically a bloke deciding he wanted something pretty. Let me see if I can find it


Perfect prams for perfect parents: the rise of the bougie buggy – podcast


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Roll on more men getting into ironing then. Even in their highest position ironing boards are back-breakingly low for me.
> 
> (Note how I drop in that I do the ironing)


What point were you actually trying to make with that post other than the part in parentheses?


----------



## Poot (Jun 7, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Roll on more men getting into ironing then. Even in their highest position ironing boards are back-breakingly low for me.
> 
> (Note how I drop in that I do the ironing)


Fuck yeah. You can thank the patriarchy for women-sized ironing boards and I'll back you all the way. Women-sized ironing boards and man-sized gym equipment. Surely we can do better than this!!


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 7, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What point were you actually trying to make with that post other than the part in parentheses?



This: 



Poot said:


> Fuck yeah. You can thank the patriarchy for women-sized ironing boards and I'll back you all the way. Women-sized ironing boards and man-sized gym equipment. Surely we can do better than this!!


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 7, 2019)

The dozens of things designed for women, presumably by men, for stereotypically 'petite' women (My mother is six-foot and has complained about her tiny surroundings all her life) give men a taste of what it must be like for women using the hundreds of things designed for (again stereotypical) men.


----------



## Poot (Jun 7, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> The dozens of things designed for women, presumably by men, for stereotypically 'petite' women (My mother is six-foot and has complained about her tiny surroundings all her life) give men a taste of what it must be like for women using the hundreds of things designed for (again stereotypical) men.


Yes! Except that men are also the default so it goes a bit deeper than ironing boards in our case and most things are just generally assumed that you are male.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Jun 7, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> hundreds of things


Tens of thousands of things then.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 7, 2019)

I'm not sure exactly which thread this should be on but .....

On LinkedIn today a man was praising his solicitor (male) because he'd put a meeting back half an hour so that he could take his kid to nursery.  There were loads of other men joining in and congratulating this paragon of virtue.

A woman pointed out that if she had asked to start a meeting later because she was taking her children to school, that would NOT have been seen as a positive thing.  In fact it would be career suicide.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 7, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not sure exactly which thread this should be on but .....
> 
> On LinkedIn today a man was praising his solicitor (male) because he'd put a meeting back half an hour so that he could take his kid to nursery.  There were loads of other men joining in and congratulating this paragon of virtue.
> 
> A woman pointed out that if she had asked to start a meeting later because she was taking her children to school, that would NOT have been seen as a positive thing.  In fact it would be career suicide.




I'm going to put this on the "male experience of patriarchy" thread that chilango has started, but when my daughter was little I was the one who stopped working to look after her in the day. Several times I had conversations on the school run about great it was I was managing two children on said journey, how wonderful it was to see etc, the odd exclamation of surprise I could do a decent ponytail...sometimes by women doing exactly what I was doing. I even laughed it off a couple of times with "I'm only doing the same as everyone else here" which was met with hilarity as if I wasn't. Maybe because of their partners not doing that stuff, or no partner, or not the norm.  It was nice to have it commented on but felt a bit undeserved.

Not sure how much it's changed in the decade since I started doing school runs...there seems to be more dads taking their kids but it's still overwhelmingly mums. I haven't asked the dads if they get the "oh wows". Maybe I should.


----------



## Manter (Jun 7, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not sure exactly which thread this should be on but .....
> 
> On LinkedIn today a man was praising his solicitor (male) because he'd put a meeting back half an hour so that he could take his kid to nursery.  There were loads of other men joining in and congratulating this paragon of virtue.
> 
> A woman pointed out that if she had asked to start a meeting later because she was taking her children to school, that would NOT have been seen as a positive thing.  In fact it would be career suicide.


So much this. Best advice I got coming back from mat leave was not to be too honest about where I was, why I was late/leaving early etc


----------



## polly (Jun 7, 2019)

Manter said:


> (My office has clever ergonomic ones that are about £500 each and are incredibly comfy even after a long day. And a load of silly ones in breakout areas)



Probably a bit of a minor point (because not all women have babies and those that do are only pregnant for nine months-ish), but kind of relevant: we had those too, but they killed me when I was pregnant. I phoned Occupational Health and the man brought up this shitty, battered old office chair and said, we keep these for the pregnant women because those fancy chairs were not designed with them in mind. 



S☼I said:


> Not sure how much it's changed in the decade since I started doing school runs...there seems to be more dads taking their kids but it's still overwhelmingly mums. I haven't asked the dads if they get the "oh wows". Maybe I should.



This is not something I've noticed, though I'm a woman so perhaps it goes over my head. But the people doing school runs at my kids' school are roughly 35:65 male to female, and no one seems to bat an eyelid. My husband does it once a week and no one talks to him at all  Which is progress


----------



## chilango (Jun 7, 2019)

S☼I said:


> I'm going to put this on the "male experience of patriarchy" thread that chilango has started, but when my daughter was little I was the one who stopped working to look after her in the day. Several times I had conversations on the school run about great it was I was managing two children on said journey, how wonderful it was to see etc, the odd exclamation of surprise I could do a decent ponytail...sometimes by women doing exactly what I was doing. I even laughed it off a couple of times with "I'm only doing the same as everyone else here" which was met with hilarity as if I wasn't. Maybe because of their partners not doing that stuff, or no partner, or not the norm.  It was nice to have it commented on but felt a bit undeserved.
> 
> Not sure how much it's changed in the decade since I started doing school runs...there seems to be more dads taking their kids but it's still overwhelmingly mums. I haven't asked the dads if they get the "oh wows". Maybe I should.




If like to talk more about this on the other thread. But in short. I got, and get, no "wows".

As a sahd I faced being ignored mostly but with a fair dose of suspicion and even hostility at times, and was excluded from from both Mums' things and Dads' things.

I loved, and love, being able to spend so much more time with my daughter than many dads can, but socially it was a brutal experience.

But this is all for the other thread.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 12, 2019)

not sure if this is the right place.  I just googled guide to successful coparenting.  It only brought up results for divorcees.  So when a couple divorces men have to suddenly consider the split in childcaring responsibilities.  A guide to successful coparenting might be useful _before_ couples have kids, build up resentment then split up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 12, 2019)

..


----------



## Manter (Jun 12, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ..


Yes she is going to write one and become enormously rich


----------



## chainsawjob (Jun 14, 2019)

I'm changing the battery on this and the release buttons either side are just a bit far apart for me to grip them and apply pressure easily. Lots of tools etc are designed with larger hands than mine in mind, and my hands are by no means small. They're designed for 'man-size' hands


----------



## weepiper (Jun 14, 2019)

chainsawjob said:


> View attachment 174157
> 
> I'm changing the battery on this and the release buttons either side are just a bit far apart for me to grip them and apply pressure easily. Lots of tools etc are designed with larger hands than mine in mind, and my hands are by no means small. They're designed for 'man-size' hands


The sales manager at my work bought all the workshops some new tools recently. I wrote a wishlist and got most of it, he also got us a couple of things I didn't ask for because he thought they were good including a tool which is for removing the cassette sprockets on a rear bike wheel. Usually you use a thing called a chain whip for this
 

The tool he was excited about and thought we should all have is called chain whip pliers and looks like this

 

He was disappointed to find it's basically useless for me as I can't hold it closed with enough force to use it successfully because it's designed for a much bigger hand span.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jun 14, 2019)

Liked for the interesting tool stuff, not the fact you can't bloody well use one!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 18, 2019)

I keep hearing from women of a certain age how difficult it is to get a job. 

I know there is a lot of ageism in the job market in general - but I wonder if there is any gender inbalance here too. Does anyone know where I can look for reliable source of stats on this?


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

> At the Longevity Forum in London last month, Professor Lynda Gratton said that ageism at work began at 40 for women and 45 for men.


 from here Ageism in the workplace ‘starts at 40’ for women | Financial Times - but I can't tell where she gets the info from.

This is a good and detailed report about the UK with lots of gender comparisons.  


> In this report, we consider and discuss extended working life (EWL) policies in light of current academic research. We start by presenting statistical data on UK employment rates, in order to outline the trends in age, gender and employment in recent decades. We then discuss six policy areas related to extending working life. First, we compare women and men’s participation in the labour market over the life-course. Second, policy changes related to age are discussed, including age discrimination legislation and changes to State Pension age. Third, we consider changes to social security benefits. Fourth, we provide an overview of the UK pensions system, including recent changes to the system, the introduction of occupational pensions and autoenrolment, and opportunities for combining pensions and working. Fifth, we discuss policies related to family and caring (including grandparents’ leave). Sixth, we consider flexible work policies in the context of later-life working. The report concludes with a discussion on the potential gaps in research on extending working lives in the UK national context.


https://www.lives-nccr.ch/sites/default/files/pdf/publication/lives_wp_77.3_daisie_uk_format_ah.pdf

European picture here Ageism and gender

Also try this (rather dense, more general research and analysis than stats as such, but still...) Multiple Marginalizations Based on Age: Gendered Ageism and Beyond


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 20, 2019)

Thanks mango5 will check those out.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 20, 2019)

Met another woman yesterday who has been caught up in the moving the pension age trap. 64 years old ill /diabetic with no IT skills and still being hassled by the job centre - it is so depressing.

Women have been majorly shafted by the short notice in moving the retirement age to make it the same as men. As well having earned a lot less in there lifetimes than the average man and less NI contributions and having much smaller pensions. 

I know the previous higher age for men was unfair to men but to change the systen so quickly has been a real disadvantage to women who had suddenly had to work and extra 5 years.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 20, 2019)

from Ageism and gender


> *Key facts*
> *40% Gender pension gap*
> *28% Share of older women have experienced some kind of violence or abuse in the previous 12 months*
> *19% Share of women that mention care responsibilities among the reasons for inactivity (2% of men)*


----------



## mango5 (Jun 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> from Ageism and gender


I'm not sure how those figures break down by country. Things like the pension age changes will complicate things. I know someone who resents her sister because she now has a pension and my mate - who is 18 months younger - has to wait an extra 5 years  the resentment dates back to when the changes were announced. 

I remember being encouraged to set a retirement age of 50 years ago when employer contributions were introduced. I expect to have to do paid work until I'm 70, assuming suitable jobs are available *and* older women are more valued in the workforce in the future.  If not, I may be too grumpy to be employable


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 22, 2019)

designed for men?? it's designed for able people tbh, I think this is just whining.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 22, 2019)

Today I went to lift weights on THE MANSTRENGTH EQUIPMENTS

Because I got fat on antidepressants (and women get the prescribed more than men) I decided the best way to boost my metabolism + loose body fat is to weightlift and swim.

Those machines are not made for my physique.

While the weights are adequate I feel like a CHILD sitting in it, and it actually fucks up my posture more than just free weights. Because they are designed for MEN.

I am a healthy 5'6 (so your "short man" size)

(Short men obviously are also not gym goers in the design of weightlifting equipment.)


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 23, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> designed for men?? it's designed for able people tbh, I think this is just whining.




yeah I think it's just whining, yer right.


----------



## JudithB (Jun 24, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I'm not sure how those figures break down by country. Things like the pension age changes will complicate things. I know someone who resents her sister because she now has a pension and my mate - who is 18 months younger - has to wait an extra 5 years  the resentment dates back to when the changes were announced.
> 
> I remember being encouraged to set a retirement age of 50 years ago when employer contributions were introduced. I expect to have to do paid work until I'm 70, assuming suitable jobs are available *and* older women are more valued in the workforce in the future.  If not, I may be too grumpy to be employable


We all know we will be living in a commune for grumpy older women moaning that we cannot reach the tops shelves


----------



## mango5 (Jun 24, 2019)

Not me. I'll be fitting my own kitchen and spending time with as diverse a range of folk as I can


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 24, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> designed for men?? it's designed for able people tbh, I think this is just whining.





pengaleng said:


> yeah I think it's just whining, yer right.



You might need to get a sock-puppet account.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 24, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> You might need to get a sock-puppet account.



Well said! I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 24, 2019)

I hope thinking that up gave you a good dose of dopamine


----------



## Manter (Jun 27, 2019)

Woman who lost unborn child after being shot in stomach charged with manslaughter

This entire fucking story.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 27, 2019)

Manter said:


> Woman who lost unborn child after being shot in stomach charged with manslaughter
> 
> This entire fucking story.



Jesus Christ, that's fucking horrific.


----------



## Manter (Jun 27, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Jesus Christ, that's fucking horrific.


Everything about it. The world has gone insane


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 27, 2019)

Perhaps we should put that story on the World Politics forum.


----------



## Manter (Jun 27, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Perhaps we should put that story on the World Politics forum.


Can do. But I think it’s all about feminism. Control of women’s bodies, control of women’s behaviour, male violence against women, state violence against women. That’s all stuff that shows feminism has a looooong way to go before we can relax


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 15, 2019)

Read about this today Read an extract from Hormonal by Eleanor Morgan


> _*Hormonal *_by Eleanor Morgan explores everything from contraception to PMS, in relation to anxiety, depression and taboos about hysteria and the ‘hormonal’ woman. It is a compelling portrait of the modern landscape of women and health, showing us how to navigate stigma and misinformation.
> 
> Combining her own experiences with extensive research and expert contributions, Eleanor Morgan explores the relationship between the female body, the female mind and the ways in which women’s bodies are being medicalised. As Morgan argues, we’ve gotten better at talking about mental health, but we still shy away from discussing periods, miscarriage, endometriosis and menopause. That results in a lack of vital understanding for women, particularly as those processes are inextricably connected to our mental health; by exploring women’s bodies in conjunction with our minds, Morgan urges for new thinking about our health.


 From the Metro's review today -
apparently 'its estimated 90% of women suffer PMS, yet researches conduct 5 times as many studies into erectile dysfunction which affects only 19% of men'. 
also
'women are given fewer painkillers than men when they present in hospital and are offen given seditives instead'


----------



## mango5 (Aug 16, 2019)

See also regular articles over the last 50+ years asking why we don't yet have a socially functional male contraceptive pill (or equivalent) when the medical science is within close reach.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2019)

mango5 said:


> See also regular articles over the last 50+ years asking why we don't yet have a socially functional male contraceptive pill (or equivalent) when the medical science is within close reach.


Would you as a woman trust that they had remembered to take it? 

I suppose you could put it in their beer


----------



## Manter (Aug 18, 2019)

mango5 said:


> See also regular articles over the last 50+ years asking why we don't yet have a socially functional male contraceptive pill (or equivalent) when the medical science is within close reach.


The recent ‘unacceptable side effects’ report made me snort


----------



## Poot (Aug 18, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Would you as a woman trust that they had remembered to take it?
> 
> I suppose you could put it in their beer


I would. 

But then I don't think men are like children. And I don't like the lazy stereotype about men not being perfectly capable of doing what they said they'd do. If I were a man I would probably find it very tiresome, too.


----------



## campanula (Aug 18, 2019)

I cannot see that I would be keen to hand over my reproductive viability to a man, though.  Nothing to do whether I consider them capable and adult.Embarking on shared parenting is surely confirmation of belief in competence and ability...I love and trust mine completely. However, the not negligible fact of pregnancy and breast feeding...whose body is most affected...requires I keep autonomy over my body.  Responsibility for pregnancy, is still mine to make...while there is nothing to say a man may not take equal responsibility for his role, by having the snip or taking a male contraceptive pill, if/when available. I would still wish to keep some control over my body.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 18, 2019)

I would have always welcomed a male pill. The ability to control my own fertility, myself. Yes to that.


----------



## Poot (Aug 18, 2019)

Of course, there is no reason on earth why both parties can't take their own contraception at the same time. Double bubble. Half the likelihood of an accident. Amen to that!


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

The Old Vic crowd funded to provide more women's toilets and recently announced they now refurbished to provide male urinals and unisex toilets. 

As Caroline Criado Perez has pointed out on twitter, this means  men have 18 facilities  just for them, plus 24 they share with women. So that’s 42 men have access to. Meanwhile women have access to 24, that they share with men.

How is this progress? 

To add insult to injury, women were up in arms on the Old Vic's twitter feed as the crowdfunding had specially said for MORE WOMEN'S TOILETS, the Old Vic ignored all those women but said to "blue ticked" Caroline they would be happy to speak with her. If you are not famous you do not have a voice women! 

Old Vic Theatre replaces single-sex toilets with inclusive facilities for all genders


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Is it not the case that the number of toilets available to women (self selection cublicles) has doubled as promised? 
Are the cubicles well designed  (anyone)? I'm wondering if they have sinks and floor to ceiling doors etc?


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 4, 2019)

I do think the throughput of male urinals is a consideration. On the one hand they free up the sit-down bogs to some great extent, and keep them splash-free, which isn't a bad thing. On the other, they get men in and out in far greater numbers and there would have to be a great many more unisex toilets for women to have the same chance of a quick slash, which is vital in a theatre.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Is it not the case that the number of toilets available to women (self selection cublicles) has doubled as promised?
> Are the cubicles well designed  (anyone)? I'm wondering if they have sinks and floor to ceiling doors etc?


The toilet cubicles are available to anyone. They promised more toilets for women. Now men will join the queue for the women's when their own urinals are busy. Who wins? It would have been much simpler and fairer to provide more women only toilets and add some unisex ones too.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> The toilet cubicles are available to anyone. They promised more toilets for women. Now men will join the queue for the women's when their own urinals are busy. Who wins? It would have been much simpler and fairer to provide more women only toilets and add some unisex ones too.


So is it not the case that the number of toilets available to women has doubled?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Now men will join the queue for the women's when their own urinals are busy.


They really won’t you know. 
Even if there is a queue for the urinals, men’s queues move faster, men know this. People always go for the fastest queue. Just ask any comedian who has done a piece on Supermarkets. 

A single urinal will move 28.7 more men per min than a stall. Times 18 and that’s 1456 MpM.  

Let’s be honest the true argument here is that you were happy with zero toilets for trans people and now they have 42!!!!11!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> So is it not the case that the number of toilets available to women has doubled?


the number of toilets available to women has doubled but many of them are also available to men.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the number of toilets available to women has doubled but many of them are also available to men.


An honest answer.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Has there been any mention of the fact that men will have lost their men only stalls?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Has there been any mention of the fact that men will have lost their men only stalls?


women have always been able to sit in the stalls

the stalls has never been a men-only space


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Has there been any mention of the fact that men will have lost their men only stalls?


The bastards


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> The bastards


Dastardly I calls it!


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

I dont think there is any point arguing until someone sees the format of the loos. There are unisex loos and unisex loos.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> I dont think there is any point arguing until someone sees the format of the loos. There are unisex loos and unisex loos.


The proof of the pudding will be in how long it takes the audience to return to seats during an intermission.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> The proof of the pudding will be in how long it takes the audience to return to seats during an intermission.


No. It is also about comfort and privacy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> I dont think there is any point arguing until someone sees the format of the loos. There are unisex loos and unisex loos.


this is urban and we get our arguments in first. uninformed speculation our speciality.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> this is urban and we get our arguments in first. uninformed speculation our speciality.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> They really won’t you know.
> Even if there is a queue for the urinals, men’s queues move faster, men know this. People always go for the fastest queue. Just ask any comedian who has done a piece on Supermarkets.
> 
> A single urinal will move 28.7 more men per min than a stall. Times 18 and that’s 1456 MpM.
> ...


Has there seriously been a study in bog throughput or are you just making this up?


JudithB said:


> The toilet cubicles are available to anyone. They promised more toilets for women. Now men will join the queue for the women's when their own urinals are busy. Who wins? It would have been much simpler and fairer to provide more women only toilets and add some unisex ones too.


The fair thing to do would be to make all the loos single-sex, thus slowing everyone down equally, If the most important thing is throughput then the sensible thing to do would be to make all the male loos unisex and keep some female only ones, but that means effectively giving women special privileges in the interests of mutual efficiency and I'm sure there will be people ranting about that as well (females outnumber males 2 to 1 in the Q household so personally in favour).
No matter what I suspect I will always end up queueing at the bar because my wife is still queueing at the ladies.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> No. It is also about comfort and privacy.


Do you think there might be lesser privacy?
How?

Or are you concerned that there might be greater privacy? Restricting you from sharing a cubicle with a girlfriend (That might be more of a festival or does it happen where I'm not able to witness?) or having a good ole gossip through the walls and doors.


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

Am I right in thinking there are now no men's or women's toilets, such that (in principle) anyone can use any stalls, but that, in reality women are unlikely to use the stalls in the room where there are urinals, and will now have to compete with men to use the stalls elsewhere?  Practically speaking, that's not really any improvement in the provision of facilities women (which was the basis of the fundraising) is it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Has there seriously been a study in bog throughput or are you just making this up?
> 
> The fair thing to do would be to make all the loos single-sex, thus slowing everyone down equally, If the most important thing is throughput then the sensible thing to do would be to make all the male loos unisex and keep some female only ones, but that means effectively giving women special privileges in the interests of mutual efficiency and I'm sure there will be people ranting about that as well (females outnumber males 2 to 1 in the Q household so personally in favour).
> No matter what I suspect I will always end up queueing at the bar because my wife is still queueing at the ladies.



The fair thing to do would be to provide separate men's and women's toilets in a ratio that equalises average waiting times, whilst not undermining the safety that single-sex facilities provide to women.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Has there seriously been a study in bog throughput or are you just making this up



94.5% of statistics are made up.
If it wasn't obvious work through my maths.

I have had much experience of queueing at festival portaloos. 
Pro tip. Queue in the queue with the most men.
Pro Pro tip: Unless there is urinals. Then queue there.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Do you think there might be lesser privacy?
> How?
> 
> Or are you concerned that there might be greater privacy? Restricting you from sharing a cubicle with a girlfriend (That might be more of a festival or does it happen where I'm not able to witness?) or having a good ole gossip through the walls and doors.


No. I really dont want to spell out why women might need more privacy but if you suffered with heavy periods you would probably understand but please do assume that its because we want to gossip. Women heh? Chuh.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Am I right in thinking there are now no men's or women's toilets, such that (in principle) anyone can use any stalls, but that, in reality women are unlikely to use the stalls in the room where there are urinals, and will now have to compete with men to use the stalls elsewhere?  Practically speaking, that's not really any improvement in the provision of facilities women (which was the basis of the fundraising) is it?


I suspect stalls have been removed from the men's and extra urinals installed. Thereby speeding up men just peeing.
Men pooing will now take longer as they compete with women for stalls.


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2019)

don't waste your lives on this weirdo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Am I right in thinking there are now no men's or women's toilets, such that (in principle) anyone can use any stalls, but that, in reality women are unlikely to use the stalls in the room where there are urinals, and will now have to compete with men to use the stalls elsewhere?  Practically speaking, that's not really any improvement in the provision of facilities women (which was the basis of the fundraising) is it?


yeh they seem to be offering a worse service than they were before


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> No. I really dont want to spell out why women might need more privacy but if you suffered with heavy periods you would probably understand but please do assume that its because we want to gossip. Women heh? Chuh.


No the assumption would be that you didn't want privacy because you want to gossip. Privacy is a barrier to gossip was what I implied. 

I don't suffer with heavy periods correct.
I have provided first aid to women with heavy periods on more than one occasion (well twice) so I do have some sympathy. Before you ask yes I was aware that it was embarrassing for them (at first) that the only first aider available at that moment was male.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Fucking hell.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

First aid to women with heavy periods? WTF?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

> No the assumption would be that you didn't want privacy because you want to gossip.



You know what they say?


Fuck off Gromit.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

What sort of First Aid, Gromit ?


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What sort of First Aid, Gromit ?


I'm imagining a bandage.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Handing out sanitary towels/tampax, pain killers, hot water bottles, clean underwear?


Oh can you imagine the 'sympathy'?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 4, 2019)

If you want to maximise throughput, it would make sense to have a room only with urinals and then a whole bunch of individual unisex stalls.  Mostly because you can fit a lot of urinals in the same space as a single stall, so it gives you the chance to eliminate a lot of eliminators in one fast flow of fast flow.

There are factors other than throughout to consider, though.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> If you want to maximise throughput, it would make sense to have a room only with urinals and then a whole bunch of individual unisex stalls.  Mostly because you can fit a lot of urinals in the same space as a single stall, so it gives you the chance to eliminate a lot of eliminators in one fast flow of fast flow.
> 
> There are factors other than throughout to consider, though.


Not having been there but I suspect that is what the Old Vic now actually has
Setting aside all the other (very sensible) concerns, to maximise throughput and get bums back on seats (no puns intended) you need to maximise female throughput so you need more female only facilities than shared or male only. I've never been to a theatre and felt I have had to queue excessively, my wife is definitely of a different opinion.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What sort of First Aid, Gromit ?


Transport to privacy (first aid room with facilities [including sanitary products] and a bed) and a hot water bottle.
Not allowed to issue pain killers but can advise them to take any they have or have been lent.
Then left with a female colleague for sympathy and to summon me from outside if symptoms deteriorated into shock.

Despite all your scorn here both women were grateful for my aid and thanked me later on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Transport to privacy (first aid room with facilities [including sanitary products] and a bed) and a hot water bottle.
> Not allowed to issue pain killers but can advise them to take any they have or have been lent.
> Then left with a female colleague for sympathy and to summon me from outside if symptoms deteriorated into shock.
> 
> Despite all your scorn here both women were grateful for my aid and thanked me later on.


millions of pms of support


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Was the crowdfunder specifically just for more women's loo's? Anyone seen the actual appeal? 

Note also there are extra large cubicles as well. They are _all_ floor to ceiling doors.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> No the assumption would be that you didn't want privacy because you want to gossip. Privacy is a barrier to gossip was what I implied.
> 
> I don't suffer with heavy periods correct.
> I have provided first aid to women with heavy periods on more than one occasion (well twice) so I do have some sympathy. Before you ask yes I was aware that it was embarrassing for them (at first) that the only first aider available at that moment was male.


my jaw hit the floor when i saw this post


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Was the crowdfunder specifically just for more women's loo's? Anyone seen the actual appeal?
> 
> Note also there are extra large cubicles as well. They are _all_ floor to ceiling doors.



Yes, the poster said "ladies' loos."


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Transport to privacy (first aid room with facilities [including sanitary products] and a bed) and a hot water bottle.
> Not allowed to issue pain killers but can advise them to take any they have or have been lent.
> Then left with a female colleague for sympathy and to summon me from outside if symptoms deteriorated into shock.
> 
> Despite all your scorn here both women were grateful for my aid and thanked me later on.




A true hero.


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Not having been there but I suspect that is what the Old Vic now actually has
> Setting aside all the other (very sensible) concerns, to maximise throughput and get bums back on seats (no puns intended) you need to maximise female throughput so you need more female only facilities than shared or male only. I've never been to a theatre and felt I have had to queue excessively, my wife is definitely of a different opinion.



No, as I understand it the room with urinals also contains stalls which they say are available to women.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, the poster said "ladies' toilets."


Sorry "the poster said ladies toilets" is irrelevant. Did the old Vic appeal for money just for more women's toilets. Has anyone seen the actual appeal the Old Vic put out.
I think some of the backlash inc from JudithB is disingenuous as from what I can see indirectly in the press is that the appeal was for various improvements inc the Foyer.
It would be useful to have clarification.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, as I understand it the room with urinals also contains stalls which they say are available to women.


It sounds like they have a similar setup to Fabric nighclub.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, as I understand it the room with urinals also contains stalls which they say are available to women.


201-year-old theatre has replaced signs on male and female lavatories with pictures of cubicles or urinals.

The urinals will as you say also be available to women. 
Although I doubt Old Vic punters will be as organised enough to use them as female festival goers are.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, as I understand it the room with urinals also contains stalls which they say are available to women.


Well in which case JudithB's outrage is fully justified, I would have thought that a unisex loo would be like a disabled one (but smaller) with the door opening into
a public space, if they have just cleaned up the male loos and stuck a sign on the outside door saying "Unisex" expecting women to walk past the men having a slash in the urinals then that's taking the piss (again no pun intended)


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Sorry "the poster said ladies toilets" is irrelevant. Did the old Vic appeal for money just for more women's toilets. Has anyone seen the actual appeal the Old Vic put out.
> I think some of the backlash inc from JudithB is disingenuous as from what I can see indirectly in the press is that the appeal was for various improvements inc the Foyer.
> It would be useful to have clarification.



I edited my post to include the poster.  Did you see it?  It makes clear that what they were asking people to donate to was to double the number of "ladies' loos" - that was the fundraiser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Sorry "the poster said ladies toilets" is irrelevant. Did the old Vic appeal for money just for more women's toilets. Has anyone seen the actual appeal the Old Vic put out.
> I think some of the backlash inc from JudithB is disingenuous as from what I can see indirectly in the press is that the appeal was for various improvements inc the Foyer.
> It would be useful to have clarification.



Your guide to getting around The Old Vic | The Old Vic


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Sorry "the poster said ladies toilets" is irrelevant. Did the old Vic appeal for money just for more women's toilets. Has anyone seen the actual appeal the Old Vic put out.
> I think some of the backlash inc from JudithB is disingenuous as from what I can see indirectly in the press is that the appeal was for various improvements inc the Foyer.
> It would be useful to have clarification.


They did indeed start the campaign with intentions to increase women’s toilets.
Then criticism swayed them to change direction.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some bright spark realized this also helped them meet equality and diversity benefit indicators on some of their grants.

ETA: Oh and no doubt the public raised funds were probably used as part of the match funding to also enable grants to be accessed. I’m doubting the fund raiser covered even half the costs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Sorry "the poster said ladies toilets" is irrelevant. Did the old Vic appeal for money just for more women's toilets. Has anyone seen the actual appeal the Old Vic put out.
> I think some of the backlash inc from JudithB is disingenuous as from what I can see indirectly in the press is that the appeal was for various improvements inc the Foyer.
> It would be useful to have clarification.


this is from last year

Your Christmas Gift from The Old Vic | The Old Vic


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> 201-year-old theatre has replaced signs on male and female lavatories with pictures of cubicles or urinals.
> 
> The urinals will as you say also be available to women.
> Although I doubt Old Vic punters will be as organised enough to use them as female festival goers are.


'Organised enough'. Lol.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> They did indeed start the campaign with intentions to increase women’s toilets.
> Then criticism swayed them to change direction.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if some bright spark realized this also helped them meet equality and diversity benefit indicators on some of their grants.
> 
> ETA: Oh and no doubt the public raised funds were no doubt used as part of the match funding to also enable the grants to be access.


what TopCat's asking for is evidence not bluster or hearsay


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> If you want to maximise throughput, it would make sense to have a room only with urinals and then a whole bunch of individual unisex stalls.  Mostly because you can fit a lot of urinals in the same space as a single stall, so it gives you the chance to eliminate a lot of eliminators in one fast flow of fast flow.
> 
> There are factors other than throughout to consider, though.



We visited Devon this summer and most of the public conveniences seem to have been redesigned with exactly this arrangement.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Old Vic Theatre replaces single-sex toilets with inclusive facilities for all genders


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2019)

I did a first aid course years ago that my union sent me on, missed the bit about menstruation response, must have nipped out for a fag


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Old Vic Theatre replaces single-sex toilets with inclusive facilities for all genders


It's a shame that it doesnt describe them in more detail. I welcome unisex loos but only if there is a sink and sanitary bin in the cubicle. A room full of urinals seems like a good idea too. But i dont know what the scope was or what it now is now so this is all a bit meaningless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> It's a shame that it doesnt describe them in more detail. I welcome unisex loos but only if there is a sink and sanitary bin in the cubicle. A room full of urinals seems like a good idea too. But i dont know what the scope was or what it now is now so this is all a bit meaningless.


a bit shit you might say


----------



## campanula (Oct 4, 2019)

I can't say as I have ever been in a gender neutral toilet. Have they abandoned urinals altogether? In fairness, I would sooner have a wee under a bush than enter most public lavatories and would definitely avoid any with open urinals.
eta, Yep, Poot, a bit more detail would have been welcome (couldn't actually read the article because adblock). Sounds a bit shit all round  (although I can't really see myself visiting the Old Vic at any time because I am an anti-social philistine).


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I did a first aid course years ago that my union sent me on, missed the bit about menstruation response, must have nipped out for a fag


Me too.
Doesn't stop staff thinking they can call you though. 
Doesn't stop people expecting you to have an answer when they do.
Doesn't stop you from using common sense and your own knowledge.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Me too.
> Doesn't stop staff thinking they can call you though.
> Doesn't stop people expecting you to have an answer when they do.
> Doesn't stop you from using common sense and your own knowledge.


So these women, who you helped, didn't know how to treat period pain?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> I edited my post to include the poster.  Did you see it?  It makes clear that what they were asking people to donate to was to double the number of "ladies' loos" - that was the fundraiser.


I didn't see it. Illuminating. Interesting use of the term "ladies".


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> I didn't see it. Illuminating. Interesting use of the term "ladies".



Yes, probably reflects the mores and demographics of the management and clientele.

But putting aside the antiquated language, I think they started with the right idea - to double the provision of women's toilets - but were persuaded to go 'gender neutral' then made a mess of what that looks like on the ground, to the detriment of women.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So these women, who you helped, didn't know how to treat period pain?


Don’t ask me. It’s not for me to speculate what they did or didn’t know or why they thought a first aider was the answer. 

But I did have knowledge of how to access what they needed so for treatment. Which they didn’t have so it was a good call on their part.

Does it really irk you so that I could help?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Don’t ask me. It’s not for me to speculate what they did or didn’t know or why they thought a first aider was the answer.
> 
> But I did have knowledge of how to access what they needed so for treatment. Which they didn’t have so it was a good call on their part.
> 
> Does it really irk you so that I could help?



No.  It doesn't irk me.  It puzzles me.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, probably reflects the mores and demographics of the management and clientele.
> 
> But putting aside the antiquated language, I think they started with the right idea - to double the provision of women's toilets - but were persuaded to go 'gender neutral' then made a mess of what that looks like on the ground, to the detriment of women.


It is likely the remit got widened after doing an equality impact assessment.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  It doesn't irk me.  It puzzles me.


It's a bit odd.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  It doesn't irk me.  It puzzles me.


It puzzles you that a man could have knowledge and common sense and a desire to help their fellow man (turn of phrase) enough to volunteer to be a first aider. 

You must really hate men.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Fucking hell.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> It puzzles you that a man could have knowledge and common sense and a desire to help their fellow man (turn of phrase) enough to volunteer to be a first aider.
> 
> You must really hate men.



Not at all.  It puzzles me that a woman, who presumably has been having periods since she was about 12 or so, didn't know how to treat period pain.  That's all.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> It puzzles you that a man could have knowledge and common sense and a desire to help their fellow man (turn of phrase) enough to volunteer to be a first aider.




Oh get lost. Women would only turn to a first aider/a man because of their periods if they lacked sanitary products and or pain relief. Women don't need you unless you have the key to first aid cabinet. You are irrelevant otherwise. Women know how to care for themselves and their periods and are more likely to turn to other women.



> You must really hate men.


You are indeed the 'type' of man women learn to hate.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not at all.  It puzzles me that a woman, who presumably has been having periods since she was about 12 or so, didn't know how to treat period pain.  That's all.


Because gromit is MENSTRUATION MAN...there for women in their ignorance, their pain, their sanitary needs!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Don’t ask me. It’s not for me to speculate what they did or didn’t know or why they thought a first aider was the answer.
> 
> But I did have knowledge of how to access what they needed so for treatment. Which they didn’t have so it was a good call on their part.
> 
> Does it really irk you so that I could help?


i don't believe the incident you claim actually occurred


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)




----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


>



Maybe some blood on his hands to drive the point home of his unyielding dedication and hands on approach?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe some blood on his hands to drive the point home of his unyielding dedication and hands on approach?



And some tampons in his utility belt.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

Girls at schools are getting UTIs because of mixed sex toilets. My son refused to use the toilets in the aquarium in Copenhagen because they were mixed. 

I don't want to stand next to a man when I'm washing period blood off my hands and men deserve privacy when they're using urinals. 

The Old Vic fraudulently misused funds. They raised money for women's toilets which they promptly opened to anyone who wants to use them. So women have fewer toilets available to them now rather than more. And yet we make up the majority of theatre goers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> And some tampons in his utility belt.



Fucks sake yes, HIS utility belt. Tampons, hot water bottles, guns loaded with paracetamol and ice cream. Abundant chocolate bars in his pockets.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Not at all.  It puzzles me that a woman, who presumably has been having periods since she was about 12 or so, didn't know how to treat period pain.  That's all.


There's period pain and then there is curled up in a ball on the floor unable to help themselves period pain that only some women get.
I'm guessing she was alone in having experience of such (amongst that particular group) and not in a condition to help herself too much.
Does that help solve the puzzle?

Maybe they were hysterical?

(Yes I went there, might as well ridicule you all as you are ridiculing me for actually helping someone in pain)


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It is likely the remit got widened after doing an equality impact assessment.



I doubt it. Such an assessment might explain the presence of the one explicitly designated gender neutral cubicle and the disabled facilities, but wouldn't necessitate scrapping all women-only provision.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> There's period pain and then there is curled up in a ball on the floor unable to help themselves period pain that only some women get.
> I'm guessing she was alone in having experience of such (amongst that particular group) and not in a condition to help herself too much.
> Does that help solve the puzzle?
> 
> ...



Hang on a mo', are you explaining to women about periods?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Girls at schools are getting UTIs because of mixed sex toilets.


because of the hygiene of the toilets or because they refuse to use the toilets?

neither poor hygiene nor children refusing to use toilets would be any new thing, see for example s. vernon et al, 'children’s experiences of school toilets present a risk to their physical and psychological health,' in c_hild: care, health & development_, 29:1 (2003), 47–53: nonetheless, it is deplorable to make children, either boys or girls, unhappy to use toilets as they need to.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> (Yes I went there, might as well ridicule you all as you are ridiculing me for actually helping someone in pain)



Nobody's ridiculing you for helping someone in pain.  You're making yourself ridiculous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> There's period pain and then there is curled up in a ball on the floor unable to help themselves period pain that only some women get.
> I'm guessing she was alone in having experience of such (amongst that particular group) and not in a condition to help herself too much.
> Does that help solve the puzzle?
> 
> ...


i remain unpersuaded you're telling the truth


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Nobody's ridiculing you for helping someone in pain.  You're making yourself ridiculous.


How am I?
You are asking what happened then questioning the women's actions as if I should know why they acted the way they did. All I can do is guess if my guesses are wrong then I can't be blamed because as you point out I'm just a man and can only guess.

Sorry was I meant to interrogate them at the time of their crisis so I could justify it all to some randoms on the internet later on. I'll bear that in mind for the future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> How am I?
> You are asking what happened then questioning the women's actions as if I should know why they acted the way they did. All I can do is guess if my guesses are wrong then I can't be blamed because as you point out I'm just a man and can only guess.
> 
> Sorry was I meant to interrogate them at the time of their crisis so I could justify it all to some randoms on the internet later on. I'll bear that in mind for the future.


i think this was something you made up thinking how clever you were being and you'd not thought the situation through when you posted it. they'd never have this sort of thing on tv's 'would i lie to you?' as it's such a transparent fib


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> How am I?
> All I can do is guess if my guesses are wrong then I can't be blamed because as you point out I'm just a man and can only guess.



What?  Where did I point out any such thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What?  Where did I point out any such thing?


you'll never get an honest answer out of him, he's shameless in his mendacity


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2019)

Fucking actual hell


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh get lost. Women would only turn to a first aider/a man because of their periods if they lacked sanitary products and or pain relief. Women don't need you unless you have the key to first aid cabinet.


Thank you for agreeing with my previous post.



Gromit said:


> But I did have knowledge of how to access what they needed so for treatment. Which they didn’t have so it was a good call on their part.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Thank you for agreeing with my previous post.



I am in awe of your death defying, selfless, knowledgeable and professional, heroic service to women. Thank you MENSTRUATION MAN from all of us.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> because of the hygiene of the toilets or because they refuse to use the toilets?
> 
> neither poor hygiene nor children refusing to use toilets would be any new thing, see for example s. vernon et al, 'children’s experiences of school toilets present a risk to their physical and psychological health,' in c_hild: care, health & development_, 29:1 (2003), 47–53: nonetheless, it is deplorable to make children, either boys or girls, unhappy to use toilets as they need to.


Because they don’t want to share toilets with boys. Because of hygiene, because of privacy, because single sex toilets are a right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

/


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Because they don’t want to share toilets with boys. Because of hygiene, because of privacy, because single sex toilets are a right.


because clean single sex toilets are a right.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I am in awe of your death defying, selfless, knowledgeable and professional, heroic service to women. Thank you MENSTRATION MAN from all of us.





ElizabethofYork said:


> Nobody's ridiculing you for helping someone in pain.



ElizabethofYork Womansplain to me again how no one is ridiculing for helping someone who was in severe menstral pain so much so that they put up with the indignity of a man having to help them. Or do you have Rutita on ignore?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I am in awe of your death defying, selfless, knowledgeable and professional, heroic service to women. Thank you MENSTRUATION MAN from all of us.


Do you patronise male doctors and nurses the same or just first aiders?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Because they don’t want to share toilets with boys. Because of hygiene, because of privacy, because single sex toilets are a right.


A right?
Like in bill of rights level rights?

1st world problems eh!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Womansplain to me





:D

Oh, what a wag you are!


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

trashpony said:


> Because they don’t want to share toilets with boys. Because of hygiene, because of privacy, because single sex toilets are a right.


How did bathrooms get to be separated by gender in the first place?

Interesting read. It's only been a thing for a century and a bit.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> A right?
> Like in bill of rights level rights?
> 
> 1st world problems eh!


Actually access to clean single sex toilets is a problem in many parts of the developing world, you absolute fucking plank.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> A right?
> Like in bill of rights level rights?
> 
> 1st world problems eh!


It is a right. It’s a human right to dignity, privacy and safety. The campaign for public toilets for women meant that Victorian women could leave the house  for a decent length of time. Without toilet facilities, women’s lives are severely limited.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

Thanks Santino. Fuck knows why I’m bothering.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Santino said:


> Actually access to clean single sex toilets is a problem in many parts of the developing world, you absolute fucking plank.


No access to any sanitary facilities is a 3rd world problem. Brow beating over whether you have to share I would suggest is a luxury and one taken for granted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

YEAH SHUT UP WOMEN. You are lucky to have a toilet to use in the first place. Only women in the _3rd world_ have a reason to complain. Stop being a luxury wanting, ungrateful, self-important princess.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

trashpony said:


> It is a right. It’s a human right to dignity, privacy and safety. The campaign for public toilets for women meant that Victorian women could leave the house  for a decent length of time. Without toilet facilities, women’s lives are severely limited.


Because patriarchy had women convinced they had to be concerned about their virtue and reputation etc. not safety concerns. We're supposed to be evolving past such things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Because patriarchy had women convinced they had to be concerned about their virtue and reputation etc. not safety concerns. We're supposed to be evolving past such things.



Yes, safety concerns too. _Because men just wouldn't be able to stop themselves from giving in to their primordial urges and it would be women's own fault if that happened also._ Women were unsafe and held completely responsible for their lack of safety.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> No access to any sanitary facilities is a 3rd world problem. Brow beating over whether you have to share I would suggest is a luxury and one taken for granted.


You are scum.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> YEAH SHUT UP WOMEN. You are lucky to have a toilet to use in the first place. Only women in the _3rd world_ have a reason to complain. Stop being a luxury wanting, ungrateful, self-important princess.


Let's face it. You can make all the excuses you want but it breaks down to possessiveness. No one likes change. You've have these private spaces for as long as you can remember. That creates a feeling of ownership and no one likes to give up possession of things.

Men with their men only members clubs fought tooth and nail to keep them. They came up with all the excuses under the God given sun too. If they couldn't keep them with all their male priv I'll be surprised if you can keep toilets.

I'll be honest though. As I'm not trans I don't rest have a dog in the game either way. In genuinely makes no odds to me. I'm just enjoy arguing on the internet. I might as well leave it there now.

Don't want to be accussed of making the thread all about me. Which would be bound to come soon.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Don’t ask me. It’s not for me to speculate what they did or didn’t know or why they thought a first aider was the answer.
> 
> But I did have knowledge of how to access what they needed so for treatment. Which they didn’t have so it was a good call on their part.
> 
> Does it really irk you so that I could help?


And that's why they call me Period Pete


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Let's face it. You can make all the excuses you want but it breaks down to possessiveness. No one likes change. You've have these private spaces for as long as you can remember. That creates a feeling of ownership and no one likes to give up possession of things.


 Yeah we've had it our own way for far too long. We just need to get over ourselves, our vulnerabilities and sensitivities about our bodily functions and stop being so selfish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> And that's why they call me Period Pete


he's certainly a creepy cyril


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Santino said:


> You are scum.


we all think that but everyone else can say why they think he's scum.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah we've had it our own way for far too long. We just need to get over ourselves, our vulnerabilities and sensitivities about our bodily functions and stop being so selfish.


You ain't the only ones being asked to do that. Men are too. It's a fucking outrage to be honest. At least you are in cubicles rather than sharing in the open with your genitals out.


----------



## kalidarkone (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucks sake yes, HIS utility belt. Tampons, hot water bottles, guns loaded with paracetamol and ice cream. Abundant chocolate bars in his pockets.


And wine.


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2019)

Shut up Gromit you massive fucking bellend.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

kalidarkone said:


> And wine.


one thing you can rely on Gromit for is whine


----------



## kalidarkone (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> one thing you can rely on Gromit for is whine


Ouch that's terrible


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

kalidarkone said:


> Ouch that's terrible


but sadly true


----------



## TopCat (Oct 4, 2019)

Gromit said:


> There's period pain and then there is curled up in a ball on the floor unable to help themselves period pain that only some women get.
> I'm guessing she was alone in having experience of such (amongst that particular group) and not in a condition to help herself too much.
> Does that help solve the puzzle?
> 
> ...


Please don't.


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2019)

I was alerted to the interesting turn this thread had taken and originally came here to tell Gromit to fuck off, but it seems plenty of people have done so already.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

andysays said:


> I was alerted to the interesting turn this thread had taken and originally came here to tell Gromit to fuck off, but it seems plenty of people have done so already.


come and join the fun


----------



## andysays (Oct 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> come and join the fun


Not really my idea of fun, TBH

As far as the toilets in the Old Vic go, it's a challenge to convert existing toilet facilities to provide better access for women, but it appears that in this case they've not only effectively made things worse, they've also done it with dishonest fund raising.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2019)

What a truly astonishing turn this thread has taken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

andysays said:


> Not really my idea of fun, TBH


nor mine, i thought the absence of a ! or a  would suggest i wasn't being wholly serious


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

chilango said:


> What a truly astonishing turn this thread has taken.


urban never fails to surprise


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 4, 2019)

I've put on a week ban plus also warning points and the next instance of this is going to get much more, because this is a joke now.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 4, 2019)

I went to the Old Vic on Monday, with 30 14-16 year old kids (23 girls, 7 boys, 0 nb or trans).  

Unfortunately I didn’t go to the loo. Most of the kids did, during the interval.  They all got back in time for the second half and none of them mentioned anything odd about the facilities.  We have single sex loos at school, which is difficult for the trans students but they all currently use the loo for their biological sex.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

On gender neutral toilets: I’ve never visited a home in the uk that doesn’t have one.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> On gender neutral toilets: I’ve never visited a home in the uk that doesn’t have one.


But you probably don't bowl up there as an unknown random.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> But you probably don't bowl up there as an unknown random.



I could abuse and rape women in public toilets but that’s more likely to happen within my home, isn’t it?


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I could abuse and rape women in public toilets but that’s more likely to happen within my home, isn’t it?


You tell us.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> You tell us.



Hilarious! I’m obviously referring to well known statistics rather than my own predilections.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 4, 2019)

Struggling a little to see the point here.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Struggling a little to see the point here.



Thanks for the intervention. In short: I struggle to see the uproar about ‘gender neutral’ toilets. 
I’m sure you agree actually.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for the intervention. In short: I struggle to see the uproar about ‘gender neutral’ toilets.
> I’m sure you agree actually.


A lot of women have explained their feelings. You could go back three or four pages and read them if you wanted.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thanks for the intervention. In short: I struggle to see the uproar about ‘gender neutral’ toilets.
> I’m sure you agree actually.


Man struggles to understand women's situation/POV.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> A lot of women have explained their feelings. You could go back three or four pages and read them if you wanted.



Every woman has been in a situation where the only option is a gender neutral toilet (visiting homes of others). 
I’ve never heard any woman raise concerns about this, except from on here of course.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> Man struggles to understand women's situation/POV.



Yeah, I’ve only discovered women two days ago and I don’t have a mother, sister, aunties, female friends, girlfriends, etc


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Every woman has been in a situation where the only option is a gender neutral toilet (visiting homes of others).
> I’ve never heard any woman raise concerns about this, except from on here of course.


Why would they raise this with you? Are you an architect? 

For clarity we're not talking about people's homes, that would be ridiculous and you're just trying to wind everyone up.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> Why would they raise this with you? Are you an architect?
> 
> For clarity we're not talking about people's homes, that would be ridiculous and you're just trying to wind everyone up.



Nobody really knows each other in shared houses, which are somewhat more intimate than toilets in a public entertainment venue, and I’ve never heard a shared toilet being an issue. Perhaps you can point me to a case where it has been?
This is just a political football for middle class people.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I could abuse and rape women in public toilets but that’s more likely to happen within my home, isn’t it?


Hilarious!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Santino said:


> Hilarious!



A theatre! Omg!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Working class women don't care, see.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Nobody really knows each other in shared houses, which are somewhat more intimate than toilets in a public entertainment venue, and I’ve never heard a shared toilet being an issue. Perhaps you can point me to a case where it has been?
> This is just a political football for middle class people.


Jesus Christ. Okay, for the hard of understanding, there isn't a cubicle situation, there isn't a shared area, it's generally a one-in-one-out sort of a situation. It is not comparable with a public space. Will that do? And yes, this situation could NEVER affect a working class woman in any way.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

They closed all the public bogs in my home town, which were sex specific, in the early eighties.
Oh no, a theatre!


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They closed all the public bogs in my home town, which were sex specific, in the early eighties.
> Oh no, a theatre!


That's a shame. Did you campaign against the closure or have you petitioned for more facilities?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> That's a shame. Did you campaign against the closure or have you petitioned for more facilities?



I was very young at the time so no. Have you?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Nobody cared about it mate.
But now we’re talking about a THEATRE. 
It’s important now, isn’t it?


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 4, 2019)

I haven't read the whole thread yet but in case it hasn't been mentioned Perez was interviewed last week on radio 4's Inside Science as she was nominated for an award. She won.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

CNT36 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread yet but in case it hasn't been mentioned Perez was interviewed last week on radio 4's Inside Science as she was nominated for an award. She won.


Did she? Good on her! She’s a bloody brilliant woman.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> On gender neutral toilets: I’ve never visited a home in the uk that doesn’t have one.


Yeah, but when I use the toilet in my own home or indeed that of a friend, I don't have several random guys of unknown trustworthiness waiting their turn outside, taking a piss in a urinal separated only by a partition or washing their hands next to me while I clean a mooncup. It's not the same.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm not sure how common place gender neutral loos actually are, perhaps someone will have a link. It's a shame that gender neutral toilets, in my experience, usually means reeking of/or liberally sprinkled with male piss.


 my comment still applies.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Yeah, but when I use the toilet in my own home or indeed that of a friend, I don't have several random guys of unknown trustworthiness waiting their turn outside, taking a piss in a urinal separated only by a partition or washing their hands next to me while I clean a mooncup. It's not the same.



I actually agree with this but surely if it’s within the hustle and bustle of a popular venue it’s somewhat an unlikely place for the objections to occur?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I actually agree with this but surely if it’s within the hustle and bustle of a popular venue it’s somewhat an unlikely place for the objections to occur?


You've clearly never been a woman on the Tube.


----------



## mango5 (Oct 4, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> Man struggles to understand women's situation/POV.


Neatly sums up the point of this thread; the cause and effect of a world designed for men.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> You've clearly never been a woman on the Tube.



The Tube doesn’t have toilets btw


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The Tube doesn’t have toilets btw


I meant that being in a busy place doesn't give women any protection from men who want to cop a quick feel. In fact lots of men seem to perceive it as a challenge or get extra jollies from doing it in a crowd.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> I meant that being in a busy place doesn't give women any protection from men who want to cop a quick feel. In fact lots of men seem to perceive it as a challenge or get extra jollies from doing it in a crowd.



Fair enough, yeah lots of men are wankers and do horrible things to women going about their business. I cringed in circa 2001 when I was on the building sites and colleagues would spend their lunch harassing women. I pulled them on it and called them cunts but saw first hand how bad it is so solidarity from me on that.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Every woman has been in a situation where the only option is a gender neutral toilet (visiting homes of others).
> I’ve never heard any woman raise concerns about this, except from on here of course.



You're right.

If women are raped, abused and murdered in our homes more often on agregate as well as the homes of of people we know, where people can't see behind walls and where we have no choice, then we certainly shouldn't take precautions outside the home , and so should accept no choice there too. 

Not to mention menstruation, miscarriage, et Al.

Why bother?

Right?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> You're right.
> 
> If women are raped, abused and murdered in our homes more often on agregate as well as the homes of of people we know, where people can't see behind walls and where we have no choice, then we certainly shouldn't take precautions outside the home , and so should accept no choice there too.
> 
> ...



Maybe we should just live on different planets then?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

Also, aren't pervy hidden cameras in the ladies actually on the increase and becoming an issue??  Even if no one cops a feel, I'd rather that there's at least some protection from the neferious weirdos who would wank off to me changing a tampon or taking a shit or whatever. (or any other woman, your shits and menses are just as lovely, I'm sure)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Maybe we should just live on different planets then?



Or maybe men can sort their shit out FIRST so women don't have to worry about this stuff, and THEN (and only then) abolish sex segregation for personal dignity (when it's no longer needed)?

No need to move planets. 

Although sometimes I think a rocket to venus might be easier.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Or men could concede that generally women would like single sex spaces to go to the toilet in, deal with unavoidable bodily functions etc...it would also be helpful if we didn't all get dismissed as middle class for daring to care about these things.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2019)

Women's rights to public toilets | Museum of London

The history of women’s toilets in the U.K. . Women fought for them. They are as important part of our emancipation as suffrage. Without the first, the second would never have happened.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

I’m not against that. It’s funny that the issue is raised over a middle class venue whilst nobody cared when working class women were fucked over.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fair enough, yeah lots of men are wankers and do horrible things to women going about their business. I cringed in circa 2001 when I was on the building sites and colleagues would spend their lunch harassing women. I pulled them on it and called them cunts but saw first hand how bad it is so solidarity from me on that.


You have the luxury of forgetting those blokes, women don't. 

Those men are still out there - everywhere - and you could show your 'solidarity' but not arguing everytime a woman says she has some issue with them.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> You have the luxury of forgetting those blokes, women don't.
> 
> Those men are still out there - everywhere - and you could show your 'solidarity' but not arguing everytime a woman says she has some issue with them.



I’ve never done that, and hope I never would, and solidarity to you always.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Ah I see, it's only an issue to us all now because middle class women are affected. working class women never speak up for themselves and he is really just fighting the corner of WC women.

Cunt's trick right there...dividing women and blaming WC women for not fighting enough and MC women for not caring about WC women.

Men...just bystanders.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 4, 2019)

I know this is all over but never once in my almost 50 years have I ever seen or heard of a woman with period pain going to a first aider for help. 

I like Gromit - he's one of us - but fuck me. I have no idea what was going on in his head here.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Pretty much.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> MENSTRUATION MAN




Please can we have a 'Toby jug fact' stamp done in similar ilk where Gromit has a cape and a big red M across his chest.

It would be easier than telling him to fuck off.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

That was at my mate upwards.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’ve never done that, and hope I never would, and solidarity to you always.


you just did it. Gas lighting now too.

I hope I never have to rely on your 'solidarity'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> you just did it. Gas lighting now too.
> 
> I hope I never have to rely on your 'solidarity'



Such is the divisions of idpol. Great, we hate each other. Capital continues.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not against that. It’s funny that the issue is raised over a middle class venue whilst nobody cared when working class women were fucked over.


Can you give an example of when no one cared when working class women were fucked over?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Such is the divisions of idpol. Great, we hate each other. Capital continues.


oh fuck off with the ID pol. Great show of solidarity so far.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> Can you give an example of when no one cared when working class women were fucked over?



Hang on, can you? You’re the feminist.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Hang on, can you? You’re the feminist.


You're the one saying no one cared.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

I can give an example where the theatre is the important thing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot...he isn't a feminist. That's it. Finally.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> You're the one saying no one cared.



Keep fighting for that theatre.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Poot...he isn't a feminist. That's it. Finally.



I’m not. Because feminists care nothing about class.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not. Because feminists care nothing about class.


Can you fuck off with telling us how to do feminism please?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

It's funny how a thread with the title it has attracts men who continually seek to undermine its premise.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not. Because feminists care nothing about class.



Really?????


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Can you fuck off with telling us how to do feminism please?



I’m not telling you how to do anything


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Really?????



Yep


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

It's utterly bizarre. If only we were all as smart.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Keep fighting for those theatres.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yep



Tell that to you know who & see how far you get!


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yep


Please stop. You are making yourself sound like a tedious troll.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Tell that to you know who & see how far you get!



I’ll see that person next year. Promise. Yeah they’ll kill me.


----------



## Poot (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not. Because feminists care nothing about class.


Yep. We are all actually the same person. And we only care about middle class women. That's feminists for you. All of us.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> Yep. We are all actually the same person. And we only care about middle class women. That's feminists for you. All of us.



I’m silent now.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’ll see that person next year. Promise. Yeah they’ll kill me.



Then you may need to retract that fleeting bizarre comment before she sees it


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I know this is all over but never once in my almost 50 years have I ever seen or heard of a woman with period pain going to a first aider for help.
> 
> I like Gromit - he's one of us - but fuck me. I have no idea what was going on in his head here.


He deserves a slap with a kipper


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Keep fighting for those theatres.




I don't get what you're arguing tbh. 
What's wrong with theatres? 

Ya know, the arts are really important for everyone. Loads of people go to the theatre. Who says it's a middle class persuit? When the communists built workers towns there was ALWAYS a theatre in the main square.

It's not just middle and upper classes who go or want to go. 


Honestly don't get it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m silent now.


Probably for the best


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Then you may need to retract that fleeting bizarre comment before she sees it



They will forgive me hopefully. I have money next month. I may ‘surprise’ you on the 26th...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 4, 2019)

Is it really still fair game to troll and insult in this way because it's Friday and people are probably on the sauce or whatever? Are women's lives and challenges really so fucking irrelevant that this kind of divide and ridicule, goal post moving, man as authoritative hero nonsense is something I need to accept?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I like Gromit - he's one of us - but fuck me. I have no idea what was going on in his head here.



He’s a fucking sexist twat, & always has been.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 4, 2019)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They will forgive me..



Skating on thin ice.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Skating on thin ice.



Aye


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

But we all make more sense in person.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Is it really still fair game to troll and insult in this way because it's Friday and people are probably on the sauce or whatever? Are women's lives and challenges really so fucking irrelevant that this kind of divide and ridicule, goal post moving, man as authoritative hero nonsense is something I need to accept?


No, not at all. Not ever really. 



Mr.Bishie said:


> He’s a fucking sexist twat, & always has been.



This ^^^^


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But we all make more sense in person.



Then maybe really think before you post


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Then maybe really think before you post



My views are less harsh in person mate. It’s the medium rather than what is expressed. Hopefully. Honestly. Just speak to people.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 4, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My views are less harsh in person mate. It’s the medium rather than what is expressed. Hopefully. Honestly. Just speak to people.


And maybe listen to them too, eh?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 4, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> And maybe listen to them too, eh?



Fair enough.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Has there seriously been a study in bog throughput or are you just making this up?
> 
> The fair thing to do would be to make all the loos single-sex, thus slowing everyone down equally, If the most important thing is throughput then the sensible thing to do would be to make all the male loos unisex and keep some female only ones, but that means effectively giving women special privileges in the interests of mutual efficiency and I'm sure there will be people ranting about that as well (females outnumber males 2 to 1 in the Q household so personally in favour).
> No matter what I suspect I will always end up queueing at the bar because my wife is still queueing at the ladies.


Really don't be silly

The sensible thing to have done was to honour what they crowd funded for and given women more of their own exclusive toilets. If they had crowd funded for unisex toilets, then they should have been honest about that.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> Am I right in thinking there are now no men's or women's toilets, such that (in principle) anyone can use any stalls, but that, in reality women are unlikely to use the stalls in the room where there are urinals, and will now have to compete with men to use the stalls elsewhere?  Practically speaking, that's not really any improvement in the provision of facilities women (which was the basis of the fundraising) is it?


No. There are urinals for men and the cubicles are all unisex


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It is likely the remit got widened after doing an equality impact assessment.


The equality impact assessment has been requested. So far it appears no women's groups were consulted. Not even the WI


----------



## JudithB (Oct 4, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes, safety concerns too. _Because men just wouldn't be able to stop themselves from giving in to their primordial urges and it would be women's own fault if that happened also._ Women were unsafe and held completely responsible for their lack of safety.


Considering rape has been pretty much decriminalised in Yorkshire and women's rights are being ignored. For godssake can't we just pee in peace?


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

In today's How Women are Ignored and Fucked Over news

F.D.A. Approves New H.I.V.-Prevention Drug, but Not for Women

And the name of the maker


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Considering rape has been pretty much decriminalised in Yorkshire



Can I ask what this refers to?


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 5, 2019)

Perhaps to something like this. 

No, rape has not been ‘decriminalised’

Luke Gittos, who specialises in defending rape and sexual assault cases, fails to convince me with this article. The statistics are there though, to be interpreted in different ways.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 5, 2019)

Or this 3,000 rapes reported in West Yorkshire - but only 143 people charged

Or this Rape is "effectively decriminalised" campaigners say, as prosecutions for sexual offences drop 20 per cent in Yorkshire


----------



## Poot (Oct 5, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Perhaps to something like this.
> 
> No, rape has not been ‘decriminalised’
> 
> Luke Gittos, who specialises in defending rape and sexual assault cases, fails to convince me with this article. The statistics are there though, to be interpreted in different ways.


Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.


----------



## polly (Oct 5, 2019)

Poot said:


> Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.



Yeah Spiked is really vile - might not be a good idea to link to it. Interesting article though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 5, 2019)

Poot said:


> Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. _*I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.*_



A bit like some of the men that routinely come on these threads to sow division/discord and tell us where we are going wrong.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2019)

Poot said:


> Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.



I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.


----------



## polly (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.



That is a really sinister take on it. And probably spot on. Yuck.


----------



## Poot (Oct 5, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.


Yes, exactly this.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 6, 2019)

JudithB said:


> In today's How Women are Ignored and Fucked Over news
> 
> F.D.A. Approves New H.I.V.-Prevention Drug, but Not for Women
> 
> And the name of the maker


thanks for posting - this is a good example of how average human = male human and testing on /for women is an after thought.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 6, 2019)

There are a few issues there. Firstly the decision by the drug company to test only with men and trans women - this is not normal (I used to work in pharma r&d; studies are more complex and potentially harder to recruit for the more variables you include, sure, but not that much more and some variables are pretty obviously necessary like sex).

Secondly the decision by the FDA to approve anyway but just for men, rather than reject because of incomplete testing. FDA approval is widely known to be politically related - sometimes it is very exacting, sometimes it is very lax, depending on who is running the show. With the current US regime this doesn't surprise me.

And thirdly of course the general issue of a drug that's no better than another one that's just about to come out of patent being approved, falsely marketed as being better, and sold at an insane price. But that's not a gender issue, that's a US healthcare issue.


----------



## Manter (Oct 6, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are a few issues there. Firstly the decision by the drug company to test only with men and trans women - this is not normal (I used to work in pharma r&d; studies are more complex and potentially harder to recruit for the more variables you include, sure, but not that much more and some variables are pretty obviously necessary like sex).
> 
> Secondly the decision by the FDA to approve anyway but just for men, rather than reject because of incomplete testing. FDA approval is widely known to be politically related - sometimes it is very exacting, sometimes it is very lax, depending on who is running the show. With the current US regime this doesn't surprise me.
> 
> And thirdly of course the general issue of a drug that's no better than another one that's just about to come out of patent being approved, falsely marketed as being better, and sold at an insane price. But that's not a gender issue, that's a US healthcare issue.


I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.


----------



## Manter (Oct 6, 2019)

Eg The medical research gender gap: how excluding women from clinical trials is hurting our health | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian

(This focuses on cardiovascular disease)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 6, 2019)

Manter said:


> I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.


With #2 I'm just pointing out that the approval is a political decision rather than being something set in stone; I wanted to break the whole thing down a bit into the stages involved. It would be quite possible for a regulator to simply reject anything not tested across sexes, and you can bet that the drug companies would absolutely jump into line - the money involved in delaying an approval by even a day is extraordinary. (We used to joke that we should get a cut of what the company earned if we got a study out of the door a bit early.) That IMO is the part that is best to try to address in campaigns etc. But pharma corps also lobby massively to make sure that the regulatory regime is favourable to them, and they would be happy to use sexism as part of that.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 16, 2019)

JudithB said:


> So far it appears no women's groups were consulted. Not even the WI


How do you know who they consulted?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> A bit like some of the men that routinely come on these threads to sow division/discord and tell us where we are going wrong.


A bit like.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2019)

Manter said:


> I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.



What conditions affect a single gender (as distinct from a single sex)?


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2019)

Athos said:


> What conditions affect a single gender (as distinct from a single sex)?


Not a clue mate. Not a doctor.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2019)

Manter said:


> Not a clue mate. Not a doctor.



Do you believe there are some?  Because I got the impression from your comment that you think the only time it would be usual for drugs to be licensed for a single gender would be in respect of a condition which affects a single gender.  In any event, are there any drugs that are licensed for a single gender?


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2019)

Athos said:


> Do you believe there are some?  Because I got the impression from your comment that you think the only time it would be usual for drugs to be licensed for a single gender would be in respect of a condition which affects a single gender.  In any event, are there any drugs that are licensed for a single gender?


Oh, is this you point scoring about the fact i inadvertently used the wrong language? Well done you. Have a sticker


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2019)

Manter said:


> Oh, is this you point scoring about the fact i inadvertently used the wrong language? Well done you. Have a sticker



No, it was a genuine question.  But, actually, the increasing elision of sex and gender, which often has the effect of minimising biology, is a new facet of the problem of medicine failing to serve (biological) women's interests.


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, it was a genuine question.  But, actually, the increasing elision of sex and gender, which often has the effect of minimising biology, is a new facet of the problem of medicine failing to serve (biological) women's interests.


I genuinely don’t want my posts to be used to set people against each other. Care for women is shit; in terms of research, standards, investment, dignity, follow up.... 

That is in no way a pro or anti trans statement. It’s what I’ve seen, and experienced.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2019)

Manter said:


> I genuinely don’t want my posts to be used to set people against each other. Care for women is shit; in terms of research, standards, investment, dignity, follow up....
> 
> That is in no way a pro or anti trans statement. It’s what I’ve seen, and experienced.



I agree with literally everything in that post.

I don't think it's anti-trans to point out that it's sex (rather than gender) that's important in medicine.


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2019)

Athos said:


> I agree with literally everything in that post.
> 
> I don't think it's anti-trans to point out that it's sex (rather than gender) that's important in medicine.


You could have said ‘I think you mean sex rather than gender’ rather than this tedious culture war point scoring


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2019)

Manter said:


> You could have said ‘I think you mean sex rather than gender’ rather than this tedious culture war point scoring



I genuinely thought there might have been such a condition (albeit I couldn't think of one); that's why I asked you, rather than rushing to correct you.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 18, 2019)

Curious, because while a lot of this article makes my hackles rise for any number of reasons, there are also things that make me think 'Not a bad idea'. 

the-wing


----------



## Poot (Oct 18, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Curious, because while a lot of this article makes my hackles rise for any number of reasons, there are also things that make me think 'Not a bad idea'.
> 
> the-wing


Wow. Some people's lives sure are quite different to mine.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2019)

I read about The Wing ages ago but never would have brought it up here as I thinks its insulting to women with rational brains, is bigoted and anti working class. 
“Today’s ideal woman is of a type that coexists easily with feminism in its current market-friendly and mainstream form,” 

Yeah right, Hilary Clinton a feminist? How many people has she had killed? How many men women and children?


----------



## Poot (Oct 18, 2019)

I've given that some thought.

In the old days when there were entire golf courses and stately homes given over to 'men's business' women frequently pointed out that it was unfair, and in response received such nuggets as 'but what about the WI!' and 'what about mothers' groups!' This is a group that is actually an equivalent to the actual damaging men's clubs. But most people here wouldn't be a member of either one. I have no problem with men's clubs per se. I have no problem with women's clubs of course. This, though, bothers me.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2019)

This critique is pretty much spot on. 
They’re empowering women to be better economic subjects within capitalism, empowering women to network, to get a raise, to address the pay gap. Those are real things, but they are really tied to capitalist logic.”


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2019)

Poot said:


> I've given that some thought.
> 
> In the old days when there were entire golf courses and stately homes given over to 'men's business' women frequently pointed out that it was unfair, and in response received such nuggets as 'but what about the WI!' and 'what about mothers' groups!' This is a group that is actually an equivalent to the actual damaging men's clubs. But most people here wouldn't be a member of either one. I have no problem with men's clubs per se. I have no problem with women's clubs of course. This, though, bothers me.


It is for rich women or those who aspire to being rich. None of whom would hesitate a second to stamp on a working class womens head in order to climb the greasy pole.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2019)

What do you think JudithB of the article and Wing?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2019)

I'm in hospital at the moment. It's a woman dominated environment. From contract cleaners getting minimum wage right up to my arragont consultant with all the tiers of nursing and tech staff in between.
I would wager that Wing offers 90% of these women nothing. Thankfully this bunch here looking after me seem likely to have no interest in Wing.


----------



## Poot (Oct 18, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It is for rich women or those who aspire to being rich. None of whom would hesitate a second to stamp on a working class womens head in order to climb the greasy pole.


I agree. But I think it's important that I point out that this for me is a question of class politics rather than feminism. I believe that women should be able to climb the corporate ladder as much as men. I don't like the corporate ladder, and they are not women like me. But the point stands. Otherwise we only get horrific men in power. We might as well have horrific women so at least my daughter doesn't feel like she has to be a drudge and has something to aspire to. The system isn't going to fall away before she is an adult. But I don't like the whole system, though, and I don't like those people. I'm making that abundantly clear.


----------



## JudithB (Oct 18, 2019)

TopCat said:


> It is for rich women or those who aspire to being rich. None of whom would hesitate a second to stamp on a working class womens head in order to climb the greasy pole.


Yes I think it is too. It appears to be a _Lean In_ type of feminism. Whatever they may claim, they are mimicking patriarchal capitalist power structures rather than working to break them down. Full disclosure: I have only skim read the article. I did not see any mention of child care provision or the cost of membership. 

I have been a member of women only networking groups and I have no problem with them. Made up of working women looking to make connections and boost their business sales. The support provided is woman focused and although working within a patriarchal capitalist structure in practice leans towards a more matriarchal way of working. There are ways to support working women that doesn't have to be instagram friendly. I will write more later when I've time to read the article in full.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2019)

JudithB said:


> Yes I think it is too. It appears to be a _Lean In_ type of feminism. Whatever they may claim, they are mimicking patriarchal capitalist power structures rather than working to break them down. Full disclosure: I have only skim read the article. I did not see any mention of child care provision or the cost of membership.
> 
> I have been a member of women only networking groups and I have no problem with them. Made up of working women looking to make connections and boost their business sales. The support provided is woman focused and although working within a patriarchal capitalist structure in practice leans towards a more matriarchal way of working. There are ways to support working women that doesn't have to be instagram friendly. I will write more later when I've time to read the article in full.


Have you read it now?


----------



## JudithB (Nov 3, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Have you read it now?


Yes, I like a lot about it apart from it's lack of inclusivity due to the price-tag and lack of childcare facilities


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 21, 2019)

big item in the metro today 'The gender health gap nearly killed me'  PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines. here are some snippets:


> Take abdominal pain.  A 2008 US study found
> .... women have to wait on average 16 mins longer than male patients to see an A&E doctor
> ...women were 13-25 %less likely to receive painkillers - a figure thet reduced further if the women weren't white. A 2014 Swedish study found similar results.
> ...
> ...


article is based on this book: Pain and Prejudice 


> A timely and powerful look at how our culture treats the pain and suffering of women.


 The author says 'while most doctors aren't sexist the establishment suffers from 'structural sexism'.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 23, 2019)

I can relate to that study outcome.


----------



## JudithB (Dec 1, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> big item in the metro today 'The gender health gap nearly killed me'  PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines. here are some snippets:
> 
> article is based on this book: Pain and Prejudice
> The author says 'while most doctors aren't sexist the establishment suffers from 'structural sexism'.


I would expect that women putting up with pain and not complaining also feeds into this. One of my favourite memes says "mummy-flu, just like man-flu, but nobody gives a shit"


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 3, 2019)

Interesting bit about endometriosis on Radio 4 this morning - saying huge percentage of women suffer this and can take years to get a diagnosis. There was a women being interviewed about the agony she had gone though for years and how hit and miss the diagnosis had been for her. Also talking about a cancer drug that is being tested now.  I can't a find a link to this mornings item. But this from oct: MPs to launch inquiry into endometriosis care


> The condition affects one in 10 women and, as well as extremely heavy periods, can cause debilitating pain and sometimes infertility.


My thought is if it is so common why are doctors not more aware of it?  Various sites say it takes on average *8 years* to diagnose.  Why?

Why does it take 8 years to diagnose endometriosis?


> *1. Lack of awareness by health care providers*
> Unfortunately, the symptoms of endometriosis are not always taken seriously by doctors, especially if PCPs and not OBGYNs, as there is the expectation that periods are meant to be painful anyway. For this reason, doctors might not further investigate what they believe are normal menstrual cramps. To exacerbate this phenomenon, there is the fact that doctors may take women’s pain less seriously than men’s, which can lead to a late diagnosis or total lack of it. Quite interestingly, the reported delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis is much shorter for women who present with infertility than for women who present with pelvic pain, suggesting that clinicians are more responsive to infertility rather than pelvic pain.


This rings very true   





> Growing up, everybody told us our pain was normal


My grrlf had such severe pain every month that when she had peritonitis from a burst bowel she thought it was period pain. Despite all kinds of intrusive tests they never did find the cause of her gynae pain, nothing wrong with her I think they said,  but did offer to remove her uterus, which is not a solution that many women in their 30s would find acceptible.  I think they take her pain more seriously more quickly now - only because she can now say_ 'on a scale of one to peritonitis - it's 11'  _


----------



## colacubes (Dec 3, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> Interesting bit about endometriosis on Radio 4 this morning - saying huge percentage of women suffer this and can take years to get a diagnosis. There was a women being interviewed about the agony she had gone though for years and how hit and miss the diagnosis had been for her. Also talking about a cancer drug that is being tested now.  I can't a find a link to this mornings item. But this from oct: MPs to launch inquiry into endometriosis care
> 
> My thought is if it is so common why are doctors not more aware of it?  Various sites say it takes on average *8 years* to diagnose.  Why?
> 
> ...


I was diagnosed with it when I had investigative surgery to see if I had a blocked Fallopian tube. I was just shy of my 38th birthday and have suffered from gynaecological issues since my mid 20s and have been seen on and off by specialist clinics regarding my periods all that time. No one ever mentioned it at any point as a possibility


----------



## trashpony (Dec 3, 2019)

Women's health problems are ignored. Millions of women suffer from endometriosis and fibroids and are just turned away when they ask for help. One of my friends suffered such heavy periods that she couldn't leave the house - she would literally bleed through a pad and super plus tampon in about 15 minutes. She had to go private to get a scan which found she had a fibroid the size of a grapefruit. Once it was removed, her periods were normal.

Another one of my friends (late 40s, done having children) was haemorraghing so badly every month that she was hospitalised twice that I know of. It still took her nearly 18 months of them trying various other treatments to finally persuade the NHS to give her the hysterectomy she had been begging for - even though she's been a nurse for 30 years. She had it a year ago and she's a different woman.

Unless we're having babies (or trying to have them and failing) women's health is of zero interest

ETA - and for both of those stories, I can tell you loads more. Just from the women I know/have known. Millions of women suffer. Millions


----------



## colacubes (Dec 3, 2019)

Yes. It’s notable that I was only diagnosed at the early stages of IVF.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 3, 2019)

colacubes said:


> Yes. It’s notable that I was only diagnosed at the early stages of IVF.


That is the only time anyone I know has ever had any assistance without nearly dying from blood loss. Pain? Meh. 

You can't conceive? Oh! On scanning you we can see that half your organs are fused together with scar tissue. And we just thought you were being a bit of a whiny baby when you complained about period pain.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 3, 2019)

It took me something like twenty-five years to be diagnosed. The first 10 years or so, before I had my daughter were fucking awful. Before I was 16 my GP didn't let me on the pill and it changed my life. The four years before that involved SO much bleeding and pain for more days of the month than not. 

Can you imagine a world where men have a condition where their arm bleeds unstoppably for a week every month and it hurts, and then for some men it bleeds longer, and some of them bleed in other places and it's hugely painful? Even if it were women bleeding out of their arms in the same way, there would have been major steps taken to combat this from early times. But it's from women's genitals and that makes it bad.


----------



## Manter (Dec 4, 2019)

Yeah, I had some sort of issue which involved pain and heavy periods and they thought was connected to why I got pregnant really easily but miscarried*

once I had J, a consultant told me they were closing my file ‘because you’ve got your baby now’. I was a bit ‘er what about the pain?’ But I had so much else to deal with (buggered pelvic floor and a newborn. Fun) I couldn’t be bothered to fight them. 

*I had a *lot* of miscarriages, to the extent I just cracked on with life and work and so ended up seeing doctors in all sorts of health systems. This isn’t a defence of the US health system- it’s a clusterfuck- but interestingly it was where I was taken most seriously, offered proper follow up and told what questions to ask of my dr when I got home. I didn’t have the heart to tell him I didn’t have a dr, it was just whichever random was in the clinic on the day an appointment happened....


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2019)

The kabbess had an ovarian cyst the size of a grapefruit that burst in her mid-twenties.  I don’t even need to tell you how that medical journey went.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The kabbess had an ovarian cyst the size of a grapefruit that burst in her mid-twenties.  I don’t even need to tell you how that medical journey went.


My sympathies. I had one of them when I was eleven and the pain was as bad as childbirth.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 4, 2019)

weepiper said:


> My sympathies. I had one of them when I was eleven and the pain was as bad as childbirth.



I had one of them too when I was 15 and it hurt so much, and responded to pressure in such a way that the GP misdiagnosed it as appendicitis and I was rushed to the emergency room for an operation. 

Afterward, as I woke up from the general anaesthetic, the (man) surgeon said "it was only a tiny cyst on your ovary. Must have been pushing against a nerve *shrug*"

Like I was making the pain up or something.

That fucker hurt like a bastard.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 4, 2019)

Oh, and 20 years later, another luteal cyst appeared.. That too, hurt like a cunt and it was "tiny" (about 2cm), - luteal cysts tend to go away by themselves tho.  You poor ladies with the grapefruit cysts.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2019)

What I don’t understand is that the female GPs are no better than the male GPs when it comes to women’s health.  I mean, in some ways they are better but in other ways they are worse.


----------



## Poot (Dec 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What I don’t understand is that the female GPs are no better than the male GPs when it comes to women’s health.  I mean, in some ways they are better but in other ways they are worse.


It's hardly surprising that after a lifetime of being told that women's pain is normal and not important this becomes the party line even for the most empathetic doctor, though. It's cultural.


----------



## Poot (Dec 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What I don’t understand is that the female GPs are no better than the male GPs when it comes to women’s health.  I mean, in some ways they are better but in other ways they are worse.


Oh, and I don't think they ARE worse, I think they are perceived to be because, you know, they're women.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 4, 2019)

I don’t know.  I perceive a certain “well it’s not so bad for me so how can it be bad for you?” attitude from some of them (on the occasions I have been in attendance)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What I don’t understand is that the female GPs are no better than the male GPs when it comes to women’s health.  I mean, in some ways they are better but in other ways they are worse.


If it's an institutional issue, a factor which pervades how medicine is researched, taught, received and understood then it's no surprise. You're like the judges on strictly who hold the celebs to account on what the dance ought to have been rather than the dance the professionals taught them.


----------



## polly (Dec 4, 2019)

Poot said:


> It's hardly surprising that after a lifetime of being told that women's pain is normal and not important this becomes the party line even for the most empathetic doctor, though. It's cultural.





kabbes said:


> I don’t know.  I perceive a certain “well it’s not so bad for me so how can it be bad for you?” attitude from some of them (on the occasions I have been in attendance)



Both of these can be true at once, and internalised misogyny is real.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 4, 2019)

kabbes said:


> What I don’t understand is that the female GPs are no better than the male GPs when it comes to women’s health.  I mean, in some ways they are better but in other ways they are worse.



Speaking purely for myself, I've always found women GPs far more understanding and empathetic when it comes to things like period pain, HRT, hormonal stuff, than men GPs.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I had one of them too when I was 15 and it hurt so much, and responded to pressure in such a way that the GP misdiagnosed it as appendicitis and I was rushed to the emergency room for an operation.
> 
> Afterward, as I woke up from the general anaesthetic, the (man) surgeon said "it was only a tiny cyst on your ovary. Must have been pushing against a nerve *shrug*"
> 
> ...


Yes, they thought I had appendicitis too from the way I was rolling around screaming. So painful and frightening.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 4, 2019)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I had one of them too when I was 15 and it hurt so much, and responded to pressure in such a way that the GP misdiagnosed it as appendicitis and I was rushed to the emergency room for an operation.
> 
> Afterward, as I woke up from the general anaesthetic, the (man) surgeon said "it was only a tiny cyst on your ovary. Must have been pushing against a nerve *shrug*"
> 
> ...



That's ridiculous - of the doctor, I mean, obvs. Small cysts don't usually cause pain just by being cysts, but they do when they burst. Having something burst inside your body is obviously going to hurt, isn't it?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 4, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It took me something like twenty-five years to be diagnosed. The first 10 years or so, before I had my daughter were fucking awful. Before I was 16 my GP didn't let me on the pill and it changed my life. The four years before that involved SO much bleeding and pain for more days of the month than not.
> 
> Can you imagine a world where men have a condition where their arm bleeds unstoppably for a week every month and it hurts, and then for some men it bleeds longer, and some of them bleed in other places and it's hugely painful? Even if it were women bleeding out of their arms in the same way, there would have been major steps taken to combat this from early times. But it's from women's genitals and that makes it bad.


Imagine it was bleeding from their dick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 4, 2019)

if men had periods, they would boast about how heavy their flow was


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 4, 2019)

I also wasn’t diagnosed until fertility treatment (38 or 39) I had two endometriomas removed, one was 8cm diameter, and the other 5.5cm.  I had to wait months for the surgery and then they forgot to refer me back to the fertility clinic. By the time I queried that, I was more or less forty, and too old to be treated.  

But I never realised my pain was unusual.  I never told a doctor.  Periods are supposed to hurt, I thought.  Bleeding through and ruining my pants and clothes was, I thought, me “doing it wrong”. I can’t blame the medical profession but I do wonder at how ready I was to accept it all as what I deserved, somehow.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 4, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I also wasn’t diagnosed until fertility treatment (38 or 39) I had two endometriomas removed, one was 8cm diameter, and the other 5.5cm.  I had to wait months for the surgery and then they forgot to refer me back to the fertility clinic. By the time I queried that, I was more or less forty, and too old to be treated.
> 
> But I never realised my pain was unusual.  I never told a doctor.  Periods are supposed to hurt, I thought.  Bleeding through and ruining my pants and clothes was, I thought, me “doing it wrong”. I can’t blame the medical profession but I do wonder at how ready I was to accept it all as what I deserved, somehow.


But you can! Well at least the acceptance that it’s normal. 
There was a conversation between women in an online women’s group I’m in the other day and one woman was complaining about really heavy painful periods and another one told her that wasn’t normal and that she didn’t experience that. First woman got a bit bristly and said well it was pretty normal for most women she knew. Second woman explained that it isn’t normal for periods to be so painful and debilitating and we should kick up a fuss and demand investigation if they are. 

I had never looked at it like that before - I’ve really just seen it through the lens of lucky/less lucky in terms of how shit your periods are. And that’s just wrong isn’t it?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 5, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> I also wasn’t diagnosed until fertility treatment (38 or 39) I had two endometriomas removed, one was 8cm diameter, and the other 5.5cm.  I had to wait months for the surgery and then they forgot to refer me back to the fertility clinic. By the time I queried that, I was more or less forty, and too old to be treated.
> 
> But I never realised my pain was unusual.  I never told a doctor.  Periods are supposed to hurt, I thought.  Bleeding through and ruining my pants and clothes was, I thought, me “doing it wrong”. I can’t blame the medical profession but I do wonder at how ready I was to accept it all as what I deserved, somehow.



Yeah. It's amazing how long women accept such long term pain and bleeding as so normal that we don't even ask for help with it. 

Though it would also be nice if the medical profession asked women about how their periods were going even if they're not on contraception, the same way they do reviews for other things that affect your health. It is a medical issue. You don't have to be diagnosed with "having periods" but it is something that affects your health.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 5, 2019)

trashpony said:


> I had never looked at it like that before - I’ve really just seen it through the lens of lucky/less lucky in terms of how shit your periods are. And that’s just wrong isn’t it?


Yes this is wrong - but we are socialised from an early age to put up and shut up. My mother (b1930) also taught me I should keep everything to do with periods and sanitary protection secret and never mention them to men. 

Talking about menstruation and gynae issues was part of feminist consciousness raising in the 80s. There were no books in the library about period pain. The number of women with awful periods made it sound 'normal'. Sounds like we still need to do more consciousness raising.


----------



## Manter (Dec 5, 2019)

Interestingly my mum is having cancer treatment at the moment and they are being (to me) surprisingly responsive about her side effects. They actively asked her about them and are changing her drugs (while she was doing a terribly female/British ‘well, I don’t want to make a fuss, it isn’t unbearable’). The person managing her care overall is a senior nurse practitioner, and I wonder if that makes the difference- she has a consultant as well, of course, but there is someone who is closer to the reality of illness driving some Of the decisions.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 5, 2019)

Manter said:


> Interestingly my mum is having cancer treatment at the moment and they are being (to me) surprisingly responsive about her side effects. They actively asked her about them and are changing her drugs (while she was doing a terribly female/British ‘well, I don’t want to make a fuss, it isn’t unbearable’). The person managing her care overall is a senior nurse practitioner, and I wonder if that makes the difference- she has a consultant as well, of course, but there is someone who is closer to the reality of illness driving some Of the decisions.



Senior Nurse Practitioners do seem to make a difference, IME, whether they're male or female. 

To follow up on what kabbes said, there are some women who dismiss "women's problems" more than men, because they assume that if they haven't had the problem, then anyone else is making it up. Some women do internalise misogyny to the extent that they can be worse than men. The vast majority of women who work in medicine aren't like that, but they are, obviously, more memorable.


----------



## JudithB (Dec 6, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> if men had periods, they would boast about how heavy their flow was


----------



## JudithB (Dec 6, 2019)

This is cool

Subscribe to read | Financial Times - ah there may be a paywall?


Caroline Criado Perez has won the 2019 Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award for Invisible Women, her examination of how designers and developers have perpetuated bias towards men in the data they use.


----------



## Manter (Dec 20, 2019)

JudithB said:


> This is cool
> 
> Subscribe to read | Financial Times - ah there may be a paywall?
> 
> ...


Gift link so people who don’t subscribe can read it Exposé of data gender bias wins FT/McKinsey book prize | Financial Times


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 20, 2019)

trashpony said:


> But you can! Well at least the acceptance that it’s normal.
> There was a conversation between women in an online women’s group I’m in the other day and one woman was complaining about really heavy painful periods and another one told her that wasn’t normal and that she didn’t experience that. First woman got a bit bristly and said well it was pretty normal for most women she knew. Second woman explained that it isn’t normal for periods to be so painful and debilitating and we should kick up a fuss and demand investigation if they are.
> 
> I had never looked at it like that before - I’ve really just seen it through the lens of lucky/less lucky in terms of how shit your periods are. And that’s just wrong isn’t it?




I’ve  been caught in this. My periods have never given me any trouble. I’ve had cramps and heavy blood flow and PMS symptoms on occasion, enough to give me a sense of what others suffer with, but not very often and never to the extent that it interferes with my life. And I’ve a always been able to track it back to something else and so resolve it.  Whenever I’ve tried to say “But I don’t need think I’m abnormal, I think periods shouldn’t be this difficult. Something is right with me, something isn’t right with you” , that conversation has been shut down, by the woman. I tried so many ways to approach it but in the end I gave up. I was accused of showing off, gloating, falling for the party line and pretending to myself, making it up, having a very high pain threshold or otherwise getting my parameters for “normal” muddled, being an outlier or odd in some way, even had my infertility given back to me as a reason for having simple periods. I’ve always felt that if I can have problem free periods, why don’t more women have easy periods? When I was in my teens I even felt left out of the the magic circle of my peers who were struggling.

Even writing this out makes me feel like I’m somehow saying the wrong thing. As if I’m showing off about how lucky I am or something.

So messed up.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 20, 2019)

It is messed up. I know though when my sister was having such heavy periods that she was passing out when she was a teenager, my mum took her to the doctor and he just shrugged and said some women's periods were like that and all he could do was put her on the pill. So she was on the pill from the time she was 13 

I'm like you - have had pretty easy periods my whole life and always felt a bit guilty about it. I'm really sorry someone said that to you about your infertility too SheilaNaGig - that's really cruel (and completely untrue).


----------



## kabbes (Dec 20, 2019)

My observation about the medical profession in general is that they mistake “problem” for “problem with a ready-made solution I can easily diagnose and prescribe for”.  So they’ll continuously be dismissive of issues that fit into the former category but not the latter.  If they don’t have a pill for it, it doesn’t exist.


----------



## Manter (Dec 20, 2019)

kabbes said:


> My observation about the medical profession in general is that they mistake “problem” for “problem with a ready-made solution I can easily diagnose and prescribe for”.  So they’ll continuously be dismissive of issues that fit into the former category but not the latter.  If they don’t have a pill for it, it doesn’t exist.


Yes. And pharmas aren’t great on diversity in R&D (it’s a huge area of focus) and historically have only tested on men because of the ‘pregnancy risk’.... and on the spiral goes


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 20, 2019)

Manter said:


> Interestingly my mum is having cancer treatment at the moment and they are being (to me) surprisingly responsive about her side effects. They actively asked her about them and are changing her drugs (while she was doing a terribly female/British ‘well, I don’t want to make a fuss, it isn’t unbearable’). The person managing her care overall is a senior nurse practitioner, and I wonder if that makes the difference- she has a consultant as well, of course, but there is someone who is closer to the reality of illness driving some Of the decisions.


I think there have been moves to try to be better about determining levels of pain, discomfort, distress etc, because the standard model has repeatedly proved to be basically just awful and prone to all sorts of bias. There is a huge racial element too for instance - not sure about studies in the U.K. but in the US, black people routinely have their pain downplayed (if you are black and a woman you're really in trouble) and an added point is that if you are in a group like this and you _do_ speak up, you're seen as a malinger and exaggerating.

How far this has spread in practical terms is a different matter of course.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 20, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think there have been moves to try to be better about determining levels of pain, discomfort, distress etc, because the standard model has repeatedly proved to be basically just awful and prone to all sorts of bias. There is a huge racial element too for instance - not sure about studies in the U.K. but in the US, black people routinely have their pain downplayed (if you are black and a woman you're really in trouble) and an added point is that if you are in a group like this and you _do_ speak up, you're seen as a malinger and exaggerating.


 There was a small study here in the UK about carribean / african people with terminal cancer. (Kings College Hospital 15 or 20 years ago I think) It showed they were given less pain relief less often than white british patients.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 26, 2019)

I have a benign tumour in my right breast which causes terrible pain. It's thought that it sits on the nerve. Sometimes the pain s so bad it makesmecry, and I say that as someone who at the point of diagnosis had had chronic pain for over 20 years. 

The female consultants I saw watched me cry and did nothing other than say 'that type of lump' does not cause pain. I eventually got referred to a pain management clinic and they prescribed some things that have helped.

And a quick search of various medical papers revealed yes, the type of lump' I have can cause pain.

I had to fight to get heard, when I really didn't have much in the way of resources to fight with. Ironically, my male GP took one look at me and doubled my pain meds.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 26, 2019)

I’m sorry to hear that, eq.  I hope your pain medication is at at least somewhat effective for you.


----------



## kalidarkone (Dec 26, 2019)

I have come to realise that women having gynae procedures and operations are not always given enough information to be able to make an informed choice.

Prior to my hysterectomy in 2011 I just did what came naturally which was to research all my options given I had a very large fibroid that was rendering me anaemic and meant I had no quality of life as I was constantly bleeding. I had an advantage as I was a student midwife and had access to UWE health and social science library where I was able to research and compose a list of questions for my consultant -who was honestly surprised and impressed that I a fat black woman would have the foresight and the ingenuity  to do such a thing 
So I told them I wanted a sub total hysterectomy - why would I want my ovaries, and cervix taken if I don't need them taken? The Cervix is important for sex and why would I want to go into medical menopause by having my ovaries removed?
So I got what I needed and asked for-and they all thought I was very unusual for asserting myself ...
Since then I have realised that they don't ask women. I niaevely assumed that as they were removing a part of your body that they would. I was only alerted to this by meeting other women going through similar gynae issues who were not researching their condition and had a  total hysterectomy performed despite there being no justification for this-for cancer yes. For a flipping fibroid -really ?

What is worse is that there are a lot of female consultants maintaining the patriarchal culture that is dominant in women's health care.


----------



## campanula (Dec 28, 2019)

After my second child, a botched Caesarian (stitched up my ureter), it took 7 days of increasing pain (as urine backed up into my bloated kidney) before action was (reluctantly) taken...and only at the point where I was literally speechless on the floor attempting to sink my teeth into the consultant's ankle.  7 days of being treated as a hysterical malingerer (this was my 2nd C-section, I well knew this was all wrong). After the revealing, middle of the night X-rays, a culture of silence and secrecy still prevailed...and a lifetime of distrust  for my part...not helped by being a wc women with dependancy issues.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Dec 28, 2019)

I haven't read the whole thread, and I note that recent posts have been more about gynae issues* but there's actually thing known as Yentl Syndrome, about how women die due to misdiagnosis because the most commonly known symptoms of a heart attack relate to how it usually presents in men, and the symptoms experienced by women can be different, leading to a failure to diagnose a fatal heart attack:

Yentl Syndrome - Wikipedia

*In my mid-twenties I experienced months and months of progressively more painful periods and heavy bleeding, and my (male) GP seemingly wrote it off as 'You're a woman, you have periods, you have period pain' *shrugs*

He prescribed mefanamic acid at one point, but that didn't work. 

After about a year, of me being fobbed off, my then-bf insisted on coming to the doctor with me, after I'd spent a week off work, rolling around in agony in bed, taking the maximum number of painkillers during the day/early evening, and then opening a bottle of wine to get drunk and dull my senses/the pain.

I was referred for an exploratory laparoscopy and it turned out I'd had pelvic inflammatory disease and had scarring/adhesions, including on my fallopian tubes.

I don't know at what point my GP would've referred me, if at all, if it hadn't been for my bf insisting.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Dec 28, 2019)

Historically, though, women have been dismissed as 'hysterical', symptoms not taken seriously and/or institutionalised, being... I was going to say perceived, but it's more like judged, to be emotional and/or exaggerating when in any kind of pain.


----------



## Poot (Dec 28, 2019)

Not being believed is the killer. The midwife wouldn't believe that I was in labour with my second child until she arrived because I 'wasn't making enough fuss'. Despite me saying 'I've been in labour before! And I'm in labour!'

On the other hand my periods have mostly left me utterly broadsided with pain and I suspect I've always had endometriosis but was fobbed off every single time. It is a bit like being a cow going to market sometimes. As long as outwardly you look okay no one cares.


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2019)

My wife had a coil fitted, but, unbeknownst to anyone, they punctured her womb, such that it was floating in her abdomen (where it could've easily caused untold damage).  She was obviously in a lot of pain (bear in mind I'd seen her give birth twice, both without drugs, and the second before the midwife arrived, with no complaint whatsoever).  I took her to the walk-in GP at the hospital, and they were ridiculously dismissive.  In the end I took her took A&E and refused to be fobbed off, and insisted on an xray.  Lo and behold they found the UID, and immediately carried out emergency surgery.  But it had been a fucking struggle to get anyone to take it seriously, and I think if I hadn't have been there it wouldn't have happened at all. Meantime, the medical establishment (including, sadly, female doctors and nurses) was fawning over drunk (male, as if it needs saying) pricks coming in with e.g. broken hands from fighting.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 29, 2019)

Athos said:


> My wife had a coil fitted, but, unbeknownst to anyone, they punctured her womb, such that it was floating in her abdomen (where it could've easily caused untold damage).  She was obviously in a lot of pain (bear in mind I'd seen her give birth twice, both without drugs, and the second before the midwife arrived, with no complaint whatsoever).  I took her to the walk-in GP at the hospital, and they were ridiculously dismissive.  In the end I took her took A&E and refused to be fobbed off, and insisted on an xray.  Lo and behold they found the UID, and immediately carried out emergency surgery.  But it had been a fucking struggle to get anyone to take it seriously, and I think if I hadn't have been there it wouldn't have happened at all.* Meantime, the medical establishment (including, sadly, female doctors and nurses) was fawning over drunk (male, as if it needs saying) pricks coming in with e.g. broken hands from fighting.*


Sorry to hear about your wife's experience. That sounds awful, and awful that she needed you to stand up for her before something was done. 
WRT the bit in bold, just wondering if the drunk fighty males (and their mates) might represent more of a threat to A&E staff than other patients and whether that's why they are given special treatment, or whether it's because blokes in general tend to be taken more seriously?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Dec 29, 2019)

If thats the case, that"s "the threat of male violence" part of the patriarchy.

Oh such choices we have! Which way shall I be oppressed today...?!


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 29, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> If thats the case, that"s "the threat of male violence" part of the patriarchy.
> 
> Oh such choices we have! Which way shall I be oppressed today...?!


Quite.


----------



## Manter (Dec 29, 2019)

Athos said:


> My wife had a coil fitted, but, unbeknownst to anyone, they punctured her womb, such that it was floating in her abdomen (where it could've easily caused untold damage).  She was obviously in a lot of pain (bear in mind I'd seen her give birth twice, both without drugs, and the second before the midwife arrived, with no complaint whatsoever).  I took her to the walk-in GP at the hospital, and they were ridiculously dismissive.  In the end I took her took A&E and refused to be fobbed off, and insisted on an xray.  Lo and behold they found the UID, and immediately carried out emergency surgery.  But it had been a fucking struggle to get anyone to take it seriously, and I think if I hadn't have been there it wouldn't have happened at all. Meantime, the medical establishment (including, sadly, female doctors and nurses) was fawning over drunk (male, as if it needs saying) pricks coming in with e.g. broken hands from fighting.


Fucking hell Athos! Am wincing in sympathy,... 

Ow ow ow


----------



## Edie (Dec 29, 2019)

Athos said:


> My wife had a coil fitted, but, unbeknownst to anyone, they punctured her womb, such that it was floating in her abdomen (where it could've easily caused untold damage).  She was obviously in a lot of pain (bear in mind I'd seen her give birth twice, both without drugs, and the second before the midwife arrived, with no complaint whatsoever).  I took her to the walk-in GP at the hospital, and they were ridiculously dismissive.  In the end I took her took A&E and refused to be fobbed off, and insisted on an xray.  Lo and behold they found the UID, and immediately carried out emergency surgery.  But it had been a fucking struggle to get anyone to take it seriously, and I think if I hadn't have been there it wouldn't have happened at all. Meantime, the medical establishment (including, sadly, female doctors and nurses) was fawning over drunk (male, as if it needs saying) pricks coming in with e.g. broken hands from fighting.


Fucking HELL. a) your wife sounds nails and b) thank God you said what needed saying and c) how infuriating it takes a male voice to be heard.

Get well soon Mrs Athos


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2019)

bluescreen said:


> ... males (and their mates) might represent more of a threat to A&E staff than other patients and whether that's why they are given special treatment, or whether it's because blokes in general tend to be taken more seriously?



I don't think it's an either/or.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 29, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't think it's an either/or.


QFT


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2019)

Manter said:


> Fucking hell Athos! Am wincing in sympathy,...
> 
> Ow ow ow



The pain was one thing, but the worst was their casual attitude to the very real risk of it puncturing something.  When they found it, it was poking the bladder.


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2019)

Edie said:


> Fucking HELL. a) your wife sounds nails and b) thank God you said what needed saying and c) how infuriating it takes a male voice to be heard.
> 
> Get well soon Mrs Athos



It was a while ago; she's fine, now.  And, yes,  she's nails (whilst still being the kindest person I know).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 18, 2020)

newbie said:


> That's the programme.  I tried the translation- google gave a choice, one with both she, the other both he.  So it's not all software, what was cited was an example of bad practice.  I wonder to what extent the other examples reflect the current state of AI- after all facial recognition software that doesn't recognise black faces is failing dismally to do its job properly, as is job finder software that ignores women applicants which is clearly not going to always get the best candidate.
> 
> I was more struck by the point that by default services like Alexa and Siri- which users boss around- are identifiable as female while satnav- which instructs the user- has a male voice.  The underlying assumptions there are pretty clear, as soon as someone points them out.


Every satnav I've has had a female voice.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 18, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Every satnav I've has had a female voice.


Meetoo


----------



## scifisam (Jan 18, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Every satnav I've has had a female voice.



They always have both male and female voice options.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 23, 2020)

Interesting interview on R4 Women's hour this morning. Think they said 77% of NHS staff are female yet ppe, scrubs & gowns are still designed for men. It is described as 'unisex ' but if smaller sizes are available they are small male sized & not small enough.   It's a particular problem with masks. Routinely suitable sizes are not available.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 23, 2020)

Seems pretty well established that default human = default man. Wonder how that change, if ever.  Not in my lifetime.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2020)

mango5 said:


> Seems pretty well established that default human = default man. Wonder how that change, if ever.  Not in my lifetime.


It won't happen if we don't all highlight it and kick up a fuss. Then keep kicking up a fuss.

Let's not be so defeatist.  I never thought we would get rid of the Berlin wall or acheive LGBT equality laws in my lifetime. It's amazing what can happen if enough people protest for long enough.

Naming the problem is a start. Then raising it as an issue when ever we see it, especially at work. Over and over. Bit like banging your head against a brick wall.


----------



## Poot (Apr 24, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> It won't happen if we don't all highlight it and kick up a fuss. Then keep kicking up a fuss.
> 
> Let's not be so defeatist.  I never thought we would get rid of the Berlin wall or acheive LGBT equality laws in my lifetime. It's amazing what can happen if enough people protest for long enough.
> 
> Naming the problem is a start. Then raising it as an issue when ever we see it, especially at work. Over and over. Bit like banging your head against a brick wall.


I think the people for whom the PPE is too male are probably far too busy to protest at the moment. I wonder whether there is anything we can do.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 24, 2020)

Poot said:


> I think the people for whom the PPE is too male are probably far too busy to protest at the moment. I wonder whether there is anything we can do.


We can highlight the issue,  talk about it, share it on line. Write to our MPs? We can help make it a big issue, so that those who are responsible for buying, supplying, making and designing ppe have to do something.    I don't imagine we can do much to change it in time to help during the lockdown, but it will still be needed afterwards.


----------



## LDC (Apr 24, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Interesting interview on R4 Women's hour this morning. Think they said 77% of NHS staff are female yet ppe, scrubs & gowns are still designed for men. It is described as 'unisex ' but if smaller sizes are available they are small male sized & not small enough.   It's a particular problem with masks. Routinely suitable sizes are not available.



Sorry to chime in here as I haven't been contributing on the thread, but yeah that's common in other areas of medical wear too. The green uniforms ambulance staff wear come in sizes for males like up to XXXXXXXL, yet the female ones are restricted to a pathetically small range of XXS-XL or something. A few women I know have had to pay for their uniform to be tailored so they don't look like they're wearing a sack.


----------



## Poot (Apr 24, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Sorry to chime in here as I haven't not been on the thread, but yeah that's common in other areas of medical wear too. The green uniforms ambulance staff wear come in sizes for males like up to XXXXXXXL, yet the female ones are restricted to a pathetically small range of XXS-XL or something. A few women I know have had to pay for their uniform to be tailored so they don't look like they're wearing a sack.


People are struggling so much with all kinds of PPE and uniform at the moment, aren't they. That is interesting, though. The website for my work uniform has two sections - 'work clothes' and 'women's work clothes'. There are about 3 items in the women's bit. It's quite tiresome being an afterthought all the time but I'm not out saving lives everyday, where it's much more troubling.


----------



## mango5 (Apr 24, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Let's not be so defeatist.....
> 
> Naming the problem is a start. Then raising it as an issue when ever we see it, especially at work. Over and over. Bit like banging your head against a brick wall.


I don't think I'm being defeatist. I think I'm acknowledging the ubiquitous and huge scale of the problem not suggesting that nothing useful can be done.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 24, 2020)

Piece about it in the Guardian today:









						Sexism on the Covid-19 frontline: 'PPE is made for a 6ft 3in rugby player'
					

Health professionals, experts and unions say poorly fitting equipment is risking lives of female workers




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Boudicca (Apr 24, 2020)

The 'For the Love of Scrubs' lot have picked this up and have been commenting there isn't enough room in the crotch and redrafting the trouser patterns for more womanly bodies.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Interesting interview on R4 Women's hour this morning. Think they said 77% of NHS staff are female yet ppe, scrubs & gowns are still designed for men. It is described as 'unisex ' but if smaller sizes are available they are small male sized & not small enough.   It's a particular problem with masks. Routinely suitable sizes are not available.


It's the same for PPE in industry. I got a mild case of arc eye during welding as the protective visor kept slipping off my head. The smallest gloves were massively too big and the overalls were too long in the leg and stupidly loose in the waist yet not overly generous in the bust because they're man shaped. My safety shoes had to be special ordered as the smallest offered routinely was a size 6.

At my last company, everything had to be special ordered for women engineers as nothing that fit women properly was kept in stock in stores. Even fleeces and polo shirts available to all staff were men sized and shaped.

In my experience women don't want pink PPE or tools. They just want the same stuff as men that's properly sized.


----------



## Sue (Apr 24, 2020)

When I joined my company, we all got given a t shirt. I asked for a medium and of course it was a man's medium so huge. (Technology company so of course it's all only men who're going to work there. )  A female colleague raised it and it was seen as a very weird thing to be bothered about (her point was about the inherent bias in their assumptions but I don't think they got the point at all). And I also don't think they got that it's yet another minor thing that says you're not really welcome.

Obviously not in the same universe as PPE being the wrong size but shows it's just not even thought of/seen as being a thing to even vaguely consider.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2020)

Sue said:


> When I joined my company, we all got given a t shirt. I asked for a medium and of course it was a man's medium so huge. (Technology company so of course it's all only men who're going to work there. )  A female colleague raised it and it was seen as a very weird thing to be bothered about (her point was about the inherent bias in their assumptions but I don't think they got the point at all). And I also don't think they got that it's yet another minor thing that says you're not really welcome.
> 
> Obviously not in the same universe as PPE being the wrong size but shows it's just not even thought of/seen as being a thing to even vaguely consider.


I think it is the same universe, Sue, as both situations demonstrate inherent bias and a complete indifference when the problem is raised. I said on another thread sometimes you just can't be arsed having the same fight yet again.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 26, 2020)

mango5 said:


> I don't think I'm being defeatist. I think I'm acknowledging the ubiquitous and huge scale of the problem not suggesting that nothing useful can be done.


My sudden optismistic enthusiam didn't last long, I've gone back to feeling weighed down by it all again.  

Bosses think its not impartant even trivial. Again and again women 'put up with it' 'don't like to make a fuss' and find their concerns and complaints fall on deaf ears.


----------



## chainsawjob (Apr 27, 2020)

Don't even get me started on some of the outsize hi-vis's I've had to wear  I know not in the same ballpark as other PPE, but it would be nice if they didn't just slip off at the shoulders through being so huge. Luckily I'm a size 8 in footwear, so getting steelies hasn't been such an issue equationgirl, but yeah, smaller sizes are often not in the repertoire. Sigh. PPE really needs to fit to be effective (stating the bleedin' obvious I know), luckily the chainsaw PPE I had was actually a good fit, even though I inherited it from a bloke, he was about my size.


----------



## chainsawjob (Apr 27, 2020)

Sorry it's dragging you down again friendofdorothy


----------



## TopCat (Apr 27, 2020)

chainsawjob said:


> Don't even get me started on some of the outsize hi-vis's I've had to wear  I know not in the same ballpark as other PPE, but it would be nice if they didn't just slip off at the shoulders through being so huge. Luckily I'm a size 8 in footwear, so getting steelies hasn't been such an issue equationgirl, but yeah, smaller sizes are often not in the repertoire. Sigh. PPE really needs to fit to be effective (stating the bleedin' obvious I know), luckily the chainsaw PPE I had was actually a good fit, even though I inherited it from a bloke, he was about my size.


I used to organise uniform orders that included PPE for a largely woman workforce. High viz tabards were straightforward to source, ones that fitted and what the staff wanted. I let them choose from a range of samples. More interesting was safety shoes. Many of the staff had to use a wheelchair lift for clients to get them on and off buses. It was a high risk activity mitigated by the wearing of safety shoes. Problem was many of the shoes in the right sizes were clumpy and horrible, no style at ll. But I found with research that there are many many styles of safety shoe for women available. Ring the supplier, lend me a pair of each type and let the staff decide what they want. They had (non slip) heels and all sorts. People were chuffed and wore them.


----------



## chainsawjob (Apr 27, 2020)

Yeah, I know it exists, and it's possible to get hold of, it's the _it not being thought of, and the default sizing being 'male'/larger_ that's the issue here. If the default sizing were 'female'/smaller sizes, larger people (statistically mostly men) would complain too.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2020)

TopCat said:


> I used to organise uniform orders that included PPE for a largely woman workforce. High viz tabards were straightforward to source, ones that fitted and what the staff wanted. I let them choose from a range of samples. More interesting was safety shoes. Many of the staff had to use a wheelchair lift for clients to get them on and off buses. It was a high risk activity mitigated by the wearing of safety shoes. Problem was many of the shoes in the right sizes were clumpy and horrible, no style at ll. But I found with research that there are many many styles of safety shoe for women available. Ring the supplier, lend me a pair of each type and let the staff decide what they want. They had (non slip) heels and all sorts. People were chuffed and wore them.


That's good, but they should be as standard as the men's. They shouldn't require a special order. That's really the point. Women aren't special cases, we can't always wear the same style as men because our feet and gait are different, but that should be common knowledge.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 27, 2020)

Exactly, it's the whole 'if I were a man I could walk down to stores and get a new set of overalls, but as a woman I have to special order things which takes a week or more' thing. Why should I have to wait for PPE? Men don't. 

TopCat it's good that you made an effort to source decent PPE for everyone, but in my experience you are very much the exception not the rule.


----------



## Poot (Apr 27, 2020)

Yep. It's good that you did it topcat but you shouldn't have to.

This is my go-to website, for example. Greenham Site | Homepage

What you see is that there are - for example - trousers, and then there are women's trousers. Male is the default. If this is always the case with PPE then it's not much of a leap to see why only male face masks are ordered by those in charge. And that the 75% of key health workers who aren't male end up putting their lives at risk. This is the culture that needs to change.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 29, 2020)

Found this thread interesting.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 29, 2020)

The BBC have a big article today about the lack of well-fitting PPE for women in the NHS. I bet some NHS have been talking about it for years...


----------



## kabbes (May 2, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> Found this thread interesting.



To be fair, that guy could really be anything from 35 to 65.  We age him because he’s bald but remove that and he’s quite indeterminate. And to me, she looks anything from about 30 to 50.  In modern terms, we tend to assume 25-40 years for the age difference between father and daughter and those two do not look anything like that different in ages.  When you’re reminded that it’s from another era, you can mentally adjust but this requires conscious effort.

To me, he looks about 5-10 years older than her.  Then again, I am appalling at guessing ages.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 2, 2020)

kabbes said:


> To be fair, that guy could really be anything from 35 to 65.  We age him because he’s bald but remove that and he’s quite indeterminate. And to me, she looks anything from about 30 to 50.  In modern terms, we tend to assume 25-40 years for the age difference between father and daughter and those two do not look anything like that different in ages.  When you’re reminded that it’s from another era, you can mentally adjust but this requires conscious effort.
> 
> To me, he looks about 5-10 years older than her.  Then again, I am appalling at guessing ages.




That's the problem conflating art and reality. 

Art is also influenced by society, and what I find most interesting about learning the history of this painting are how few wrinkles this supposed old man has, and how many frown lines by comparison, the young woman has. 

One wonders, does this reflect reality, where the burden of a man's life is passed on to his daughters, or is it reflecting culture, where women serious, powerful young women are depected as "old".


----------



## Cloo (May 19, 2020)

Read 'Invisible Women' last week and at the end, which has a large section about disaster response and how badly women come out of that usually, I was certain this government will commit every fucking error she discusses in the book. Women's invisible labour is going to factor approximately nowhere in recovery plans and the need for childcare will be an afterthought, not a bedrock that it should be (for both men and women). I fear the outcomes could really set women back -  as well as minority groups for all the same reasons of non-consultation and positioning as 'non-people'. And no one's going to think about women - the only women in the Tory hierarchy, as my husband has pointed out, are ones who get there by acting and thinking like men (and thinking for men to get their approval and to prove they're not shrill and whingey like those other women)


----------



## Santino (May 30, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> Found this thread interesting.



The pendant around the woman's neck has a picture of Persephone, which would make the man Hades, bearing a trident as underworld figures often do. And which would explain their funereal presentation.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 19, 2020)

Heard lots about the inequity of pensions lately. How most govt tax relief goes to men.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 19, 2020)

Also not one, but three medical scandals in the news lately that badly effect women. 
Will look for links when I had time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2020)

..


----------



## Poot (Jul 19, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Also not one, but three medical scandals in the news lately that badly effect women.
> Will look for links when I had time.


I don't know whether this was one of them, but it was quite interesting. Especially the bit about Republicans v Democrats:

Why men are less likely to wear face masks


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 19, 2020)

No nothing to do with fragile male egos. I meant actual medical scandals - women disabled by treatment and drugs causing birth defects. These things have gone on for years and women in pain not being listened to,  these things being seen as 'women's problems'.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 19, 2020)

Denial of women's concerns contributed to decades of medical scandals, says inquiry
					

Review into vaginal mesh and other products reveals much patient harm was ‘avoidable’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 19, 2020)

You would think that after the thalidomide scandal things would have changed. Big pharma has a lot to answer for.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2022)

bump - just came across this article. Its not new - but very relevant to this thread









						Google Has a Striking History of Bias Against Black Girls
					

From linking girls with porn to characterizing hairstyles as 'unprofessional'




					time.com


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> bump - just came across this article. Its not new - but very relevant to this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems difficult for Google in a way.  Like these algorithms are doing what they do just fine in terms of pulling connected ideas together, and so they're going to unearth all sorts of ugly stuff in the culture.
If you mess with the algorithms a lot, your algorithms become less useful.

tl;dr - it's the culture, not the algorithm
imo

obv fixing the algorithm will be easier than the culture, but that's like not treating your lung cancer until it starts making your CT scans look ugly


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2022)

8ball said:


> Seems difficult for Google in a way.  Like these algorithms are doing what they do just fine in terms of pulling connected ideas together, and so they're going to unearth all sorts of ugly stuff in the culture.
> If you mess with the algorithms a lot, your algorithms become less useful.
> 
> tl;dr - it's the culture, not the algorithm
> ...


so dont you think the culture of the people who run google and write the algorithms plays a part?


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> so dont you think the culture of the people who run google and write the algorithms plays a part?



I don't know, but I think it's more likely they are using algorithms that pull out what is there based on statistical associations in what is trawled up from the internet.
Ie. maybe the associations are a reasonably unbiased picture of the data, which is a dataset produced by a culture with problems.

Maybe the algorithm is just telling us what we don’t want to hear about ourselves.

Not saying that’s the _only_ thing happening, esp. when advertising comes into it, just that when you point powerful algorithms at a massive bank of human culture, it seems reasonable to expect that it will flag up some uncomfortable truths.


----------



## BristolEcho (May 30, 2022)

There was a debate on women's health in the Welsh Assembly the other day. I came across it randomly and thought Sioned Williams made some really great points especially the disparity in research and general lack of understanding.   Thought the labour person was a bit defensive to be honest, but couldn't finish bit all.

Found a link on here. Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament, Women's Health Debate: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00182m4


----------



## Dystopiary (May 30, 2022)

If you look for men's utility trousers under "workwear" on ebay, nearly all the results that come up are relevant. 
If you look for women's utility trousers under "workwear" on ebay, you get joggers, shorts, yoga pants, leggings, and a few cargo-style that aren't that practical.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 30, 2022)

Cloo said:


> Read 'Invisible Women' last week and at the end, which has a large section about disaster response and how badly women come out of that usually, I was certain this government will commit every fucking error she discusses in the book. Women's invisible labour is going to factor approximately nowhere in recovery plans and the need for childcare will be an afterthought, not a bedrock that it should be (for both men and women). I fear the outcomes could really set women back -  as well as minority groups for all the same reasons of non-consultation and positioning as 'non-people'. And no one's going to think about women - the only women in the Tory hierarchy, as my husband has pointed out, are ones who get there by acting and thinking like men (and thinking for men to get their approval and to prove they're not shrill and whingey like those other women)


Very prescient.


----------



## Cloo (May 31, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> so dont you think the culture of the people who run google and write the algorithms plays a part?


I do think they have a responsibility to consider 'Where could our algorithm reinforce negative societal ideas?' and to try to do something about it.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 31, 2022)

. dp


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 31, 2022)

Cloo said:


> I do think they have a responsibility to consider 'Where could our algorithm reinforce negative societal ideas?' and to try to do something about it.


I do wonder what their recruitment algorithms are doing too. No wonder women and people of colour are under represented in there workforce.


----------



## Cloo (May 31, 2022)

There's a good Netflix docco,  'Coded bias' about race and algorithms


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 31, 2022)

Here's a way that the world is designed for men... literally.  I've been looking for road bike in the 24" size.  None of the bikes out there come in that size.  I've been to several shops, and no one carries it, let alone in a road bike.  All they will show me is 26" bikes and those are too big for me.  The last guy I checked with said, "Oh, you don't want that size bike.  Those are only for kids."  Well, I've seen the 10-year-olds they're producing, and they're mostly bigger than me.  I took a 26" bike out of the rack and got on it and it was way too big.  I couldn't get my toes on the ground.  I asked if I could special order one.  He said, "I suppose you could do that" and proceeded to ignore me.  I thanked him for his time and left.  So, not only can't I find what I want, I have to be patronized in the process of looking.

Don't get me started on how tools are designed.


----------



## weepiper (May 31, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Here's a way that the world is designed for men... literally.  I've been looking for road bike in the 24" size.  None of the bikes out there come in that size.  I've been to several shops, and no one carries that size, let alone in the road bike.  All they will show me is 26" bikes and those are too big for me.  The last guy I checked with say "Oh, you don't want that size bike.  Those are only for kids."  Well, I've seen the 10-year-olds they've producing now, and they're mostly bigger than me.  I took a 26" bike out of the rack and got on it and it was way too big.  I couldn't get me toes on the ground.  I asked if I could special order one.  He said, "I suppose you could do that" and proceeded to ignore me.  I thanked him for his time and left.  So, not only can't I find what I want, I have to be patronized in the process.
> 
> Don't get me started on how tools are designed.


I don't know if they'll ship to where you are (email them and ask?) but have a look at Islabikes. Or if not, find a shop that sells Liv bikes (Liv is a division of Giant which has an all female design team)









						Adult multi-purpose bikes
					

Islabikes lightweight Beinn 29 and Joni adult bikes.




					www.islabikes.co.uk


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 31, 2022)

weepiper said:


> I don't know if they'll ship to where you are (email them and ask?) but have a look at Islabikes. Or if not, find a shop that sells Liv bikes (Liv is a division of Giant which has an all female design team)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks!  I'll check it out.  I may have to have them ship me a bike and then have it tuned up locally.

<edited to add>
A quick look at their website sizing page tells me that I'm in the XS range.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 31, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Here's a way that the world is designed for men... literally.  I've been looking for road bike in the 24" size.  None of the bikes out there come in that size.  I've been to several shops, and no one carries it, let alone in a road bike.  All they will show me is 26" bikes and those are too big for me.  The last guy I checked with said, "Oh, you don't want that size bike.  Those are only for kids."  Well, I've seen the 10-year-olds they're producing, and they're mostly bigger than me.  I took a 26" bike out of the rack and got on it and it was way too big.  I couldn't get my toes on the ground.  I asked if I could special order one.  He said, "I suppose you could do that" and proceeded to ignore me.  I thanked him for his time and left.  So, not only can't I find what I want, I have to be patronized in the process of looking.


So there's either a gap in the market or it's too niche to produce. I don't think patriarchs are dictating what factories should produce.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 31, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So there's either a gap in the market or it's too niche to produce. I don't think patriarchs are dictating what factories should produce.



You're really missing the point here.  It's not that some patriarch is dictating what's produced.  Its that no thought is given to your needs in design, which may be different.  I see a lot of women riding bikes that aren't sized correctly.  That's a safety hazard, as well as uncomfortable.  I've been riding a 26" bike and it just isn't suitable.  They are discouraging their own market development with bad design, and snotty salespeople who don't care that your needs are different.

<edited to add>
They haven't even put enough thought into it to do the stereotypical "shrink it and pink it."


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2022)

“Shrink it and pink it” - that’s a good phrase.

I disagree with Magnus’ idea that the market would naturally shed its biases in the name of profit.

Everyone has blind spots until somebody doesn’t.

It happened with car insurance..


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 31, 2022)

I just can't believe there isn't a market for it.  I looked it up and there's 54 million bike riders in the US.  25% are adult women.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 1, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> You're really missing the point here.  It's not that some patriarch is dictating what's produced.  Its that no thought is given to your needs in design, which may be different.  I see a lot of women riding bikes that aren't sized correctly.  That's a safety hazard, as well as uncomfortable.  I've been riding a 26" bike and it just isn't suitable.  They are discouraging their own market development with bad design, and snotty salespeople who don't care that your needs are different.
> 
> <edited to add>
> They haven't even put enough thought into it to do the stereotypical "shrink it and pink it."



It's true also that there's a gap in the market, but it's not being filled because the people designing bikes - or at least the people paying for that - don't really consider women (or shorter people overall) a gap that they _want_ to sell to. It's still a pretty macho culture and even people who are purely out to make money do not always make rational decisions.

And then you get low sales of 24" bikes because women who need a bike like that don't get a chance to practice on bikes they can ride comfortably, so don't get used to riding often enough to want to buy bikes, etc, etc.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> I do wonder what their recruitment algorithms are doing too. No wonder women and people of colour are under represented in there workforce.



I’m not sure whether or to what extent they use algorithms for recruitment.
The fact is, though, that if black women are disproportionately being considered to have “unprofessional hairstyles”, then the algorithm is likely to flag it <talking about two different algorithms here though, or anyway I take it that's what you meant>.

I don’t think tweaking the search algorithm to pretend it doesn’t make these connections is the right way to go.  I think the algorithm is doing something valuable - otherwise we are relying on the media to decide it is profitable to raise such issues.

There are people who would very much like the algorithms to pretend we have achieved equality and everything is fine.

I would be more scared of a Google that told us that racism, sexism or class didn’t exist.


----------



## Santino (Jun 1, 2022)

8ball said:


> I’m not sure whether or to what extent they use algorithms for recruitment.
> The fact is, though, that if black women are disproportionately being considered to have “unprofessional hairstyles”, then the algorithm is likely to flag it.
> 
> I don’t think tweaking the algorithm to pretend it doesn’t make these connections is the right way to go.  I think the algorithm is doing something valuable - otherwise we are relying on the media to decide it is profitable to raise such issues.
> ...


What the fuck are you on about and why are you so desperate to undermine women?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 1, 2022)

Santino said:


> What the fuck are you on about and why are you so desperate to undermine women?



Wow, that's batshit even for you.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

Santino said:


> What the fuck are you on about and why are you so desperate to undermine women?



That's not what he's saying at all, seems pretty obvious to me that 8ball is saying that the algorithms reflect and reproduce the prejudices already present in society. Tweaking the algorithms to hide that isn't going to address those prejudices, it would merely bury them.


----------



## Santino (Jun 1, 2022)

NoXion said:


> That's not what he's saying at all, seems pretty obvious to me that 8ball is saying that the algorithms reflect and reproduce the prejudices already present in society. Tweaking the algorithms to hide that isn't going to address those prejudices, it would merely bury them.


So in a way, the algorithm writers are heroes?


----------



## NoXion (Jun 1, 2022)

Santino said:


> So in a way, the algorithm writers are heroes?



No. You're clearly looking for some kind of scrap for some daft fucking reason. I shan't bother with you any more.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 2, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So there's either a gap in the market or it's too niche to produce. I don't think patriarchs are dictating what factories should produce.


50 percent of people are female and a good preportion of them are smaller than the average man. That is not a niche market. 

Who decides what to make? what to sell?  How many top designers/ sales people/ factory owners are male or female?  I wonder if the same shop also had a lack of bikes suitable for the extra tall customer? 

and why would a sales person ingore a female customer like that? I imagine its same reason male plumbers/ engineers etc talk down to female customers. Don't say it doesnt happen.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> 50 percent of people are female and a good preportion of them are smaller than the average man. That is not a niche market.
> 
> Who decides what to make? what to sell?  How many top designers/ sales people/ factory owners are male or female?  I wonder if the same shop also had a lack of bikes suitable for the extra tall customer?
> 
> and why would a sales person ingore a female customer like that? I imagine its same reason male plumbers/ engineers etc talk down to female customers. Don't say it doesnt happen.



I agree completely. What I struggled to bend my head around was that the market wasn’t being catered for by those who will fill gaps for profit. 
They’re not bothered by who they’re selling to if it brings the dosh in.


----------



## Sue (Jun 2, 2022)

Dismissal of women’s health problems as ‘benign’ leading to soaring NHS lists
					

Exclusive: Gender bias means debilitating gynaecological conditions are played down, says RCOG president




					www.theguardian.com
				




I can't say I'm massively surprised by this but it's enraging all the same.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 2, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> 50 percent of people are female and a good preportion of them are smaller than the average man. That is not a niche market.
> 
> Who decides what to make? what to sell?  How many top designers/ sales people/ factory owners are male or female?  I wonder if the same shop also had a lack of bikes suitable for the extra tall customer?
> 
> and why would a sales person ingore a female customer like that? I imagine its same reason male plumbers/ engineers etc talk down to female customers. Don't say it doesnt happen.


A really regular occurrence in the bike shop that I work in is a woman either phoning or coming in with a question and either they are incredibly relieved because they get me (a woman) or they get one of the guys, who then treats them like any other customer as opposed to like some kind of idiot because they happen to be female. You can literally hear the anxiety as they ask whatever question it is and then the relief that they're not being humiliated when the mechanic is polite and friendly. It happens so often that it makes me wonder what the other bike shops are doing 👎


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Sue said:


> Dismissal of women’s health problems as ‘benign’ leading to soaring NHS lists
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Gender bias means debilitating gynaecological conditions are played down, says RCOG president
> ...



Yeah, this use of 'benign' is really not good, especially when there are plenty of 'benign' conditions (not just "not cancer" but ones where the condition is labelled as "benign" in all the medical literature) that can still be lethal.  

That's quite aside from all the ongoing suffering from non-lethal things just put to one side.

And having a whole blanket of things called 'benign gynaecology' seems like it's just slapping a big "deprioritise" sign on it.
I can't think of any other specialism that does that off the top of my head.


----------



## Sue (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Yeah, this use of 'benign' is really not good, especially when there are plenty of 'benign' conditions (not just "not cancer" but ones where the condition is labelled as "benign" in all the medical literature) that can still be lethal.
> 
> That's quite aside from all the ongoing suffering from non-lethal things just put to one side.
> 
> ...


I had a friend who was constantly dismissed by her GP with a cystitis diagnosis. This was over the course of years. Then she happened to see a locum GP who got her to do a urine test, was horrified just looking at it and referred her to a specialist. She died of bladder cancer about a year later after radical surgery and radiotherapy.

Now she was about 40 when all this happened and I get that she didn't fall into the typical demographic for that kind of cancer but FFS. Maybe if the GP hadn't been so dismissive when she was sure it wasn't cystitis, things would've turned out differently.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Sue said:


> I had a friend who was constantly dismissed by her GP with a cystitis diagnosis. This was over the course of years. Then she happened to see a locum GP who got her to do a urine test, was horrified just looking at it and referred her to a specialist. She died of bladder cancer about a year later after radical surgery and radiotherapy.
> 
> Now she was about 40 when all this happened and I get that she didn't fall into the typical demographic for that kind of cancer but FFS. Maybe if the GP hadn't been so dismissive when she was sure it wasn't cystitis, things would've turned out differently.



Hard to say from individual cases.  I think we’d all say these things need a closer look if particularly persistent.  
A workmate of mine died a couple of years ago after chasing and chasing about bowel problems for a number of years and when they eventually took a proper look it was Stage 4 cancer. 

Another workmate doesn’t have that long left due to a “benign” brain tumour.  In his case they did catch it and he had some pioneering treatment, which has bought him some more time with his young family.  It’s changed my feelings about the term “benign”.


----------



## Edie (Jun 2, 2022)

8ball said:


> Hard to say from individual cases.  I think we’d all say these things need a closer look if particularly persistent.
> A workmate of mine died a couple of years ago after chasing and chasing about bowel problems for a number of years and when they eventually took a proper look it was Stage 4 cancer.
> 
> Another workmate doesn’t have that long left due to a “benign” brain tumour.  In his case they did catch it and he had some pioneering treatment, which has bought him some more time with his young family.  It’s changed my feelings about the term “benign”.


Most brain tumours are benign, but any space occupying lesion in the restricted intracranial space is eventually lethal. 

Whether a tumour is benign or malignant is down to its histopathology (basically whether it’s invasive and can metastasise) but benign tumours in the wrong place can kill ya. I had a (probably) benign tumour which was compressing my superior vena cava in my neck- I felt really unwell in the last few weeks!


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2022)

Edie said:


> Most brain tumours are benign, but any space occupying lesion in the restricted intracranial space is eventually lethal.
> 
> Whether a tumour is benign or malignant is down to its histopathology (basically whether it’s invasive and can metastasise) but benign tumours in the wrong place can kill ya. I had a (probably) benign tumour which was compressing my superior vena cava in my neck- I felt really unwell in the last few weeks!



Yeah, was aware of the limits of the term in the case of brain tumours.  Was less aware how many other things called ‘benign’ are anything but.  

Can see how these issues with the NHS come about when they’re panicking over the post-Covid cancer backlog.

Still, shite state of affairs.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> What I struggled to bend my head around was that the market wasn’t being catered for by those who will fill gaps for profit.
> They’re not bothered by who they’re selling to if it brings the dosh in.


You're assuming that 'the market' is some kind of objective mechanism which filters out bias in the name of profit. The business case for 'diversity' has been presented for decades. In the context of this thread, bike manufacturers can't be bothered to fill female-shaped gaps in the market, and for various reasons including those mentioned by friendofdorothy and Yuwipi Woman there is little evidence of actual demand in that so-called gap. 

It looks like the bicycle business is designed for men, not surprising that men are baffled by market gaps and fall back on some kind of 'money is gender blind' premise.  

There are many gaps in many markets; they exist for lots of reasons. At firm level, the gap exists because there is no compelling business case.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 3, 2022)

Not to mention that quite often market "gaps" are often deliberately maintained chasms. It's much easier to see in media - eg. the furious resentment of women "invading" nerd culture, whining about casuals etc but it's a factor in most fields where men are a majority.

As noted above re bikes specifically, it comes out frequently enough in front-facing jobs where women are physically trying to put money in the retailer's hand - stands to reason that a similar mentality will infect the whole way down the line, including assumptions (or deliberate decisions to exclude) in bike design and manufacture.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2022)

There is a _lot_ of inertia in business decisions too.  Nobody is going to get fired for maintaining the status quo.  Pushing the company to do something that nobody else is doing is a risk for the one who pushed it.  Maybe there are good reasons why nobody else is doing it — better to keep your mouth shut and accept missing an opportunity rather than put yourself on the line and risk looking an idiot.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

kabbes said:


> There is a _lot_ of inertia in business decisions too.  Nobody is going to get fired for maintaining the status quo.  Pushing the company to do something that nobody else is doing is a risk for the one who pushed it.  Maybe there are good reasons why nobody else is doing it — better to keep your mouth shut and accept missing an opportunity rather than put yourself on the line and risk looking an idiot.



And obv people just don't see things if their frame of reference doesn't allow it.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 3, 2022)

mango5 said:


> You're assuming that 'the market' is some kind of objective mechanism which filters out bias in the name of profit. The business case for 'diversity' has been presented for decades. In the context of this thread, bike manufacturers can't be bothered to fill female-shaped gaps in the market, and for various reasons including those mentioned by friendofdorothy and Yuwipi Woman there is little evidence of actual demand in that so-called gap.
> 
> It looks like the bicycle business is designed for men, not surprising that men are baffled by market gaps and fall back on some kind of 'money is gender blind' premise.
> 
> There are many gaps in many markets; they exist for lots of reasons. At firm level, the gap exists because there is no compelling business case.



I thought I'd update my search for a bike.  So far, I've gone to three shops.  Every one tried to sell me a bike that didn't fit as a first offering.  I test rode two bikes that were so big that I almost crashed just testing riding them.

The first shop was pretty discouraging.  I was grudgingly shown a bike that didn't fit and the guy just walked away.  I've since found out that he has a reputation as an asshole.  You really have to work to get a two-star review on Yelp (Re-Cycled Bicycle - Lincoln, NE).

The second shop was better.  The first cycle I was shown didn't fit.  I test rode it and almost crashed.  However, rather than just walking away, he showed me a bike that was designed for a smaller person.  I test rode it and it was a decent bike, but it was a Townie bike.  Better fit, just not what I was looking for.

Third shop I was shown a bike that didn't fit and test rode it.  Again, I felt like I was going to crash it.  However, the shop guy spent a little bit of time talking to me and he gave me a better idea of what I'm looking for.  It's not a road bike, but a gravel bike.  It's designed for riding long distances on a bike trail on loose gravel.  He showed me a 47 cm Trek gravel bike and it was heaven.  The only sticking point was the cost:  $1,300.  I'll have to save up for it.  I wrote the information down and took his card so he's likely to get some business from me.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I thought I'd update my search for a bike.  So far, I've gone to three shops.  Every one tried to sell me a bike that didn't fit as a first offering.  I test road two bikes that were so big that I almost crashed just testing riding them.
> 
> The first shop was pretty discouraging.  I was grudgingly shown a bike that didn't fit and the guy just walked away.  I've since found out that he has a reputation as an asshole.  You really have to work to get a two-star review on Yelp (Re-Cycled Bicycle - Lincoln, NE).
> 
> ...



Plus there will be other and possibly less expensive options now you know what you need.

Shame you're not near weepiper 's neck of the woods.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> Plus there will be other and possibly less expensive options now you know what you need.



I think knowing more what you need is half the battle.  It also helps to know the industry jargon.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

kabbes said:


> There is a _lot_ of inertia in business decisions too.  Nobody is going to get fired for maintaining the status quo.  Pushing the company to do something that nobody else is doing is a risk for the one who pushed it.  Maybe there are good reasons why nobody else is doing it — better to keep your mouth shut and accept missing an opportunity rather than put yourself on the line and risk looking an idiot.



I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse and I do get the points being made. If it is because of the status quo why the female cycle market is being overlooked then they’re missing a trick. Because clearly women are saying there isn’t a product where one is desired.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse and I do get the points being made. If it is because of the status quo why the female cycle market is being overlooked then they’re missing a trick. Because clearly women are saying there isn’t a product where one is desired.



You're good at building stuff...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> You're good at building stuff...



I don’t have the capital for a business. Plus I’m trying to make film type stuff.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t have the capital for a business. Plus I’m trying to make film type stuff.



Make a film about building better bikes?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> Make a film about building better bikes?



I’ll stick it on the todo list.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t have the capital for a business. Plus I’m trying to make film type stuff.


This is the problem writ large.  You have been convinced that there is a giant untapped market out there but the gulf between having that knowledge and actually having a viable business is enormous.  Meanwhile, those who already have businesses have no need to risk their capital on the untapped market, because they’re doing fine as they are.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

Fair point.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

kabbes said:


> This is the problem writ large.  You have been convinced that there is a giant untapped market out there but the gulf between having that knowledge and actually having a viable business is enormous.  Meanwhile, those who already have businesses have no need to risk their capital on the untapped market, because they’re doing fine as they are.



That's how businesses peter out over time, not exploring new niches, not acknowledging change.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> That's how businesses peter out over time, not exploring new niches, not acknowledging change.


That’s right, they do.  They do in their droves.  Of the original FTSE 100 formed in 1984, at most 28 remain in that index (not sure what the 2022 figure is).  This fact doesn’t mean that the market fills the niches, it shows that the market does _not_ fill the niches.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

kabbes said:


> That’s right, they do.  They do in their droves.  Of the original FTSE 100 formed in 1984, at most 28 remain in that index (not sure what the 2022 figure is).  This fact doesn’t mean that the market fills the niches, it shows that the market does _not_ fill the niches.



How is millions of women cyclists around the globe a “niche”. It’s the least niche business idea I’ve ever heard of.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> How is millions of women cyclists around the globe a “niche”. It’s the least niche business idea I’ve ever heard of.


Slightly different meanings of “niche”, I think.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Slightly different meanings of “niche”, I think.



I’m very confused how the market is led by patriarchy and not market forces. But as I said, if the desire for a product exists but doesn’t  some capitalist somewhere is missing out.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m very confused how the market is led by patriarchy and not market forces. But as I said, if the desire for a product exists but doesn’t  some capitalist somewhere is missing out.



So long as the product can be feasibly created and it can all be done without the end cost to the user outweighing the desire, at least.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> So long as the product can be feasibly created and it can all be done without the end cost to the user outweighing the desire, at least.



I suppose it would reduce the sales of the existing bikes and split the market and make it all less profitable. So you’re all probably right.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I suppose it would reduce the sales of the existing bikes and split the market and make it all less profitable. So you’re all probably right.



No, I just meant those are the natural constraints. 
If you had such a gap that you could exploit profitably, then you would be taking disproportionately from other manufacturers who had hitherto been selling an inferior product.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 3, 2022)

8ball said:


> No, I just meant those are the natural constraints.
> If you had such a gap that you could exploit profitably, then you would be taking disproportionately from other manufacturers who had hitherto been selling an inferior product.



But surely the superior product wins in the game of Capitalism? So if bikes appeared that better suited the female anatomy and stature, those would be bought over the ones that don’t. That’s how the market is supposed to work with its deadly efficiency.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But surely the superior product wins in the game of Capitalism? So if bikes appeared that better suited the female anatomy and stature, those would be bought over the ones that don’t. That’s how it’s supposed to work with its deadly efficiency.



That's what I said.  So you have a company that makes, say 20% all of bikes and let's say half of them are suboptimal for women, and there are 4 other companies doing the same, then when you make bikes that are better for women you are then failing to sell some of your "men's" stock and selling to women instead (who are happier, and preferentially buy from your company for their daughters), but you also capture a heap of trade from those companies selling 50% of their bikes that aren't optimal for women.  ie. taking disproportionately from other manufacturers.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 3, 2022)

Capitalism doesn't fulfill the requirements of women shocker.


----------



## killer b (Jun 4, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But surely the superior product wins in the game of Capitalism?


lol what. We've  been playing capitalism for ages now, and everything is shit and falls apart.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2022)

killer b said:


> lol what. We've  been playing capitalism for ages now, and everything is shit and falls apart.



Say what you like, but those Trabants had a decent lifespan.

Helped along a little by the decade that you had to wait between ordering and delivery, but still...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 4, 2022)

8ball said:


> Say what you like, but those Trabants had a decent lifespan.
> 
> Helped along a little by the decade that you had to wait between ordering and delivery, but still...


I saw one recently, parked in front of some shops near me around 2-3 weeks ago, looked to be in good condition.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2022)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I saw one recently, parked in front of some shops near me around 2-3 weeks ago, looked to be in good condition.



People are quite careful with a vehicle that takes 10 years to turn up.

It also meant that used Trabants often sold for much more than new ones because you could get it right away.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 11, 2022)

Also a world designed for white people:









						The Fatal Design Flaw of the Pulse Oximeter
					

In the first study to examine this issue among COVID-19 patients, researchers found that the inaccurate measurements resulted in a “systemic failure,” delaying care for many Black and Hispanic patients. The study adds a growing sense of urgency to an issue raised decades ago.




					spectrum.ieee.org


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 11, 2022)

And on another health related issue









						AI will soon be everywhere in the NHS. It's a risk for women and ethnic minorities, experts say
					

Experts warn that new research into AI in healthcare shows a failure to consider the full range of potential bias against particular groups of people will have life or death consequences




					inews.co.uk
				






> *i* can reveal that a new government-backed study has found that artificial intelligence models built to identify people at high risk of liver disease from blood tests are twice as likely to miss disease in women as in men


----------



## scifisam (Jul 11, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> Also a world designed for white people:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since that one's about melanin levels, how would this work?

The researchers found that the pulse oximeter overestimated blood-oxygen saturation by an average of 1.7 percent for Asian patients, 1.2 percent for Black patients, and 1.1 percent for Hispanic patients.

Even though it's based on self-ID rather than checking whatever skin colour someone had (which the study acknowledges as a limitation, since it's melanin which makes the difference technically), why would Asian patients get more false positives than black patients?

The study also found that black and Hispanic patients experienced delays in treatment. That would, sadly, make sense, but not because of the pulse oximeters, which would mean they got treatment quicker than Asian patients, who aren't mentioned.

It kinda strikes me as blaming technology for the more widespread racism in the system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2022)

Sue said:


> I had a friend who was constantly dismissed by her GP with a cystitis diagnosis. This was over the course of years. Then she happened to see a locum GP who got her to do a urine test, was horrified just looking at it and referred her to a specialist. She died of bladder cancer about a year later after radical surgery and radiotherapy.
> 
> Now she was about 40 when all this happened and I get that she didn't fall into the typical demographic for that kind of cancer but FFS. Maybe if the GP hadn't been so dismissive when she was sure it wasn't cystitis, things would've turned out differently.


Yeh, a similar story here - Many years ago a woman I knew was regularly ill and her family all thought it was cancer, a view which was pooh-poohed by doctors until the final weeks of her life when she finally received the diagnosis which if made ten years earlier might have saved her life. About 28 years since she died, still think of her. RIP sylvia


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 23, 2022)

I'm still reading 'Invisible women' by Caroline Criado Perez I can only read a page at a time as it makes me so angry. 

I'm still reading the chapter on drugs and how women have been excluded from clinical trails and the consequences for women's health. It's making my blood boil!  

There are sex differences in adverse reactions to drugs the number one being 'that some drugs simply don't work for women. '

'Some drugs commonly prescribed to treat high blood pressure .... lower men's mortality from heart attack, but to increase cardiac-related deaths among women'    'Statins have mostly been tested in men'

'Gender neutral doses in many meds puts women at risk of overdosing'
Her conclusion: 'Women are dying and the medical world is complicit'

Some countries now insist on drug trails on both sexes - but not the UK.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 23, 2022)

Aspirin used to prevent heart attack in men, but doesn't work in women and is potentially harmful. Oh ffs


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> Aspirin used to prevent heart attack in men, but doesn't work in women and is potentially harmful. Oh ffs



Some good meta-analysis work was done on this in 2007 - how old is the book that you are reading, out of interest (it may mention this study if fairly recent)?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 23, 2022)

Women are 50% more likely to be mis diagnosed following a heart attack. Female heart attack symptoms are often described as 'atypical' when what they is they mean is not the same as men's.🤬


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 23, 2022)

8ball said:


> Some good meta-analysis work was done on this in 2007 - how old is the book that you are reading, out of interest (it may mention this study if fairly recent)?


2019. Perez sites dozens and dozens of studies from all over the world. 

Asprin paper was from 2005 and bit about it actually being 'harmful in the majority of patients' was from a 2011 study and 2015 study says low dose of asprin is 'ineffectual or harmful in the majority of women in primary prevention of cancer and heart disease.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

Looking up this book, I think we might have discussed it before and I put it down on the "to read" list.
(I'm going to need a decent longevity extension book if I'm ever going to make a decent dent in that list...)


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 23, 2022)

_Invisible Women_ was the reason I started this thread - but its taking me ages to read it as every page makes me livid with rage!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> _Invisible Women_ was the reason I started this thread - but its taking me ages to read it as every page makes me livid with rage!



Yeah, I think I might have said all of this earlier in the thread about sticking it on the list.  The Royal Society rates the book quite highly.

I work in the clinical trials industry and am quite interested in the failings of the whole setup, which are many.

As are a lot of people in the industry tbf.


----------



## Boudicca (Jul 23, 2022)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I think I might have said all of this earlier in the thread about sticking it on the list.  The Royal Society rates the book quite highly.
> 
> I work in the clinical trials industry and am quite interested in the failings of the whole setup, which are many.
> 
> As are a lot of people in the industry tbf.


I'm a woman taking both aspirin and statins, can you please report back once you have read it?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 23, 2022)

Boudicca said:


> I'm a woman taking both aspirin and statins, can you please report back once you have read it?



I think you might get an answer a few decades earlier by speaking to friendofdorothy 

I do need to bump this book up the list a bit.. 

Also, if you’ve been taking this stuff for a bit, I can’t say much aside from finding what you can and speaking to your GP.  Cardiac prophylactic stuff is way outside my area.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> I think you might get an answer a few decades earlier by speaking to friendofdorothy
> 
> I do need to bump this book up the list a bit..
> 
> Also, if you’ve been taking this stuff for a bit, I can’t say much aside from finding what you can and speaking to your GP.  Cardiac prophylactic stuff is way outside my area.


No please don't ask me! I can only quote the book. I have little understanding of medical trails, statistics or data, so I'm not the best person to ask. I already had a deep mistrust of medical practice, big pharma and all drugs in general, before I read this book. 

When my GP next mentions statins, high blood pressure or diabetes - I will ask if any drug prescribed was actually tested on female humans.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 26, 2022)

I don’t think you’ll find an established statin which hasn’t been tested on female humans at all at this point in time, but asking whether the evidence for effectiveness supports using it for your particular condition might help.

For example, statins are fairly useless in otherwise healthy women for high cholesterol, but are still useful when there is established heart disease*.

*- from a very surface level reading. All “I am not a doctor” type disclaimers apply.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 26, 2022)

I only got about a third of the way through that book friendofdorothy because it was making me so angry that I couldn't function.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 26, 2022)

Yes.

...  there's no problem so we don't measure it / our service is debased on available data paradox .....infuriating!


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> I don’t think you’ll find an established statin which hasn’t been tested on female humans at all at this point in time, but asking whether the evidence for effectiveness supports using it for your particular condition might help.
> 
> For example, statins are fairly useless in otherwise healthy women for high cholesterol, but are still useful when there is established heart disease*.
> 
> *- from a very surface level reading. All “I am not a doctor” type disclaimers apply.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 27, 2022)




----------



## Raheem (Jul 27, 2022)

On the radio today, programme about fad diets. Typically initially only properly tested on obese men, because that's somehow traditional. But, it was claimed, often harmful to women. So, intermittent fasting appears beneficial to both the mental and physical health of men, but, it has been found, causes anxiety and weight gain in women.

(IANAD. What I have typed is a report based on something I heard on the radio. Do not take it as gospel. Do not pass Go. Do not ask admins for my IP address so you can sue me.)


----------



## mango5 (Jul 27, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> ...  there's no problem so we don't measure it / our service is debased on available data paradox .....infuriating!


Recent (open access) BMJ article 'Gender-related data missingness, imbalance and bias in global health surveys' may be of interest to those who prefer a more conventionally scientific account of some of the issues. It's also a lot shorter than CCP's book. 8ball might find enough time to read it. 




__





						Gender-related data missingness, imbalance and bias in global health surveys | BMJ Global Health
					





					gh.bmj.com


----------



## mango5 (Jul 27, 2022)

This research group is focused on transport https://closethedatagap.soton.ac.uk/


----------



## mango5 (Jul 27, 2022)

This report looks at impact of the 'gender data gap' on understanding attacks on healthcare workers ( I think.. I find the language a bit confusing even though it's a policy paper not a journal article) 


			Gender data gap - Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute - The University of Manchester


----------



## mango5 (Jul 27, 2022)

I'm putting these here to pull away from the medical focus back to broader issues. Just learned a new term "shecession" 





						Cross-country evidence on COVID-19 ‘she-cessions’ | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal
					

Early evidence from the COVID-19 recession suggested that women’s employment rates were falling disproportionately, portending a possible ‘she-cession’. Drawing on quarterly data from 38 advanced and emerging market economies, this column documents the extent and persistence of pandemic-induced...




					voxeu.org


----------



## chainsawjob (Jul 28, 2022)

I was talking to a bloke I know the other day about windsurfing, which I've done, & I just found out he teaches. And he was talking about a lad's weekend he and my OH & some other blokes are arranging. And then he said 'we'll take all the boy's toys, windsurfers, surfboards, bodyboards etc'. 

Boys toys? _Boys toys!!!????_

I'd just literally said I used to windsurf myself 

I picked him up on it (goodnaturedly), and he still defended his use of the term. Honestly. There is still so much work to do


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> _Invisible Women_ was the reason I started this thread - but its taking me ages to read it as every page makes me livid with rage!


Maybe better to read the rest all at once and accept a burst of enormous rage at the end.


----------



## mango5 (Jul 28, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe better to read the rest all at once and accept a burst of enormous rage at the end.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2022)

mango5 said:


>


my thinking - other people's mmv - is that if a book is making you incandescent with anger perhaps it's best to read it all rather than stretch out the anger. it's just an opinion, it's not like i said 'put the book down so you don't get riled so much', which would be a real  moment. the worst things in my view in reading a book for ages with only a page or two read at a time are it's stopping you reading other things and it's very easy to end up not finishing it.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jul 28, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe better to read the rest all at once and accept a burst of enormous rage at the end.


This is my attitude to life and this is why the people I know in real life think I'm a psychopath


----------



## mango5 (Jul 28, 2022)

The sad thing is that enraging moments rooted in a 'world designed for men' are a daily experience for many women. YMMV.

ETA from the OP


friendofdorothy said:


> Following on from JudithB 's thread again. Thanks to Poot for bringing up the subject of how the world is designed for men and and Winot for linking to this book  *Invisible Women** Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men* by Caroline Criado Perez – Invisible Women
> 
> Females are 51% of the population but the world its systems, technology, medicine and so much more are not designed with us in mind. Why?
> 
> This issue makes me livid.



... and advice on managing that rage isn't helpful. CCP's book and other sources including this thread are a way of becoming better informed and possibly better equipped to address the source of the problem.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 28, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> my thinking - other people's mmv - is that if a book is making you incandescent with anger perhaps it's best to read it all rather than stretch out the anger. it's just an opinion, it's not like i said 'put the book down so you don't get riled so much', which would be a real  moment. the worst things in my view in reading a book for ages with only a page or two read at a time are it's stopping you reading other things and it's very easy to end up not finishing it.


Been there, done that, read the book... kinda, ok, still reading the book


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 29, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe better to read the rest all at once and accept a burst of enormous rage at the end.


No .


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 29, 2022)

mango5 said:


> The sad thing is that enraging moments rooted in a 'world designed for men' are a daily experience for many women. YMMV.
> 
> ETA from the OP
> 
> ...


Yes.  Its not Iike managing my rage will help me or the world. Avoiding being overwhelmed is keeping me alive, which helps me at least, and is giving me time to develop new strategies. 

I'm still angry that my mother taught me that expressing anger wasn't ladylike.Took me a long time to realise ladylike= doormat.

It's the same thing as today's blokey advice to 'calm down love'
My anger is not a problem or why I started this thread. On a global scale women's anger, like our voices in general,  is routinely ignored. That is the problem.


----------



## mango5 (Jul 29, 2022)

In one of my day jobs I just found an article suggesting one (of many) reasons why women entrepreneurs are less successful than 'entrepreneurs' in general (i.e. men).  It's called  We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. You may not have full access but I'm putting it here because the title alone made me cross, let alone the details.

Oh cripes another rabbit hole.  You watch Prof Pragya Agarwal  talk about her forthcoming book Hysterical: Exploding the Myth of Gendered Emotions livestreamed on Youtube at lunchtime on  15th September via this site.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> It's the same thing as today's blokey advice to 'calm down love'


i hope you didn't read what i said that way, that wasn't my intention at all


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 29, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> Following on from JudithB 's thread again. Thanks to Poot for bringing up the subject of how the world is designed for men and and Winot for linking to this book  *Invisible Women** Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men* by Caroline Criado Perez – Invisible Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Female & male are a representation of the same thing, which is a unity of spirit that will channel the ever flowing energy of the cosmos 💖


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2022)

Koknbul said:


> Female & male are a representation of the same thing, which is a unity of spirit that will channel the ever flowing energy of the cosmos 💖


Fuck off


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 29, 2022)

I


Santino said:


> Fuck off


Let go & feel the flow


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 29, 2022)

Koknbul said:


> I
> 
> Let go & feel the flow



Fuck off


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 29, 2022)

Koknbul said:


> I
> 
> Let go & feel the flow


Feel a turnip in your face


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 29, 2022)

Sounds yummy 😋 


krtek a houby said:


> Feel a turnip in your face


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 29, 2022)

I replied to you already 


Puddy_Tat said:


> Fuck off


🤣🤣🤣


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 30, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you didn't read what i said that way, that wasn't my intention at all


Think about it.  Quietly to yourself please. 

 Please dont bother to post here off topic. This isn't k&s. This isn't chitter chat. 


Koknbul said:


> Female & male are a representation of the same thing, which is a unity of spirit that will channel the ever flowing energy of the cosmos 💖


Unity of spirit won't stop women being 47% more seriously injured in a car accident, because car safety isn't tested with female bodies in mind. 
If you want to chat about cosmic energy start your own thread and fuck off this one


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 30, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> Think about it.  Quietly to yourself please.
> 
> Please dont bother to post here off topic. This isn't k&s. This isn't chitter chat.
> 
> ...


I am mostly talking about spiritual energy,  but I'll entertain your physical needs if must be ...


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 30, 2022)

Koknbul said:


> I am mostly talking about spiritual energy,  but I'll entertain your physical needs if must be ...


JFC. 
Have a word with yourself. 
And maybe go and lie down under an oak tree and vow never to post such misogynistic tripe ever again.


----------



## Koknbul (Jul 30, 2022)

bluescreen said:


> JFC.
> Have a word with yourself.
> And maybe go and lie down under an oak tree and vow never to post such misogynistic tripe ever again.


Don't blame me for the tone of my reply when I have imbeciles asking me questions


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 30, 2022)

Suggest anyone mucking about on this serious thread read this:


Sweet FA said:


> Good summary of the book with links here: _The deadly truth about a world built for men – from stab vests to car crashes_


Then if you have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion just fuck off.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 30, 2022)

I propose that we all use the ignore function.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2022)

Koknbul said:


> I am mostly talking about spiritual energy,  but I'll entertain your physical needs if must be ...


Get the fuck off this thread. Creepy as fuck. Warning and thread permaban issued.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 30, 2022)

mango5 said:


> In one of my day jobs I just found an article suggesting one (of many) reasons why women entrepreneurs are less successful than 'entrepreneurs' in general (i.e. men).  It's called  We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. You may not have full access but I'm putting it here because the title alone made me cross, let alone the details.


I recall hearing some time ago about women being less likely to get funding or backing from vc. I wonder if that's true of financial support in general? I wonder if banks collect gendered data? When you are dealing with a bank it's hard to know is it just you they reject. 
So much business language is used in a positive way for a man and negative way about a woman. 



mango5 said:


> Oh cripes another rabbit hole.  You watch Prof Pragya Agarwal  talk about her forthcoming book Hysterical: Exploding the Myth of Gendered Emotions livestreamed on Youtube at lunchtime on  15th September via this site.


Really want to read that book.  Thanks


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 30, 2022)

I've been speaking to Christine, who was involved with publishing _Hackney Women's Paper _in 1972. 

The interview is up here and includes a link to a scan of the paper itself:








						Interview with Christine – Hackney Womens’ Paper 1972
					

Christine contacted me to ask whether I’d be interested in a scan of Hackney Womens’ Paper – a publication she had been involved with producing in 1972. And of course I was! The P…




					hackneyhistory.wordpress.com
				




There's a lot of content in there about how hospitals were geared up for the needs of male Doctors rather than patients.

But also some really interesting insights into daily life for women at that time:



I don't generally post on these threads, but thought that might be of interest...


----------



## RubyToogood (Jul 30, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> I recall hearing some time ago about women being less likely to get funding or backing from vc. I wonder if that's true of financial support in general? I wonder if banks collect gendered data? When you are dealing with a bank it's hard to know is it just you they reject.
> So much business language is used in a positive way for a man and negative way about a woman.


"Bossy" (female) v "like a boss" (male).


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 31, 2022)

editor said:


> Get the fuck off this thread. Creepy as fuck. Warning and thread permaban issued.


About fucking time


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 31, 2022)

RubyToogood said:


> "Bossy" (female) v "like a boss" (male).


I'm trying to think of other examples -  is there even a male equivalent to 'difficult woman'?


----------



## Dystopiary (Jul 31, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm trying to think of other examples -  is there even a male equivalent to 'difficult woman'?


Takes no shit?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 31, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm trying to think of other examples -  is there even a male equivalent to 'difficult woman'?


Maybe “awkward bastard”? Not gendered enough maybe but I think usually used for men. 

I think the rudeness and intensity is quite telling though. Like men have to go a lot further for it to be a thing.


----------

