[bluedanieru]

This is the standard argument against affirmative action as well. Of course affirmative action is more about addressing pay inequality and discriminatory hiring practices, while the focus of this post is more around changing cultural attitudes toward certain activities. Is it possible to separate the two? That is, to have laws in place which will address the historical wrongs while simultaneously building a culture of inclusion?

And of course, the argument for continuing to do this inclusive workshop bullshit (you can tell I'm sympathetic to the author's point), is that while the gender bias persists active effort must be taken against it. So, how do you know when you're done? And, how do you measure your progress? No one answers these questions.

[kmfrk]

Affirmative action carries the connotation of something happening at the expense of someone else (positive discrimination in a zero-sum system), so I think it does a disservice to the side in favour of women-only events to use that analogy.

The article makes it sound like there's some terrible cost to doing these events, and I just these factors are exaggerated and the positive aspects ignored entirely.

Everything has trade-offs, and to discount women-only events without mentioning any of the advantages makes it sound more like an excuse to avoid events than an argument.