In defence of the 'F' word

[WestCoastRunner]

I am stealing the title for this topic from an article written by Kaity Cooper for the site rabble.ca. This is a great topic to start off this new section and I hope it clears up some misunderstandings about why women are proud to be 'feminists'.

She makes some great points to try and explain why we still need feminism more than ever and comments on the smear campaign against feminism, especially from women:

"The #WomenAgainstFeminism phenomenon on Tumblr, wherein women post photographs of themselves holding signs that state why they do not need feminism, like, "I don't need feminism because my self-worth is not directly tied to the size of my victim complex," is one example. Or the recent Time magazine article which included "feminist" in a list of annoying words that readers could vote to ban from public discourse. Or the public distancing from feminism exemplified by celebrities like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, who, for better or worse are role models for young girls. "

BTW, Times magazine later posted an article apologizing for including the term 'feminist' in the list.

Here are some facts related to the under-representation of women in Canada.

• The UN Annual Human Development Index for 2012 revealed that inequality in Canada is actually growing.
• After falling for a decade, rates of domestic violence have now flat-lined. In 2009, the rate of self-reported spousal violence was the same as in 2004. Reporting rates have not improved over the years. Victims of domestic violence are now less likely to report an incident to police.
• Ninety-six percent of CEOs in Canada are men
• Among Canadas elected representatives, men outnumber women four to one
• New forms of misogyny - Girls are facing new forms of sexism in their daily lives. Cyberbullying, the sexualization of women and girls in the media and the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation.
• Male voices outnumber female voices in Canada's most influential print, broadcast and online news media by four to one

I will end this OP on a question Kaity asks:

"Given what we know of women's profound impact on the success of various entities, how can organizations justify their exclusion?"

Edited March 31, 2015 by Charles Anthony
added the word "feminism" to the tag line

[Shady]

I think it's complete hyperbole to suggest that feminism is needed now more than ever. One would have to be completely and utterly ignorant of history to suggest something that stupid. As for organizations excluding women, that's just more hyperbole. Just like men, women have to EARN their jobs in elected government, or CEOs of companies. You don't get handed the job simply because you posess a vagina. If we want more women in elected government, more women are going to have to run for office. Perhaps you should be asking them why they aren't. And women CEOs are on the rise, growing ever year. The 30% will get larger and larger every year, because more women have and are entering the business world. Women live longer, and a much higher percnetage of women attend and graduate from post secondary education than men do. It's time we stopped pretending that women are these frail and delicate flowers that are struggling to get by. They're strong, independent people, and that very concept goes against organized feminism. Because it makes them less and less relevant.

[WestCoastRunner]

And women CEOs are on the rise, growing ever year. The 30% will get larger and larger every year, because more women have and are entering the business world.

Where do you get 30%. Women make up 4% of CEO positions in Canada and this is primarily due to sexism that still largely exists in the corporate world. Women get passed over for promotions because men like to promote men. The culture in the workforce needs to change in order for women to get to the CEO position.

Since we are strong and independent and not frail flowers, why aren't more women receiving promotions? Surely it's not because they are not capable of doing the job?

Edited March 31, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[kimmy]

There's two main reasons I don't identify as a feminist.

First of all, I'm not sure what it means anymore. I know what it used to mean, and by that definition I'm certainly a feminist. But in recent years it seems to be becoming attached to all kinds of other far-left causes that I don't support and don't even understand how they became associated with feminism.

The second reason, closely aligned with the first, is that if you identify yourself as a feminist, you're taking on a lot of baggage that has become associated with that word. Just as I don't identify myself to people as an atheist because the word immediately conjures the image of some angry kook filing a lawsuit against a Christmas tree at city hall.

-k

{I was hoping this would be about the other 'f' word...}

[WestCoastRunner]

There's two main reasons I don't identify as a feminist.

First of all, I'm not sure what it means anymore. I know what it used to mean, and by that definition I'm certainly a feminist. But in recent years it seems to be becoming attached to all kinds of other far-left causes that I don't support and don't even understand how they became associated with feminism.

The second reason, closely aligned with the first, is that if you identify yourself as a feminist, you're taking on a lot of baggage that has become associated with that word. Just as I don't identify myself to people as an atheist because the word immediately conjures the image of some angry kook filing a lawsuit against a Christmas tree at city hall.

-k

{I was hoping this would be about the other 'f' word...}

Absolutely there is a major problem with the branding of the word 'feminist'. Individuals who consider themselves feminists are certainly in the minority.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

So, in that sense, most people I would hope would fall into that category.

I thought the title would grab some attention!

[kimmy]

Absolutely there is a major problem with the branding of the word 'feminist'. Individuals who consider themselves feminists are certainly in the minority.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

So, in that sense, most people I would hope would fall into that category.

If we went by that definition, everybody here is a feminist, including Shady. It's not in the least bit controversial.

The controversy comes when people-- often academics or activists it seems-- advocate for extreme positions in pursuit of those goals. I don't think that just because you disagree with say, ham-fisted government intervention in the economy or total disregard for the principle of merit in pursuit of an imposed equality (to name a couple) means you're anti-feminist.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's complete hyperbole to suggest that feminism is needed now more than ever. One would have to be completely and utterly ignorant of history to suggest something that stupid. ... You don't get handed the job simply because you posess a vagina. If we want more women in elected government, more women are going to have to run for office. Perhaps you should be asking them why they aren't. And women CEOs are on the rise, growing ever year.

Your post seems to at once acknowledge that feminism had an effect in bringing change to our society, and to deny that areas of business activities that STILL don't have gender equality are impacted by sexism. If it were 1965, you could also claim that feminism has had an effect and that women need to "earn" their way into the business world.

The fact is that they're kept out by men, and by that I mean individuals at the bottom of the competence chain who are insecure about their abilities and rely on their network to stay at their desks. The oldest industries (finance and the military) are the last to change, but they will change.

As for "identifying" as a feminism, I suppose that's the problem with social change. When it works, and social ideas are adopted the words we use to affect change seem like outdated relics of an old war.

[Big Guy]

The goal of equality between the sexes is an admirable goal that I would certainly support. What I question is the methodology to achieve that end.

Affirmative action and gender hiring goals and conditions are not the way to go. I believe that the argument used in these kinds of programs is the "Inequality of the present to try to make up for inequality of the past is a legitimate tool to promote equality".

I have little use for social architects.

[WIP]

If we went by that definition, everybody here is a feminist, including Shady. It's not in the least bit controversial.

The controversy comes when people-- often academics or activists it seems-- advocate for extreme positions in pursuit of those goals. I don't think that just because you disagree with say, ham-fisted government intervention in the economy or total disregard for the principle of merit in pursuit of an imposed equality (to name a couple) means you're anti-feminist.

-k

As I see it, it goes further than that. If things aren't equal...which they cannot be under any capitalist system...what are you going to do about those inequalities? And the question goes beyond gender to race and even the accelerating gaps in income and wealth we are experiencing in this brave new world of so called "free trade." Do you look at those gaps and say (like typical rightwingers)"oh well, unless someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gaps are structural or systemic, I advise doing nothing about it." or do you say:"if the system can't arrive at an equal balance, we'll step in and make it equal!" The answer determines how much you really believe in the principle of equality....everything that runs from anarcho-capitalist libertarian to anticapitalist uniformity....everyone's somewhere on that spectrum.

*I learned a couple of years ago, that, just as conservatives create fake civil rights advocates, they even have a couple of fake feminists. One being the well-compensated Christina Hoffs-Somers, who speaks and writes endlessly about a rightwing-friendly form of feminism she labelled "Equity Feminism"....which boils down to do nothing other than that mythical even playing field! So, even David and Charles Koch could probably qualify as feminist...or feminist supporters by that definition.

I'm on the side of what you call the extreme positions....really extreme positions: ending wars, ending corporate overreach that is instigating 99% of the wars since WWII, scrapping the WTO and so called free trade regimes that give international corporations power over nation-states, and since I had to play a part in this issue right at my own workplace as younger women started at what is usually considered traditionally 'men's work': establishing a firm policy against all forms of sexual harassment, and enforcing it, after waiting until signs of any problems was realized to be a disastrous approach!

[Michael Hardner]

The goal of equality between the sexes is an admirable goal that I would certainly support.

...

I have little use for social architects.

I can't resolve these two questions: you have little use for people who have planned and achieved admirable goals that you support ?

[WIP]

I am stealing the title for this topic from an article written by Kaity Cooper for the site rabble.ca. This is a great topic to start off this new section and I hope it clears up some misunderstandings about why women are proud to be 'feminists'.

She makes some great points to try and explain why we still need feminism more than ever and comments on the smear campaign against feminism, especially from women:

"The #WomenAgainstFeminism phenomenon on Tumblr, wherein women post photographs of themselves holding signs that state why they do not need feminism, like, "I don't need feminism because my self-worth is not directly tied to the size of my victim complex," is one example. Or the recent Time magazine article which included "feminist" in a list of annoying words that readers could vote to ban from public discourse. Or the public distancing from feminism exemplified by celebrities like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, who, for better or worse are role models for young girls. "

BTW, Times magazine later posted an article apologizing for including the term 'feminist' in the list.

Here are some facts related to the under-representation of women in Canada.

• The UN Annual Human Development Index for 2012 revealed that inequality in Canada is actually growing.
• After falling for a decade, rates of domestic violence have now flat-lined. In 2009, the rate of self-reported spousal violence was the same as in 2004. Reporting rates have not improved over the years. Victims of domestic violence are now less likely to report an incident to police.
• Ninety-six percent of CEOs in Canada are men
• Among Canadas elected representatives, men outnumber women four to one
• New forms of misogyny - Girls are facing new forms of sexism in their daily lives. Cyberbullying, the sexualization of women and girls in the media and the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation.
• Male voices outnumber female voices in Canada's most influential print, broadcast and online news media by four to one

I will end this OP on a question Kaity asks:

"Given what we know of women's profound impact on the success of various entities, how can organizations justify their exclusion?"

Thanks for this! A political forum I used to be a member of, started getting flooded with misogynistic trolls calling themselves: "Men's Rights Advocates." Sort of the equivalent of "White Power" in my estimation; but that's where I first came across this #womenagainstfeminism BS. One of the MRA trolls...who didn't have the capability of posting real arguments, let alone trying to rebut or refute others, kept churning out pictures on a daily basis from that stupid tumblr site. I wondered how many of the pictures were genuine...since many of them have girls and young women with some stupid antifeminist slogans posted across them. Even some of the ones that appear to hold up cards with slogans on them, could just as easily be photoshops because of the poor graphics.

On Katy Perry or Lady Gaga....why would anyone expect that any women who become well-payed "stars" would give a crap about the lives of other women? I am sort of more suspicious of the pop stars calling themselves feminists or doing the meaningless "girl power" crappola, like the Spice Girls were doing back when my daughter was still in her formative years. Whatever that was supposed to be about....aside from selling dolls and hawking related merchandise....I should point out I'm a cynic of all pop culture in general.

As for the final question: the justification for excluding women mostly boils down to the fact that the political goals and aspirations of the right, are that they have to focus on what are considered mostly male virtues/and vices: competition, independence, aggression etc.. So they want women in general, playing as little a role in public life as possible.

[Remiel]

I think I would call myself a feminist were I not prone to do awful things that disqualify me.

[Big Guy]

To Michael Hardner - The difference I see is in the process to achieve equality. If you try to make sure that men and women are treated equally during the hiring process and merit is the only evaluating gauge then you are preventing discrimination by gender. If you create artificial hiring goals where women are given hiring priority so that some artificial goal is achieved is social manipulation.

Discrimination in the present to make up for discrimination of the past is not an acceptable process or policy.

[Michael Hardner]

To Michael Hardner - The difference I see is in the process to achieve equality. If you try to make sure that men and women are treated equally during the hiring process and merit is the only evaluating gauge then you are preventing discrimination by gender.

Yes, and that's Social Engineering too I think.

If you create artificial hiring goals where women are given hiring priority so that some artificial goal is achieved is social manipulation.

This has been discussed on here quite a bit. I don't think goals themselves are manipulative, enforced quotas may be. You have allowed for preventing discrimination in the hiring process, so how you would achieve that without at least gathering statistics is unclear to me.

Discrimination in the present to make up for discrimination of the past is not an acceptable process or policy.

What about creating new spaces to allow for the hiring of people who were discriminated against, in the past ? That would counteract the negative social impacts of past discrimination without reducing the availabilities for the majority. What do you think ?

[Big Guy]

New spaces are created by the market and should be filled by the most qualified with no reference to gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

If in the past my father was passed over by a white guy because he was black does not mean that I deserve to be sent to the front of the line because I am black.

Forced quotas and especially social manipulation does more harm than good. I am one of those who believe that the busing experiment in the USA and affirmative action processes in an attempt to force more blacks into the main stream is not very successful. The resentment still lingers since 1954 when the Supreme Court condemned segregation. The vast $billions invested in this attempt at social engineering would have been far better used in other processes.

I still see a seething resentment in Canadian Industry, Manufacturing and government organizations which hire according to quotas. Many professional women who I have met resent that others are being advanced through quotas in an attempt to satisfy artificial targets.

The other major problem I see is the process of establishing a quota that "represents the society". What the hell does that mean?

I guess that the percentage of blacks, gays, males, whites, aboriginal, etc in the civil service should represent the same percentage in the general population?

Does that mean that we set targets so that the work force has to represent the general population?

Does that mean that if an office hires a 50 year old, handicapped, aboriginal woman then it gets to check off 4 boxes?

Discrimination in the present to make up for the discrimination of the past does not work.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Big Guy

[WestCoastRunner]

New spaces are created by the market and should be filled by the most qualified with no reference to gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

If in the past my father was passed over by a white guy because he was black does not mean that I deserve to be sent to the front of the line because I am black.

Forced quotas and especially social manipulation does more harm than good. I am one of those who believe that the busing experiment in the USA and affirmative action processes in an attempt to force more blacks into the main stream is not very successful. The resentment still lingers since 1954 when the Supreme Court condemned segregation. The vast $billions invested in this attempt at social engineering would have been far better used in other processes.

I still see a seething resentment in Canadian Industry, Manufacturing and government organizations which hire according to quotas. Many professional women who I have met resent that others are being advanced through quotas in an attempt to satisfy artificial targets.

The other major problem I see is the process of establishing a quota that "represents the society". What the hell does that mean?

I guess that the percentage of blacks, gays, males, whites, aboriginal, etc in the civil service should represent the same percentage in the general population?

Does that mean that we set targets so that the work force has to represent the general population?

Does that mean that if an office hires a 50 year old, handicapped, aboriginal woman then it gets to check off 4 boxes?

Discrimination in the present to make up for the discrimination of the past does not work.

I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights.

First of all, you have no idea what women go through being exposed to sexism and discrimination in the workforce.

A solution is to have women who are in the workforce to pressure 'men' to take another look at resumes that are submitted from women. I work in the IT industry and we get 3 resumes from women for every 7 resumes that are submitted by men. I encourage my superiors to look at the female resumes. When we have equal qualifications, and I suggest we hire the 3 women, am I wrong?

[-1=e^ipi]

The word 'feminism' is not gender neutral enough. And here I thought feminism was supposed to be all about gender neutral words such as policeperson instead of policeman. It is not inclusive. Gender egalitarianism is far more inclusive and includes females, males and non-gender-binary-identifying persons.

When we have equal qualifications, and I suggest we hire the 3 women, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong and without a doubt a sexist bigot.

[Michael Hardner]

New spaces are created by the market and should be filled by the most qualified with no reference to gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

Except that it's pretty much impossible to figure that out in many situations. We do know that certain groups have an advantage, and since you have indicated that you favour efforts to promote equality then targets would seem to satisfy the need to promote equality.

Forced quotas and especially social manipulation does more harm than good.

What about my example ? You're just repeating things from the other post.

Does that mean that we set targets so that the work force has to represent the general population?

Does that mean that if an office hires a 50 year old, handicapped, aboriginal woman then it gets to check off 4 boxes?

Discrimination in the present to make up for the discrimination of the past does not work.

Yes, you just keep repeating that. You say you believe in efforts to promote equality, but you haven't even acknowledged why non-binding targets are a bad idea, even to "represent the general population". Nor did you address my idea.

Do you want to move the conversation forward ? If so, respond to those points.

[Big Guy]

To WCR - No you are not "wrong". You are expressing a personal view and trying to impose it on to the workplace - you have that right. You are as correct as the other IT person who encourages their superiors to look at those 7 resumes from men and if they have equal qualifications then they suggest hiring the men.

If those in charge of your workplace know of your bias then they are "wrong" to keep you in that position of recommending others. You may also have biases towards whites or blacks or Muslims or Catholics or handicapped or aboriginal ...

You do appear to have a deep seated sense of women as victims. I found it interesting that you painted my opinion as "... a white man espousing on women's rights" as if white men had no right to comment or express their views of women's rights. Do only feminist opinions on women's rights count?

When you question when a poster suggests that equal opportunity based on merit is an anti-woman position then I suggest that your passion may be clouding your vision. That attitude narrows your ability to objectively evaluate conditions and will restrict and negatively affect your professional and personal relationships with others.

My bride was and my daughter is a well respected professional. They both share my views.

While you obviously have very strong feelings as to women as victims, I suggest that you represent and speak for only a small minority of females - but you are not "wrong". I believe that a personal opinion by definition could never be wrong.

[WestCoastRunner]

If a department has a ratio of 4 men to 1 woman wouldn't that be considered sexist hiring. If bringing in 3 women to cover 3 vacancies offers some form of balance is that sexist?

Part of the problem of the 4% of CEOs filled by women is because men are not hiring women. Providing more opportunities to women is not sexist at all.

Of course I don't represent all women but neither do you and your daughter and wife.

[-1=e^ipi]

Except that it's pretty much impossible to figure that out in many situations. We do know that certain groups have an advantage, and since you have indicated that you favour efforts to promote equality then targets would seem to satisfy the need to promote equality.

Yeah, for example, in the vast majority of jobs I have applied for over the last couple of years, I am told in the application that I will be discriminated against for my gender, my race, my ethnic background and my linguistic background. I have to be a scape goat for 'social justice' so that people such as you can have a false perception of moral superiority. In 2013, I assure you that I was maximally contributing to the reducing all sorts of 'wage gaps' as me being unemployed is maximally socially just.

I found it interesting that you painted my opinion as "... a white man espousing on women's rights" as if white men had no right to comment or express their views of women's rights. Do only feminist opinions on women's rights count?

Of course your opinion doesn't matter. You are at the bottom of the social justice hierarchy. That's how social justice works. Your opinion only matters if you agree with the 'progressive' position.

If a department has a ratio of 4 men to 1 woman wouldn't that be considered sexist hiring. If bringing in 3 women to cover 3 vacancies offers some form of balance is that sexist?

Hiring the most qualified individuals isn't sexist regardless of if those individuals are all male, all female, all non-gender binary, or anything in between. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist.

Providing more opportunities to women is not sexist at all.

Keep trying to delude yourself that institutionalized sexism isn't sexist if you want.

Edited April 1, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[guyser]

If a department has a ratio of 4 men to 1 woman wouldn't that be considered sexist hiring.

No. Not at all .

If bringing in 3 women to cover 3 vacancies offers some form of balance is that sexist?

If the reason they are brought in is because they are women then that is sexist.

Part of the problem of the 4% of CEOs filled by women is because men are not hiring women. Providing more opportunities to women is not sexist at all.

Not to mention plenty of women leave the workforce to be mothers and lose at least some of the spot in the hierarchy ladder they had previously enjoyed.

Women have more personal and social pressures on them.

Theres the want vs need aspect.

All sorts of reasons.

[WIP]

New spaces are created by the market and should be filled by the most qualified with no reference to gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

That only works in the libertarian fantasyland of level playing fields! In the real world, a lot of hiring...and most of the promotions to higher positions afterwards are the products of sheer nepotism. Not that I've wanted to be in management....at least not since I've been about 25 ...but where I work, all of the young hotshots who want to wear a whiteshirt, play golf and know that if they can find their way into the right foursome, they're more than halfway there! If employers don't like certain minorities, or want to hire women or promote either to higher levels, they can come up with all kinds of alibis to explain their hiring and promotional choices. Without clear targets, it doesn't get done....or at least very few get through. The only thing the market seems to be good at, is concentrating wealth at the top....everything else is in jeopardy if left up to market forces alone!

Forced quotas and especially social manipulation does more harm than good. I am one of those who believe that the busing experiment in the USA and affirmative action processes in an attempt to force more blacks into the main stream is not very successful. The resentment still lingers since 1954 when the Supreme Court condemned segregation. The vast $billions invested in this attempt at social engineering would have been far better used in other processes.

If you're going to excuse racist whites in the South for their bad attitude towards ending Segregation, you need to look at the full picture! Sad fact is that...in a highly hierarchical society (which is 99.9999% in the last 5000 years), every interest group in that hierarchy measures their wellbeing by their position in that pyramid. So, if you look back and take an historical perspective, the great failure of Lincoln and the Union forces during Reconstruction of the South, was to quickly reappoint the old Confederates and allow nearly all of them to run for re-election. And they did nothing to stop the rise of the KKK or stop the pseudo-slavery industry. The simple fact was that most of these whites who were clamouring for segregation, voter-restriction laws to prevent blacks from sending their people to higher office, and stripping black farmers of the land they had been granted after the end of Slavery....all of these things were mostly a product of poor whites who didn't have a pot to piss in, and never owned slaves or came from slaveholding families themselves! Their racism and contempt for Africans was based solely on the fact that in the highly hierarchical Antebellum South, where a small number of wealthy white plantation and business owners controlled almost all the wealth, those white farmers at the bottom of the heap felt self-assured that at least they couldn't end up in last place! And all that ended with the end of Slavery; because that raised the possibility that they could be last. And that mindset of the Jim Crow Era carried right throughout the decades afterwards after official slavery ended, and creative subterfuges had to be concocted to maintain the old systems of oppression! That's what your 'resentful' anti-integration protesters were really motivated by. And sad fact is they still won't admit their underlying motives even to this day!

I still see a seething resentment in Canadian Industry, Manufacturing and government organizations which hire according to quotas. Many professional women who I have met resent that others are being advanced through quotas in an attempt to satisfy artificial targets.

Who ever said there weren't women or minorities who weren't selfish and too self-centered to consider that...maybe if pressure from above made it possible for them to have some career advancement, they might want to help out someone else.

This reminds me of the "breaking the glass ceiling" concern of professional and upper middle class women looking at the top jobs. A couple of years ago, the jaw-dropping example of narcissism and greed that continues on with a female CEO, should have provided a good enough example that having a woman rise to the top of the toxic heap does not necessarily do anything for employees - in brief, Marrissa Mayer, Yahoo CEO, built a private nursery next to her office so she could have time to spend with her young daughter. Not only did Mayer fail to provide the same childcare benefit for employees, she even refused to allow those with young children who could do some of their work from home to do so! She insisted they all report for duty every day at the office, and hire babysitters for their children if they wanted to keep their jobs. One law for the rich...another for the rest of us....same old, same old, no matter what gender!

[WIP]

I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights.

First of all, you have no idea what women go through being exposed to sexism and discrimination in the workforce.

I do, and I guess that puts me in a distinct minority among the male half of the population. When women are brought into jobs that are traditionally "men's work," the institution needs to be aware that there will inevitably be problems with sexual harassment, that can even extend right through to sexual assault and worse!

Not every female employee will feel the same degrees of risk because of a wide variety of factors...including personality and shear physical size and strength. Point being that one young woman who says she's had no problems just happens to be 5'10" and has a background in martial arts...that's how she met her husband apparently! But, the exception doesn't prove the rule. Most of the women who were having problems, didn't know how to deal with them, or where to go to for help. Some started taking too many sick days, some just quit work. It took a couple or a few years until everything boiled up to the surface and the rest of us became aware of how serious the problem was.

There is a basic, fundamental psychological issue that every man working in a mixed gendered environment has to become aware of....especially in situations like mine, where younger women are coming in to do those man's jobs: we still live in a patriarchy, regardless of what propaganda libertarians are flying today. And, whether it's ingrained or just something we adapt to in our culture, men feel a loss of prestige if a woman can also do the job. It's something that we may be trying to consciously fight against.....and we can do it if we try...but, at that gut level, where our unconscious thinking goes on, most guys are going to feel a loss of status if they see women doing their jobs. If they're not doing a gut-check, they can fall into the trap of cycling between sexual advances/and showing contempt for women trying to do men's work. As with racism and a whole lot of other prejudices that come from a very deep subconscious level, we have to draw them up to the surface - where our higher conscious critical thinking is done, before we can feel assured of truly being 'unprejudiced.'

[cybercoma]

Hiring the most qualified individuals isn't sexist regardless of if those individuals are all male, all female, all non-gender binary, or anything in between. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist.

So you're just going to ignore that she said women and men with equal qualifications then?