Nice to see that FWW has opened up their digital plans collection for free to unlimited members. However, it was striking to me that out of 34 plan contributors, exactly 1 is a woman. Can’t FWW do better than that?
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Maybe not 97% but it is a male dominated trade. Other trades and crafts are different. Enjoy the talents presented here. Does it really matter what the authors gender is?
It matters if the representation suggested by the FWW plan library is inaccurate, which it almost certainly is. It is a disincentive for women considering taking up the art.
How do you know what the "Gender Preferences" of the contributors are? Are you an "Un-Woke Cis-Fem"? [He asks, Tongue-In-Cheekily.] Look, I'm certain there must be men who attend sewing bees, but as a percentage I'd venture a guess it's a rather low number. There are a growing number of women participating in what have, in the past [where I come from] been considered "Male Dominated Professions, Crafts and Hobbies. Thankfully, "The Times", as Robert Zimmerman noted, "They Are a'Changin'". What I don't want to see are "Quotas", as they are an artifice built on external immutable qualities that have absolutely nothing to do with the task at hand. Look in Taunton's, The Toolbox Book, for some sterling examples of crafted objects that fully deserve to be included because of how they were made, not because of the gender, or sex of the maker. Never, ever, make the mistake of expecting people to love and admire your work for anything other than the quality of your work. Anything else is pandering and yet an other egregious example of the bigotry of low expectations.
Yeah! I want to see more toaster ovens represented in FW! It is disgusting. Some sort of toaster oven bias, FW?!
Actually, a toaster oven is the preferred tool used by John Wilson in his book, Making Wood Tools, 2nd Ed., for annealing the blades he makes out of 01 tool steel.
The plan library is a very tiny number of plans and contributors. Hopefully it will grow. But right now, it's not representative of anything. The sample size is just too small.
I believe new contributors have to contact FW, not the other way around. Opening free subscriber access to the plans might be considered a doing a "better job" for us all.
There is hope, my niece recently started woodworking and is setting up a shop in her garage! As soon as the world settles down she'll be in my shop for some tips.
I took a class recently and 3/10 students were female. Only 4/10 “looked like me” — older white guy nearing/at retirement. It was kind of nice.
I've had that happen a couple of times, but it's rare. The norm is over 55, male, and white.
I see some differences in areas of interest though. I've seen a majority of spots in woodturning classes filled by women. It might be, in small part, by the much greater frequency of women turners, both online and in magazines.
And the lack of turning articles makes it harder for Fine Woodworking.
I wonder if the level of the class matters (this one was geared towards beginners). Maybe by the time the advanced classes begin, all the side-talk complaining of bad knees, inflamed prostates and the glory of 4-touchdowns-in-a-single-game has understandably driven the women away.
It really is inexcusable.
Even more outrageous, I bet not one of them is a nelly queen, transgender, or demi girl!
As a "community" of woodworkers, we really have to do better.
Haaaa... this old white guy had to look up both nelly and demi.
LOL! Y'mean it ain't, "Whoa Nelly!" - or a fancy small cup of java? Dang.
Here we go again. I've looked at probably 100's of FWW articles and that question never ONCE crossed my mind.
Why are so many people so focused on this stuff & always looking for a hidden agenda? Does anyone ask why the NBA & NFL are overwhelmingly black men?
God forbid, that somehow men are inherently drawn to it more than women!
Besides, you're not supposed to point out anyone's gender nowadays, right?
Wow, and I thought that today's enlightened attitude was all about personal choice, that people could be who they wanted to be and do what they want to do. I prefer to focus on the design, not the author.
I've always thought that woodworking was very similar to sewing. You pick a design, decide what material to use, cut it up, reassemble and you have something pretty and useful. No way this should be a male or female thing. It seems that it is, though, and that's OK. People should do what they want to do.
When I saw the headline I was taken aback. I am 100% male (X and Y) and do wood stuff so do question the 97% number.
On a more serious note I think woodworking traditionally required a lot of strength to manually resaw, hammer mortices, and lug large chunks of wood around. Now with a lot of power tools, some of the previous manual work should no longer be a deterrent. There are some large and heavy projects that might deter some women (slab bench, 114 lbs, 96" x 48" x 1" oak table top) but the vast majority of projects are within the capabilities of many women. Plus the shop would be a lot cleaner.
Way to end on traditional gender roles 65!
He took a real turn.
Actually, I am ahead of the curve here. My next door neighbor, Samantha who was around 14 or so wanted to build a small table for her room. Red oak, M & T apron to legs joints. I did the table saw stuff, she did the jointer. planer, mortise machine and chisel touch up, band saw, glue up, trim rout the edges, sanding, and finishing. All under very careful observation. She did a great job!
BTW, my wife does not understand that cutting wood creates dust. "You are not taking anyone out there, are you!! Ugh"
As a young boy, my real start in woodworking began in 1969 in high school shop class. There were only one or two girls who dared take a technical class (wood, electrical, automotive, drafting etc) due to the stigma attached to it. Sadly, not that many years after I graduated the schools started discontinuing these classes for some strange short-sighted reason that the trades were a declining and/or a less desirable career choice. It makes me wonder if this has hindered more women being able to enter the trade. However, I have been encouraged by magazines like FWW featuring more articles from women. Makes me think that the times, and attitudes, are changing (albeit not fast enough). I have a son and a daughter and it is my daughter who will not hesitate to tackle a technical project at her home, be it home repairs or making stuff. The existing woodworking population can continue to encourage more people to take up this very satisfying craft by removing any and all barriers to entry that may exist. BTW - really nice table Samantha. Keep up the good work.
Well, "690", mine sort o' began in Jr. High in '57. Seems like the Educational Elites made a career choice for everyone along about then and decided everyone was destined to be white-collar pencil pushers and we'd import (by hook or by crook) everyone else they thought we'd need to do those things they deemed below them. I'll give you two quotes that about sums it up: "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." --Sir Winston Churchill, British prime minister
“In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.” -Joseph Sobran
Brilliant. These quotes are now firmly ensconced in my repertoire.
The outrage is ridiculous. Our entire society is going to outrage itself into omelets failure.
Oh Oh. That last sentence, "Plus the shop would be a lot cleaner", will get you put in the dog house as a sexist reference, '65. (Heh, heh, heh, heh, come to think of it, so was mine.)
This is fantastic! Thank you FWW.
It's all voluntary isn't it? The first female commercial pilot was hired in 1977 and despite that door being opened since then, 4% of the workforce is female. The recruiting and outreach the industry has engaged in is admirable. Yet, the numbers don't change. Should there be forced quotas to satisfy optics?
As the great Tage Hepplwhite Krenov once said: Be judged by the quality of your work, rather than by the color of your gender.
I saw in tiktok that more and more women are starting to get involved in this. Or I just have this fyp
100% here too.
Evaluating the sex of contributors of woodworking plans to FWW, and then extrapolating from that to any firm, specific conclusion about what proportion of woodworkers are male or female is a basic error in analysis.
The group examined is not random. It accumulated over time, in response to a host of factors that may well have, regardless of intent, skewed the population in any number of ways. For instance, one could look at that group, determine what proportion of them actually make a living at woodworking, and then ask, “Is it true that 78% of woodworkers make a living as professional woodworkers?”
Having said this, I strongly suspect that most would agree, just based on experience, that the overwhelming majority of woodworkers (say, >75%) are male, and white. Is such a state of affairs desirable?
Answering this question meaningfully and appropriately isn’t nearly so easy as many make it out to be. How are we to define “desirable” in this context? Must the definition take into account the costs (tangible and intangible) of pushing things toward “desirable”? Who defines “desirable”? Do we actually desire a world in which one-half of woodworkers are women? Or is it more important that the world be one in which women wanting to be woodworkers have as many and as good opportunities to take that path as do men? Are we to be equally concerned about the disproportionate sex ratios amongst quilters, sewing guilds, and flower arrangers? To what extent should a desire to ensure “equal opportunities” be allowed to mandate “equal participation”?
My own thought on the matter is simple, and generally non-coercive: Woodworkers and their guilds, clubs, etc. should, in general, be open to all. Men. Women. Every race. Right-handers. Left-handers. Bald, bearded, pony tails, afros, mullets, and dreadlocks. Advertise that such is the case, and act accordingly. Then let individuals decide what they want to do with their spare time and disposable income.
My dad was a renaissance man- woodworker, builder, motor head, explorer- and as an only child I went along for the ride. I started helping in the shop as a pre-teen and then learned to use the tools as I got older. Funny thing though- he would never let me use the table saw. I taught myself after I started acquiring my own tools and bought my first table saw. And I started taking classes to build my skills but also to learn to use the tools the right way so that I didn’t have any mishaps. In the classes I met women who were also interested in woodworking along with many male instructors who were glad to share their knowledge to all who attended. In the last several years I see many more women sharing woodworking videos on YouTube which is promising. We’re here and thriving- so we just need to put our projects out there to be published.
Sounds like a pretty cool growing-up story.
FWIW, my father was reluctant to let me use the table saw, too, though the absolute prohibition ceased when I graduated college and joined the Navy.
Glad to hear your take on things. Hope you continue to have great experiences, whether it be in the shop or elsewhere.
"We" don't have to do anything. Women will contribute or they won't. Step down off your soapbox & "you" go find female woodworkers!
Mikaol
“[Deleted]”
I don't see any barriers to women getting into woodworking. I often see daughters helping in YouTube videos too. I must admit that in thinking about my grandchildren (they live too far away to visit my shop) and if they will ever have an interest in woodworking I think of my grandsons. I guess my brain is wired that way. Don't get me wrong, If my granddaughter showed even a spark of interest I would be at her side to encourage her. In that thought above I now think all my grandchildren now.
When is this thread going to die? Sheesh......
When the publisher satisfies the outrage of 2 subscribers over the lack of diversity regarding 34 voluntary submissions :)
When everyone stops feeding the Troll.
I never even pay attention to who the authors are, as I am looking at the content. I don’t know why it matters. If you are discouraged to be part of a small group, find some courage and press on. If you want to be a contributor, contact FWW.
Personally, this is a hobby for me and I enjoy learning and reading about the projects and tips. I don’t care what the race, gender, or orientation of the author is any more than I care about their height, weight, or shoe size. The best contributors should be highlighted.
Far more men are woodworkers than women. Should it matter? If you enjoy it, nobody is holding you back!
Almost everywhere I go and the things I do, people look like me. It's a fairly self sustaining system. It's also very limiting. We may not think so, but it is that very homogenous nature that becomes a barrier.
I don't think it's intentional, and no one intends it to be exclusionary. But, it is. If anyone reading this can't imagine how it can be intimidating and feel unwelcoming, I'd have to say you lack imagination.
I've see the way most men act in classes with women, and its different. Without a doubt. They feel they are being helpful, but it's often perceived in a condescending way. Paternalistic. It's not helpful.
I'm not saying anyone is being malicious. But before dismissing the matter completely, try to consider the other point of view. The more we can expand the craft and draw more and diverse woodworkers, we'll all be better off.
this
Thank you for "Mansplaining", Lucy. (Heh, heh, heh, heh.)
Please. For the love of god. Spew your politics somewhere else. I come here to escape the crap and lunacy of our society. Wood working is the one and only solace I have.
Good luck with that, like a cancer it is infecting everything.
You think this is about politics? Wow.
This is very interesting, despite the hatred of politics, so I will keep the thread going a little longer.
If you listen to the latest STL, you will hear Ben and the guys (sic) discussing the builders with whom they would like to have a beer. All are male. Essentially the editorial team pick from people they know first, and that creates a natural bias towards males as a source for articles and projects.
There is benefit however in diversity and I feel that publishers have a duty to reflect that where they can. As John_C2 points out, "Almost everywhere I go and the things I do, people look like me." - this is very important. If all we see are bearded older white males then there is a problem - beards aside, they are all of a particular bent in terms of woodworking choices and styles and so their work will naturally appeal most to that demographic. As they tend to have most of the money this is not an immediate problem, but older white guys are also dying sooner than younger females, so for sustainability of a publication, being able to attract new readers is A Good Thing.
It is also good for the rest of us, as with more people in the hobby we get more innovation and greater economies of scale.
In order to maintain and attract new demographics, we need to show people who are more diverse doing woodwork. I for one should be pleased if FWW had a quota to include at least one article per issue that was written by someone other than a white male.
So in your mind quotas are the solution to what's not actually a problem except for people who probably have no interest in woodworking but just use it as another issue to jump on.
It is one way to achieve the effect desired.
If you think about it, there is no harm in it. It's not as if it's about who represents you in Government or anything, just a fair suggestion to try to publish more work from those who might bring an alternative perspective to the craft.
Everyone wins this way.
The only way you lose with making an effort to be more inclusive is if in doing so you exclude better work or include junk. I think the editorial team is more than capable of identifying quality work.
It might be reasonable to ask how many different contributors have contributed to the magazine in the last 3-5 years and then see how many were new as compared with the 3-5 years before that.
It's not that the established contributors are less than brilliant, simply that they are not particularly representative of the whole of woodworking in Connecticut, never mind the USA or, dare I say it, the wider world around.
Everything else in this society has been dumbed down by the left, why not woodworking?
What is 'dumbing down' about suggesting we see the work of new and possibly more diverse talent? I would say that was more 'amping up' than anything else...
Thanks for letting me know who you are.
This is not about politics. It's about being a little more proactive in welcoming others into the group and accepting them for who they are. This is not a bad thing. btw, I've noticed FWW has been thinking about this too.
Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with politics at all.
I care deeply about woodworking. It's my passion. Bringing in more and different people is what's best for the craft, and that means it's best for all of us, too. Whether they like it or not.
I would agree to the proactive. I also agree in accepting people for who they are. The publisher has all ways stated this is a readers based magazine. I have and will all ways look at the labor, skill and craftmanship/artistry of all the authors/contributors of Fine Woodworking. It is important to me Fine Woodworking maintains the highest standards from its contributors no mater what their demographics.
Post-modern societies have gone mad of late - meaning that the various human delusions about what's real and imaginary; what's morally better or worse; and crazy beliefs about which are the effects that make what causes ..... have all become a vast churn of inchoate alternatives that deny each others legitimacy. We now have vast tomes of "alternative facts"; and alternative mass media channels to purvey them.
This is the problem, really. Our societies have been fragmented into various post-modern tribes, manufactured and whipped-up by various axe-grinding mass media organs, often defined and led by pyschopaths with the most bizarre agendas albeit always inclusive of making themselves lots of money & power. The most ludicrous mass media jabberwockery is now the stuff that forms most of post-modern human "minds".
Many in forums such as this have long ago abandoned any attempt to inform themselves from their own personal experiences, in favour of installing these various and contrary mad mass media tropes familiar to us all these days. Many people simply spout the mantras and cliches taken from their culture-wars little blue or red book of dogmas. It's become impossible to hold a conversation in most places that doesn't degenerate almost immediately into a string of huffs and puffs derived from this style of bigotry-belief or that.
********
Personally I prefer the attitude that John_C2 and Rob_SS display in this particular post: tolerance of "the other" in recognition of the value of seeing and learning from multiple perspectives on the same subject (woodwork, in this case). Of course, they've been immediately labelled and condemned as some sort of representatives of culture war "enemies" beloved of the bigoted and the intolerant. I always wonder what it is that's made such intolerant fulminators ripe for the mass media mess that's found a welcoming home in their hot wee heads.
Lataxe
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled