Female traffic lights

[geminii]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. There is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive. Why deal with this so-called 'unconscious bias' when their efforts could be directed to women being murdered in other countries?

I encourage you all to view this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuo9oaKYUd8 (Apologies for the inappropriate language so pls don't watch if you are too young or don't want to hear the language)

[vcestressed]

This is my most favourite thread on AN. It was nice to see different opinions because i never realised the sign on the traffic light was a 'man'. I honestly thought it was just a 'person'. Anyway, this is what i think: I honestly do not get the point of changing the signs because i feel like it is a waste of money and we could do more useful things w our own money. Many people like me mightn't have been aware of  a 'man' being on traffic light. We are creating our own problems by differentiating this now.
Kinda off topic but I really want to share this:
I agree that feminism is an important issue, it will always be but sometimes i feel like 'girl-on-girl' hate is a more serious issue. Everyone talks about how men should respect women and they should but I've never heard of people saying that 'girls should respect girls'. Like seriously, the amount of girl-on-girl hate young girls have to go through in school, at work and/or online is unimaginable. Isn't feminism about 'men and women having equal rights and opportunities'? Then why are girls actually stopping the advancement of equality? Why do girls feel the need to spread hate?
Anyway, Happy International Women's Day everyone. 

[Russ]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. There is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive. Why deal with this so-called 'unconscious bias' when their efforts could be directed to women being murdered in other countries?

If it is clear that this is an inappropriate intervention;
What is the opportunity cost of this intervention in the context of wanting to stop women being murdered overseas?
What will the benefit of this intervention be domestically?
What could be achieved internationally for a similar investment? Would you be able to redirect the funding and resources?

Alternatively;
Is it not possible for both to occur simultaneously, since they're not mutually exclusive or significantly dependent on each other?
Would you question a grant given to research bowel cancer on the grounds that the money could be used to research something else instead?

Dismissing this as oversensitive feminists is one of the more intellectually barren offerings to make to a discussion on the issue (although your video link certainly beats it).

[Russ]

Jeez do people actually care about the sign on the traffic lights? It seems like a superfluous debate??? This is the first time I actually realized that the traffic light figures are actually male because after all my primary motive is to cross the road. The only time i would give a crap about traffic light symbols is if i have to now wait longer or less to cross.

It's not solely about the superficial issue of what gets shown at traffic lights, it's about highlighting a deeper issue and stimulating conversation to challenge beliefs such as 'there's no wage gap' or 'women aren't disadvantaged'.

[elysepopplewell]

I don't know. Maybe you should ask yourself that. Why do you assume it's a man? Are you then being sexist because you are assuming it's gender, god forbid?
 I never assumed it was a man - and even if I did, I'm not going to be offended by it. I'll be offended if a man hits me or a woman hits me or if a man assumes I can't do something because I'm a woman, or if a female assumes a man can't do something because he's a man. That's the sort of things we should be getting offended about, not that some traffic light shows an androgynous figure and some people assume it's a man.
You're asking why we assume it's a man. A lot of us don't. You were told to 'wait for the green man' to cross the road. I was not. Perhaps you should be asking "why do we assume that androgynous figures relate to masculinity?" to the people who told you that the green person was a man, and not to us, because in reality we can hardly assume its gender. And it's all a matter of opinion anyway; if you think it's a man, that's great. If you think it's a female, that's great too. If you just think of it as a person, that's also okay. But is this even a big issue? Why do feminists need to change these traffic lights? As I said before, why don't they focus on actually HELPING women, rather than focusing on an 'unconscious bias' which isn't even there - it's made up in the minds of people who are offended all too easily.

I think you've lost the intention of what I've written through the forums. I AM asking myself that - why did I assume this is a man? I'm looking inwardly to work out, within myself, why I saw the figure as a man. I put the invitation out there for other people to question the same thing. And you have, and you've responded that you haven't thought of it as a man. Great! Then this isn't going to be an exercise is challenging unconscious bias in your mind. Perhaps you have none, congratulations But I certainly do. From everything I have read broadly today and yesterday - no one was offended by the figure being male/androngymous. This isn't about being offended. Nor is it a "group of feminists" lobbying for the change - it was the Committee for Melbourne (which, presumably, has feminists among it, but is not an NGO for feminism). I think Melbourne wants to be cool, quirky, and inclusive. That's why the traffic lights were changed - not because anyone was offended by them.

I can't convince you that unconscious bias exists - I see it every single day because I'm acutely aware of it. I definitely wasn't always, it was something I skeptically studied until I saw the evidence. If someone said to me a year ago that it existed I'd say it's probably all anecdotal. It's not. I really hope you don't think that there's a group of raging feminists lurking in the corners of Melbourne waiting for the opportunity to change traffic lights purely for the purpose of ignoring bigger issues. You'll find that feminist groups are approaching big issues. It's the Committee of Melbourne that changed the lights.

But hey, some pixels were added to traffic lights. This doesn't mean that thousands of people aren't fighting big issues today and everyday that face women. Changing traffic lights isn't detracted the wonderful work of feminists everywhere that are tackling big issues, even if they are starting at micro-levels. I find it difficult to entertain "there is no issue here other than feminists being too sensitive." I'm a feminist, fierce and "third wave" and I'm certainly not sensitive to traffic lights. I watched the video, I think it doesn't hold any weight. The dilemma is not "traffic lights or eradicating female genital mutilation." We aren't being forced to choose - we can have both.

[elysepopplewell]

Kinda off topic but I really want to share this:
I agree that feminism is an important issue, it will always be but sometimes i feel like 'girl-on-girl' hate is a more serious issue. Everyone talks about how men should respect women and they should but I've never heard of people saying that 'girls should respect girls'. Like seriously, the amount of girl-on-girl hate young girls have to go through in school, at work and/or online is unimaginable. Isn't feminism about 'men and women having equal rights and opportunities'? Then why are girls actually stopping the advancement of equality? Why do girls feel the need to spread hate?
Anyway, Happy International Women's Day everyone. 

This...so spot on! I don't know about it being a "more" important issue but certainly a big issue...
I have been doing some ~reflecting~ lately on my identity, purpose, etc (that happens when you're alone on the other side of the world). When I was in High School, I certainly felt intimidated by other girls. I totally engaged in destructive conversations about other girls and even at the time of doing that - I'd feel worse off? Tearing people down has never made me feel better when I walk away and it really confuses me now that I used to engage in that kind of thing anyway. I think it's because, although outwardly I was so confident, I was quite insecure internally. And I kept hoping that by targetted the strength of other girls (sometimes just in my head and not even expressed verbally) I could take a little bit of it for myself. I didn't have the tools to know how to turn around and look at myself to grow, rather than trying to stump other people. I look at my friendship group now, my 7 best friends, and we used to bicker in High School. But when we all left, started doing our own thing, we learned to stand all on our own two feet and there was no need to be competitive, we all raised ourselves.
@zotheysay posted a similar (but far wittier) story on Instagram today about exactly this - how she used to pull women down in the hopes of raising herself. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed, and in the feminism I'm involved in, it really is. Empowering women with the tools they need to feel strong without pulling others down is so important and at the forefront of the feminism I actively engage in. For me, the tools I needed were often reading books about heroines who didn't tear others down, and from looking up to people (sometimes celebrities and sometimes just mere mortals in my life ) who displayed confidence and support simultaneously - and I thought "I really want that to be me."

So yeah, you've addressed that really well. I don't have all the answers, I don't know what I could have told 15 year old me to fast-forward her confidence to 19 year old me. But what you're saying highlights a big issue, in my opinion! Even if not a feminist issue - an issue for mental health, social confidence, bullying, etc...

[Dylpickle01]

The stance I have resulted to with this debate is not one of either side; keeping the 'male' symbol nor replacing it with a 'female' symbol. It is very important to first establish that there is indeed an association of gender towards each of the two, which is highly present throughout society and, unfortunately, within each of our subconscious thoughts. The majority of national and furthermore international businesses use such symbols to signify male and female areas and products, namely bathrooms, which people still use in a submissive fashion. Socially, it is made standard that each of the images represent a group of people, and by placing either of them in a position which dictates authority or direction, it only worsens the divide between people. This is where the question is asked: 'if this system is so bad, then what's the alternative?' The solution which various nations around the world have already implemented over the last 30 years, is to eradicate the gender-based symbolism of the traffic light system. Within major cities of the United States, such signage is simply a hand and the word 'walk', with a timer to countdown remaining crossing time. Not only is this actually more efficient and effective than the current system, it eliminates the prior issues discussed. This is the first step to real equality, one that does not hold one group of people higher than another, one that does not force a subconscious hierarchy, one that has no means of continuing to diminish the people. It should never be acceptable for people to be displaced from society simply due to their existence, especially when the system can be so easily fixed.

[spectroscopy]

I am sorry if this is going to de-rail the thread a little bit, (and forgive my being uninformed about the topic) but i just want to put forth my experience about why I think we should definitely be asking questions and making positive changes about these sorts of gender issues.

I am staying out of the debate on this one in general as I am not well versed enough to have a strong opinion or understand the intricacies of different arguments, but having the public asking questions about these issues & changing things like the traffic light is a step in the right direction because there are alot of really practical disadvantages around that should be fixed (for both genders) and the only way for a lot of them to come to light is by really voicing concern about them and working to fix them.
one i can really think of that shits me that people dont talk about is the lack of baby change tables in mens bathrooms.
i regularly look after my baby nephew and looked after his older sister (my neice) before she got to school age, and naturally when i need to do something out of the house and bring them with me, inevitably they will shit their pants on occasion because that is what babies do. half the time (except big shopping centres) i could not for the life of me find a baby change table/parents room, and eventually would have to go into a girls toilet to use the baby change table LOL and when I do get forced into that situation, i get people saying shit to me like "he should have his mother looking after him not his dad (im not even his dad)" "wheres his mother? do you just want me to change his diaper instead?" etc. which upsets me on both the fact that a) they think the woman should just stay home and look after the baby instead of go to work and b) that a man is incapable of looking after children.
I also have a close friend with a baby daughter and he has had people in public make some very sinister insinuations towards him about his intentions with his own daughter.    this is just one particular issue that I have faced and I am sure there are loads more that I don't know about for women, because I haven't experienced them or even really thought about this topic. I really cant begin to think of how many shit situations like this sort of thing that girls face in the world as well especially in places like the workplace. so i think that a trend towards really equalising things in public in a really practical and visible way will get people asking the right questions and eventually work toward solving some of the problems that everyone faces in life, and hopefully it might also make some people be a bit more considerate of their actions and words in public. happy international womens day everyone !!

EDIT: grammar

[Joseph41]

I encourage you all to view this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuo9oaKYUd8

For what purpose, exactly?

[vcestressed]

whereas, I have given facts; how women are more likely to get into STEM jobs, the wage gap is almost non-existent and does not take into account hours worked, efficiency of the person, job preference, job type, etc. People's rebuttals to this throughout the whole thread have been

Hey, can you please expand on this? I thought there was a huge wage gap. . . .
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html

[sudodds]

Maybe there are less women in your [in general] job, but overall, more women are in STEM jobs, and that's a fact.

Not a fact.

"Women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2016).

Women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (62%) and biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences (48%) and relatively low shares in engineering (15%) and computer and mathematical sciences (25%).
For example:

35.2% of chemists are women;
11.1% of physicists and astronomers are women;
33.8% of environmental engineers are women;
22.7% of chemical engineers are women;
17.5% of civil, architectural, and sanitary engineers are women;
17.1% of industrial engineers are women;
10.7% of electrical or computer hardware engineers are women; and
7.9% of mechanical engineers are women."

Source: National Girls Collaborative Project https://ngcproject.org/statistics

Granted this is US data, but it is highly unlikely that Australia is any different. Plus as this in particular is a global issue, stats from the larger and more active US community are probably more indicative of trends than the smaller Australia.

[geminii]

Hey, can you please expand on this? I thought there was a huge wage gap. . . .
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html

Hi vcestressed,
When I say that there is a barely or non existent wage gap, what I mean is that although there are sites like this which show that men are paid more than women, this does not account for the follow variables:
- How long women and men work
- How efficiently women and men work
- The types of jobs women and men are in
- The types of jobs women prefer to do and men prefer to do.
When you account for these variables (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any off the top of my head), the wage gap is extremely minimal or barely even there.

Not a fact.

"Women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2016).

Women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (62%) and biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences (48%) and relatively low shares in engineering (15%) and computer and mathematical sciences (25%).
For example:

35.2% of chemists are women;
11.1% of physicists and astronomers are women;
33.8% of environmental engineers are women;
22.7% of chemical engineers are women;
17.5% of civil, architectural, and sanitary engineers are women;
17.1% of industrial engineers are women;
10.7% of electrical or computer hardware engineers are women; and
7.9% of mechanical engineers are women."

Source: National Girls Collaborative Project https://ngcproject.org/statistics

Granted this is US data, but it is highly unlikely that Australia is any different. Plus as this in particular is a global issue, stats from the larger and more active US community are probably more indicative of trends than the smaller Australia.

Apologies, sudodds, what I meant to say is that women are more likely to be accepted into STEM jobs.

"For decades, sexism in higher education has been blamed for blocking women from landing academic positions in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.
But a new study by Cornell psychologists suggests that era has ended, finding in experiments with professors from 371 colleges and universities across the United States that science and engineering faculty preferred women two-to-one over identically qualified male candidates for assistant professor positions."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

"Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics."
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

"Women are clearly capable of doing well in STEM fields traditionally dominated by men, and they should not be hindered, bullied, or shamed for pursuing careers in such fields. But we also should not be ashamed if our interests differ from men’s. If we find certain careers more intrinsically rewarding than men do, that does not mean we have been brainwashed by society or herded into menial fields of labor. Instead, we should demand that greater intrinsic and monetary compensation be awarded to the work we like and want to do."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/

We can encourage women to go into STEM jobs, but we cannot force them to do so. Men and women are different and on the whole have different interests. Just because we don't have exactly 50/50 of men and women in computer science, for example, that does not mean women are being oppressed - it simply means more women are choosing to pursue other careers that interest them.

[jamonwindeyer]

I have Australian data:

...
More women are in STEM jobs, and that's a fact.

Well, no, it isn't - this link is an article referencing "a finding of a new report by the Office of the Chief Scientist, which shows 16% of the 2.3 million Stem-qualified Australians are female, with engineering showing the largest gender gap." That's last year.

Only needed to read the summary of this report to see that additionally, 32% of male STEM graduates are in the top income bracket, compared to only 12% of female STEM graduates.

So unfortunately, there is a disparity in employment rate. And there is a pay gap. And that's a fact.

As much as my opinions will be based on how I feel, I'm a logical person. I don't argue things based on fact without knowing they are true

Apologies, sudodds, what I meant to say is that women are more likely to be accepted into STEM jobs.

Edit: Right then, so if we have accepted that there are less women in STEM positions, isn't the correct way to balance that by then offering them more opportunities and I don't know, hiring women? Again, you aren't going to equalise the sector by maintaining the status quo, because clearly the status quo has bred inequality. The statistics show it!

[vcestressed]

Hi vcestressed,
When I say that there is a barely or non existent wage gap, what I mean is that although there are sites like this which show that men are paid more than women, this does not account for the follow variables:
- How long women and men work
- How efficiently women and men work
- The types of jobs women and men are in
- The types of jobs women prefer to do and men prefer to do.
When you account for these variables (I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any off the top of my head), the wage gap is extremely minimal or barely even there.

Hey, Firstly feel free to correct me if i say something that doesn't make sense, you think is incorrect etc but,
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/australias-top-50-highest-paying-jobs-20161204-gt3uzx.html
They state that Female neurosurgeons take home just 56 percent of their male counterparts’ salary, despite being the second-highest-paid professional women. Male neurosurgeons (top paying male profession) earned on average $577,674 while women neurosurgeons (second top paying female profession) earned on average $323,682. Difference? Yes. Huge? Yeah. Is it because all females work less hard or efficiently than males? I don’t think so. Is it because women aren't as qualified? No. Even if male neurosurgeons did work more, i don't this most female neurosurgeons worked 44% less than men.
Then have a look at the top paying female profession: judge (law) at $355,844. This very same profession comes in 13th on the male list. You’d think that male judges would be paid less than female judges right? Or at LEAST the same, but that’s still not the case. A male judge is paid on average $381,323, a number still higher than a female in the same position.
The gender pay gap is undeniable. It is unreasonable.Here are some more links you can look at:
https://www.wgea.gov.au/addressing…/what-gender-pay-gap
http://data.wgea.gov.au/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia
Yes, I know wikipedia, how dare I. Have a look at the references. The page quotes university researchers in these areas (male researchers by the way) who have studied and taken into account women working part time/in different areas and still concluded that there is a wage gap even when you take into account maternity leave, working in different areas etc.
Feel free to correct me w anything i've said.

[heids]

My feeling about this thread:

If you don't think that changing the traffic lights is particularly useful, but not terribly dreadfully harmful, then that's fine. You're not obliged to be an active supporter of any social cause. But you have no involvement in it and no reason to get angry; they're not using your time or money, and they're free to use theirs however they wish.

You individually probably spend lots of your time and money in things that make a *negative* impact on yourself or the world around you; rather than judging the effectiveness of others' spending, examine how you could improve your usage of resources for the general good.

Slippery slope arguments ("this one change will lead to the downfall of society let's panic!!!!!") are used to destroy many excellent causes.

I'm aware I'm really bad at following my own advice lol

EDIT: fuck me and my grammar or lack thereof -_-