[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Molten

Final post to Jaine(if you'd like to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do so in PM because we are kind of starting to derail this thread into a person discussion):

I feel that our posts have been on topic, and therefore don't constitute a derail. I think a lot of people are interested in reading the back-and-forth, so I'm going to reply here.

The point is using the appropriate word. I've yet to figure out what dictionary your using to define sexism. I've checked two online and neither have come with the implications that you make.

The dictionary of experience.

Again, if something doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group, how can you call it "____ism"?

There are functional reasons for excluding certain people from groups that have nothing to do with actively discriminating against them. People with entry-level resumes are excluded from jobs which require extensive leadership experience. People who can't swim are excluded from lifeguarding. Non-athletic people are excluded from professional sports teams. People with low SAT scores are excluded from the Ivy League. Yet in these instances, no-one would say that actual discrimination is taking place against people with no job experience, no swimming ability, no athletic talent, or poor test-taking skills.

Likewise, excluding boys from an all-girls team is done for a practical reason: to give girls a leg up in a field which overwhelmingly favors male participation. If there were no functional need for all-girls teams (i.e. sexism against women in STEM didn't exist), then yeah -- having a gender-specific team would be sexist. But until that day comes, girls-only teams can serve an important role in bringing more women into STEM (as you can see through all of the positive testimonies here in this thread).

I wasn't referring to my experience being on par with a woman in the workplace but with girls joining a robotics team.

You said:
"I completely admit that I don't have to deal with this every day of my life as women in professional engineering do. I have however had "real-world experience trying to contend with discrimination".

...in direct response to my post about how discrimination against women in engineering firms is not always dealt with as swiftly and effectively as a lot of people think it is. I suggested that perhaps you didn't have the relevant experience with workplace discrimination to fully understand why it's still a problem (granted, I was a bit abrasive about it), and you countered with your marching band example. We were clearly talking about your perception of workplace justice. (Not to say that the things girls can experience when joining a male-dominated robotics team can't closely mirror what happens in the real world... those experiences can be just as challenging and intense.)

I do sympathize with your experiences as a male in a female-dominated environment -- guys absolutely do face a lot of unfair pressure/stereotyping about what it means to be a man. On the other hand, you have to recognize that those challenges don't really affect men on the same scale that they affect women (possibly because a lot of the male stereotypes have to do with being aggressive and assertive... i.e. taking charge and getting what you want). To use your example, I don't think the lack of male participation in marching bands is a widespread societal problem (like the lack of female participation in STEM is). Almost all women in STEM have a story they can share about their discrimination... but I doubt the same holds true for men in marching bands.

But there are places that have figured out how to have a co-ed environment without unchecked sexism. That is what exists today. I fully admit that I am strongly idealistic but that doesn't mean that what I see doesn't already partly exist.

I didn't say that there weren't ANY workplaces in which the environment/colleagues were supportive of women. See the footnote on my last post. What I did say is that prejudice in the workplace DOES still present a significant barrier for women in the field. You appeared to dismiss that problem as insignificant.

Some of the best advice I've been given on this forum comes from JaneYoung. She once said that she often takes a day or two before making a post to think the post over. She could tell you why better then I can, but I've tried to do that for anything that I feel so close to that I can't think objectively. Honestly if you can't discuss a topic without getting frustrated, you should wait for your anger to settle before posting. Honestly, you've had good points but your posts have been anything but professional.

Jane can speak for herself on this matter if she so chooses. I will admit that she often has a cooler head than I... if only I possessed her restraint...

Seriously though, I don't see why someone's frustration over a topic should invalidate their contributions to a discussion about it. Some issues will never stop making people feel frustrated, because it will always be a part of their lives. If anything, being personally affected by an issue gives you more objectivity, because you fully understand it's personal ramifications.

I did use some strong wording, and if I could have gotten my point across in a less harsh way -- I'm sorry. But I'm not sure why anything I've said would be considered unprofessional -- I haven't called anybody names, and I've backed up my arguments with clear reasoning and personal experience.

--Jaine