Burnwinter wrote:

I've also noticed that often women in my teams are reluctant to promote themselves or seek new responsibilities even when they're clearly more competent than their male peers. 

This. It's always happening. Just have to pay attention. If you step aside instead of making someone push you, it can change everything.

Tony Montana wrote:

Why do you fear reverse sexism? That's hardly the biggest thing we should be worrying about.

I saw the furious backlash to affirmative action policies. It will come.

Coombs wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:

I've also noticed that often women in my teams are reluctant to promote themselves or seek new responsibilities even when they're clearly more competent than their male peers. 

This. It's always happening. Just have to pay attention. If you step aside instead of making someone push you, it can change everything.

You gentlemen are talking about conscious self sacrifice here. Like it doesn't run counter to human nature...

flobaba wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:

Why do you fear reverse sexism? That's hardly the biggest thing we should be worrying about.

I saw the furious backlash to affirmative action policies. It will come.

You don't even have to wait for it, just look at the reaction to female board membership quotas. Although ironically that measure to "empower" women is completely farcical and does sweet fuck all to help those who it alleges to support

Qwiss! wrote:

I'm never sure how to feel about stuff like this. On the one hand fair play to him for recognising he was a shithead and admitting to it. On the other hand maybe if he hadn't been a shit head in the first place he wouldn't have to apologise.

He's still a shithead and who knows what his motives for coming clean are, maybe he just thinks it'll play better. That being said, I think acknowledging you've done wrong is always a good thing. It's certainly better than the 'do not recall' bullshit or worse yet, attacking the credibility of the accusers.

jones wrote:
flobaba wrote:

I saw the furious backlash to affirmative action policies. It will come.

You don't even have to wait for it, just look at the reaction to female board membership quotas. Although ironically that measure to "empower" women is completely farcical and does sweet fuck all to help those who it alleges to support

Not sure I agree. It changes who has influence from the top.

flobaba wrote:

You gentlemen are talking about conscious self sacrifice here. Like it doesn't run counter to human nature...

I wasn't.

I'm not sure most of the people I work with would appreciate it either, if I'm doing my job well and not treating them as a second class in some way, they're probably happy working with me.

I do think it's a good idea to be able to recognise the merits of your peers at work, this would include for instance being able to accept a woman being promoted in your place. Hopefully that just comes naturally if and when it happens, though (it's yet to happen to me).

I actually do agree with Coombs' theory of a more radical relinquishment of privilege and position (including material wealth) but I believe it needs to be accomplished justly in the context of a collective, political and regulated mission. Otherwise I feel you're just trying to be Jesus.

And this exercise would be to what end, Father Tony?

goon wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064

At least we've finally got one who hasn't denied it.

I don't see how this is any different from CK's admission or all the other blokes who in the wake of getting exposed come out and tell their stories. He says it himself right at the beginning: he's afraid that the story about him will break. This is just a way to get ahead of the news and dictate the narrative.

It's an absolutely pathetic confession. Tellingly, there isn't a single apology in there. It's all about him and his feelings. And then he comes out as a victim of rape himself halfway through to gain sympathy. Apparently he drinks too much and has a depression too. Does he have any idea how many millions of people in the world who fit that description who AREN'T accused of rape and sexual harrassment?

Burnwinter wrote:

I actually do agree with Coombs' theory of a more radical relinquishment of privilege and position (including material wealth) but I believe it needs to be accomplished justly in the context of a collective, political and regulated mission. Otherwise I feel you're just trying to be Jesus.

Indeed, I don't necessarily disagree, but I think your statement there sort of says "I'm not doing it until everyone does it." But of a standstill.

Shouldn't we all be trying to be better? It's not self sacrifice, really, it's self improvement. It doesn't even necessarily apply only to material wealth and/or the workplace. It's not really even that hard to do, and in most day-to-day cases takes only a modicum of effort. Not exactly the sole purview of the Gods.

flobaba wrote:

And this exercise would be to what end, Father Tony?

Well everyone is happy to tell of how other people have been sexist and criminal in behaviour but would anyone admit to being that themselves? 

Y Va had admitted to being harassed. So has Coombs and I think goon. 

Who's been on the othe rside? Morgan Spurlock has revealed his actions. What about those on this thread? When did people realise what they did was wrong?

Quite the demand, Tony. Not sure it's all that productive to make it, either.

Also, not sure you really "admit" to being harassed. You might reveal it. Don't play into the narrative that victims should be ashamed.

Tony Montana wrote:
jones wrote:

You don't even have to wait for it, just look at the reaction to female board membership quotas. Although ironically that measure to "empower" women is completely farcical and does sweet fuck all to help those who it alleges to support

Not sure I agree. It changes who has influence from the top.

It doesn't. It's just inviting a couple select women into the old boys network while making sure nothing else changes. The class of females that does actually profit from rules like that in place does not need any support and is so small that it makes absolutely no difference to the vast majority who continue to receive less pay for equal work, who suffer abuse from unchecked tormentors etc

jones wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:

Not sure I agree. It changes who has influence from the top.

It doesn't. It's just inviting a couple select women into the old boys network while making sure nothing else changes. The class of females that does actually profit from rules like that in place does not need any support and is so small that it makes absolutely no difference to the vast majority who continue to receive less pay for equal work, who suffer abuse from unchecked tormentors etc

For me I disagree. 

My company for example is large and has a female quota for leadership positions and it's very welcome for most people. I think keeping the status quo achieves nothing. When you broaden the diversity of the leadership then the initiatives also broaden so that equal pay issues etc can come to the fore.

I don't agree with the tokenism line that is peddled when diversity issues are talked about.

Klaus wrote:
goon wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064

At least we've finally got one who hasn't denied it.

I don't see how this is any different from CK's admission or all the other blokes who in the wake of getting exposed come out and tell their stories. He says it himself right at the beginning: he's afraid that the story about him will break. This is just a way to get ahead of the news and dictate the narrative.

It's an absolutely pathetic confession. Tellingly, there isn't a single apology in there. It's all about him and his feelings. And then he comes out as a victim of rape himself halfway through to gain sympathy. Apparently he drinks too much and has a depression too. Does he have any idea how many millions of people in the world who fit that description who AREN'T accused of rape and sexual harrassment?

"I haven't been sober for more than a week" It's not exactly the dark confessions of an alcholic. It's more pretending he has an addiction to excuse his behaviour. 

Tony Montana wrote:
jones wrote:

It doesn't. It's just inviting a couple select women into the old boys network while making sure nothing else changes. The class of females that does actually profit from rules like that in place does not need any support and is so small that it makes absolutely no difference to the vast majority who continue to receive less pay for equal work, who suffer abuse from unchecked tormentors etc

For me I disagree. 

My company for example is large and has a female quota for leadership positions and it's very welcome for most people. I think keeping the status quo achieves nothing. When you broaden the diversity of the leadership then the initiatives also broaden so that equal pay issues etc can come to the fore.

I don't agree with the tokenism line that is peddled when diversity issues are talked about.

Except they don't. My company has one as well and nothing has changed since they implemented it, even worse people make fun of and diminish the achievements of women who do reach a position because of it. I'm not saying to abolish it, I really don't care whether they keep it or not. I'm saying if you do keep it don't suggest you've elevated anyone because of the promotion of some rich cunt to join a bunch of rich pricks, if you're serious about gender equality there are dozens of better ways to do it.

I was opposed to these policies in the past, the idea of getting a role specifically because a company needed to fill it's quota felt backwards to me, you were still judging people based on their race etc. But I've since done a u-turn.

I think the general idea is to gradually change attitudes more than anything. It won't happen overnight, it may actually take decades, but in the mean time you need something to kick the old boys network into get started.

goon wrote:

I was opposed to these policies in the past, the idea of getting a role specifically because a company needed to fill it's quota felt backwards to me, you were still judging people based on their race etc. But I've since done a u-turn.

I think the general idea is to gradually change attitudes more than anything. It won't happen overnight, it may actually take decades, but in the mean time you need something to kick the old boys network into get started.

Yup this is it for me too.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

This conversation arose from the assertion that, to fundamentally change a culture that ignores or condones the abuse and sexual harassment of women, it is not enough to just tell men to be "nice" and treat women with respect.
That is true.

It was proposed that conceding positions of power to women would be a more effective way to promote a change in culture.

Writing off affirmative action and policies that promote the gender designated advancement of women in the workplace, when these policies are in their infancy, is premature.

On an anecdotal level - I work in a company that up until recently had very few women employed let alone in senior positions - over the past 18 months there has been a big shift towards promoting diversity, the majority of new recruits are female and a few significant senior roles have been taken over by women.
As a woman it has made me fell less an outsider and generally  happier in the work environment, it has also demonstrably improved the performance of project teams.