Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Perifect

Deleted User wrote: »

You must be distraught

Well it's true, isn't it? The report and who reported it was in no way sexist. Having realised this, the poster kid something decided to post some sexist remarks.

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

One meta analysis from 2004 is all you have? Get me some recent data please

That is the latest one I can find, its difficult to get new data because in the current climate, any scientist who dares speak the truth risks losing their job



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues

Deleted User wrote: »

And talking about Nobel's as a guide for intelligence is not very applicable. I mean it's not as if the sciences have been opening to women, until recently.

Ah yes, the patriarchy :rolleyes:

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

the poster kid something decided to post some sexist remarks.

How are my remarks sexist? They are backed up with data. Is it sexist to state verifiable facts?


https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How are my remarks sexist? They are backed up with data. Is it sexist to state verifiable facts?


https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Actually, tonnes of data has shown that there is no difference in IQ levels between males and females. Under some methods males have been found to have higher IQ and under others females have been found to have higher IQ. Put that in your pipe.

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Actually, tonnes of data has shown that there is no difference in IQ levels between males and females. Under some methods males have been found to have higher IQ and under others females have been found to have higher IQ. Put that in your pipe.

Links to those studies please.

Kidchameleon

Its funny how those who belittled posters here for crying sexism about the article are very quick to cry sexism when they hear an uncomfortable and undeniable truth.

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Links to those studies please.

http://google.ie

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its funny how those who belittled posters here for crying sexism about the article are very quick to cry sexism when they hear an uncomfortable and undeniable truth.

Just pointing out that the only sexism came from you and not from the article. Don't be arguing with facts.

One eyed Jack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can guarantee you that if women were getting less 1:1's than men, there would be uproar about it and enforced quota's would follow soon after.

You really can’t guarantee an outcome based upon a hypothetical scenario any more than I could, but in looking at the actual analysis that was done, Paul O’ Toole, Chief Executive of the HEA, had this to say -


“This detailed report is a significant contribution to broadening understanding of student performance at higher education. The findings are mostly positive but require further consideration to address some of the challenges that the evidence presents. In particular, we need to look at non-completion rates by males in certain areas, and the higher education system is seeking ways to improve the outcomes for those students.”

Bold emphasis my own. Not quite uproar, but there are measures listed in the analysis that detail how they hope to address these issues and achieve their aims -

An Analysis of Completion in Irish Higher Education: 2007/08 Entrants FEBRUARY 2019


I gave the report a quick skim and honestly if you were to compare the results based solely upon one criteria that is gender, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

From a quick read of the report, it seems to suggest that girls who achieve the higher points required for University courses like education and health, are completing their chosen courses, whereas boys are achieving the required lower points for College courses such as computing. These computing courses generally require a strong ability in mathematics which a lot of these boys don’t have, and so they’re generally dropping out after first year.

What that suggests to me is that girls are generally making good choices for themselves already, whereas boys aren’t making good choices for themselves, effectively biting off more than they can chew. We’ll often argue against the current feminist politics of attempting to shove more girls into STEM, but I wonder is it time we admitted to ourselves that contrary to popular belief among boys in their own abilities, perhaps they’re just not very good at STEM subjects themselves?

Amirani

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The figures are strange when you factor in the fact that men have a higher IQ on average than women but then again if you look at the courses women are taking, its probably quite a bit easier to get a 1:1 in gender studies than it is in engineering regardless of IQ.

1. Men don't have a higher average IQ. Any differences observed in studies have been minimal, within 3% or so. What more studies have suggested is that that male IQs have a higher variance, i.e. a wider normal distribution with fatter tails.

2. If you're looking at undergraduate college courses, IQ has feck all relevance (whether it has any relevance to anything is another thing). And if it does, if anything I'd expect women to perform better based on point 1, given you're getting such a large portion of the population attending.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000346?via%3Dihub

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really can’t guarantee an outcome based upon a hypothetical scenario any more than I could, but in looking at the actual analysis that was done, Paul O’ Toole, Chief Executive of the HEA, had this to say -


“This detailed report is a significant contribution to broadening understanding of student performance at higher education. The findings are mostly positive but require further consideration to address some of the challenges that the evidence presents. In particular, we need to look at non-completion rates by males in certain areas, and the higher education system is seeking ways to improve the outcomes for those students.”

Bold emphasis my own. Not quite uproar, but there are measures listed in the analysis that detail how they hope to address these issues and achieve their aims -

An Analysis of Completion in Irish Higher Education: 2007/08 Entrants FEBRUARY 2019


I gave the report a quick skim and honestly if you were to compare the results based solely upon one criteria that is gender, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

From a quick read of the report, it seems to suggest that girls who achieve the higher points required for University courses like education and health, are completing their chosen courses, whereas boys are achieving the required lower points for College courses such as computing. These computing courses generally require a strong ability in mathematics which a lot of these boys don’t have, and so they’re generally dropping out after first year.

What that suggests to me is that girls are generally making good choices for themselves already, whereas boys aren’t making good choices for themselves, effectively biting off more than they can chew. We’ll often argue against the current feminist politics of attempting to shove more girls into STEM, but I wonder is it time we admitted to ourselves that contrary to popular belief among boys in their own abilities, perhaps they’re just not very good at STEM subjects themselves?

Why doesn't that surprise...

Truth is, a person can get by perfectly well without a Third Level Degree...indeed, we could probably cull half of University courses!!

There were plenty of women in Engineering in the old Soviet Republics, who were never described as being better or worse than their male counterparts...funnily enough since the fall of the Berlin Wall, when women could decide what they wanted to do themselves, they chose a different path. There are plenty of women working on building sites in China...do they have a patriarchy over there can anyone tell me?

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Just pointing out that the only sexism came from you and not from the article. Don't be arguing with facts.

In what way has anything I said sexist? Please, I am really trying to understand.

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In what way has anything I said sexist? Please, I am really trying to understand.

If I said men are dumber than women, would that be sexist?

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why doesn't that surprise...

Truth is, a person can get by perfectly well without a Third Level Degree...indeed, we could probably cull half of University courses!!

It should also come as no surprise then that how you quantify “perfectly well” and how I would quantify “perfectly well” are probably worlds apart. Certainly a person can get by without a third level education, but what we’re talking about here are the dropout rates - those that have chosen to pursue third level education, and then for one reason or another fail to complete their third level education. So it’s not a question of trying to convince anyone that they can get by perfectly well without a third level education, they don’t believe that themselves or they wouldn’t be attempting to obtain a third level education in the first place. A person can of course get by perfectly well without a third level education, but they can get by a hell of a lot better with a third level education - it gives them more opportunities and avenues for what they want to do in life for one thing.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It should also come as no surprise then that how you quantify “perfectly well” and how I would quantify “perfectly well” are probably worlds apart. Certainly a person can get by without a third level education, but what we’re talking about here are the dropout rates - those that have chosen to pursue third level education, and then for one reason or another fail to complete their third level education. So it’s not a question of trying to convince anyone that they can get by perfectly well without a third level education, they don’t believe that themselves or they wouldn’t be attempting to obtain a third level education in the first place. A person can of course get by perfectly well without a third level education, but they can get by a hell of a lot better with a third level education - it gives them more opportunities and avenues for what they want to do in life for one thing.

I couldn't disagree more, we have a snobbish attitude to Third Level Education, in other European countries, apprenticeships are way more common, Solicitors, Journalists, Accountants (as for Gender Studies) would benefit from more on site training, they have to be hand held for a few years after they finish anyway so what is the difference.

The free market is a much greater indicator of personal preference, and from what media we consume, what sport and culture we consume and engage in, there are many many differences between the genders all of which shape our journeys through life...and so it should be!

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

If I said men are dumber than women, would that be sexist?

If it was a fact then no, it would not be sexist. It would be an uncomfortable fact. East Asains have a higher average IQ than Europeans, not racist but another fact.

Also please dont try and put words in my mouth. I never said women were "dumber" I said there was an IQ difference between men and women on average to mens advantage. Women are not dumb

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If it was a fact then no, it would not be sexist. It would be an uncomfortable fact. East Asains have a higher average IQ than Europeans, not racist but another fact.

Also please dont try and put words in my mouth. I never said women were "dumber" I said there was an IQ difference between men and women on average to mens advantage. Women are not dumb

Well, it's not a fact. This has already been pointed out to you. So saying that women are dumber or have less intelligence than men is sexist.

iptba

Silentcorner wrote: »

The free market is a much greater indicator of personal preference, and from what media we consume, what sport and culture we consume and engage in, there are many many differences between the genders all of which shape our journeys through life...and so it should be!

A bit off topic but is there any readily available data on TV programmes or types of TV programme watched broken down by gender?
Like you, I suspect there there are some gender differences*, but it would be good to have data.

*Though some people watch TV as couples, which would narrow gender gaps

Kidchameleon

Amirani wrote: »

1. Men don't have a higher average IQ. Any differences observed in studies have been minimal, within 3% or so. What more studies have suggested is that that male IQs have a higher variance, i.e. a wider normal distribution with fatter tails.

2. If you're looking at undergraduate college courses, IQ has feck all relevance (whether it has any relevance to anything is another thing). And if it does, if anything I'd expect women to perform better based on point 1, given you're getting such a large portion of the population attending.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000346?via%3Dihub

Your data explains the difference between sexes in Nobel prize winners. Men tend to occupy the highest levels of IQ, meaning more male geniuses than women. Proof that there is no sexist angle to the choice of winners. Again, your data.

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Well, it's not a fact. This has already been pointed out to you. So saying that women are dumber or have less intelligence than men is sexist.

It hasnt been pointed out to me. I asked you for proof of your claims and you told me to google it. Can you provide evidence that counters the data I have provided? You said there is "tonnes"

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It hasnt been pointed out to me. I asked you for proof of your claims and you told me to google it. Can you provide evidence that counters the data I have provided? You said there is "tonnes"

It has been pointed out to you. Maybe you should stop digging.

Silentcorner

iptba wrote: »

A bit off topic but is there any readily available data on TV programmes or types of TV programme watched broken down by gender?
Like you, I suspect there there are some gender differences*, but it would be good to have data.

*Though some people watch TV as couples, which would narrow gender gaps

The world of media is a fascinating insight into who watches/reads/listens to what, the daily mail is unique in that it has a female dominated readership...it is also quiet profitable still...the female audience is by some distance the most lucrative audience, females control spend in most households...men, not so much, why is one reason why we have to subscribe to our sports channels.

Half of 18-35 year women in Ireland watched Love Island last year, that is the most lucrative demographic in media!

If women dominated professional sport, they would be paid way more and sports would be free!

The Specialist

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It hasnt been pointed out to me. I asked you for proof of your claims and you told me to google it. Can you provide evidence that counters the data I have provided? You said there is "tonnes"

Ignore the troll, she/he’s from the “la la la I can’t hear you” side of feminism.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more, we have a snobbish attitude to Third Level Education, in other European countries, apprenticeships are way more common, Solicitors, Journalists, Accountants (as for Gender Studies) would benefit from more on site training, they have to be hand held for a few years after they finish anyway so what is the difference.

The free market is a much greater indicator of personal preference, and from what media we consume, what sport and culture we consume and engage in, there are many many differences between the genders all of which shape our journeys through life...and so it should be!

You’re not disagreeing with anything I’ve said though? You’re speaking of alternative career paths such as apprenticeships which are a completely different thing to formal education in a third level institution. I don’t disagree with you offering alternatives, but that’s exactly what they are - alternatives. You speak of a free market, well in a free market here in Ireland it’s simply a fact that more young people are choosing formal education in third level institutions than they are apprenticeships.

What you appear to be suggesting is that we should encourage more young people to consider apprenticeships, but then you’re not talking about a free market any more where young people are free to make choices for themselves. There are of course differences between the genders observed in what choices they make for themselves, as was noted in the report - girls are more interested in pursuing courses in education and health at university, boys are more interested in pursuing computing courses in college.

The problem is that boys are dropping out of computing courses in college. That’s your free market influences right there, and that’s exactly why I asked the question as to whether or not we are willing to admit that boys simply aren’t cut out for being shoved into STEM either, and perhaps an alternative career path would be more suitable for them. Boys themselves though are making the choice to go into STEM, and they’re dropping out. It’s that which needs to be addressed, and offering them apprenticeships isn’t going to address that. They know apprenticeships are available, they just don’t want them.

That’s why I suggested that maybe it was time we admit that boys failing in education has nothing to do with girls outperforming them, it appears to be more a question of addressing boys attitudes to education, and finding out what boys actually want to do as opposed to feeling threatened because there are people who are trying (and failing miserably) to encourage more girls into STEM. I’m suggesting we look at why is the dropout rate for boys in STEM courses as high as it is already rather than looking at cutting University courses where girls are continuing to do well for themselves.

FWIW btw I do see the value in apprenticeships, in spite of my father saying that after my brother had done his apprenticeship with him that my father wouldn’t let any of the rest of us leave school early to take up an apprenticeship to qualify as a fitter/turner/welder, etc. My brother is doing well for himself, as is my other brother who did his fitter/turner apprenticeship with the ESB and then went on to study environmental science and renewable energy in college when the ESB told him they had no places. If you think there’s any snobbery on my part towards apprenticeships, you’d be very much mistaken. I think they’re a great career path, but as you point out, in a free market - boys are making decisions for themselves, and apprenticeships just don’t appear to appeal to them because they don’t appear to lead to as “glamorous” a lifestyle as a career in IT.

iptba

I just had a look at the report referred to.
There is a higher dropout rate for males than females in computing courses but not engineering courses:

The completed group for both levels 6/7 and level 8 both comprised a higher proportion of females. 24% of those that completed at level 6/7 were female compared with 16% of those that did not complete. At level 8, 18% of those that completed were female, compared with 13% of those that did not complete. Therefore, even though females comprise a minority of computing students, they still perform better than males within the discipline, based on completion rates. For engineering students, this relationship is not as evident. At both levels 6/7 and level 8, the proportions of females in the completed and did not complete groups are almost equal, bar a 1 percentage point difference at level 8 (less females in the did not complete group).

A problem with computing courses I reckon, particularly in the past, is that people very often had little exposure to programming and the like in the second-level education system. Computing courses are generally not about using apps and Microsoft applications.

With computing now being offered for the Leaving Cert, maybe people will be able to make more informed decisions.

I would still contend that some courses are harder to complete, usually the technical ones, than others, and that likely is a big factor in gender difference in dropout rates.

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you. Maybe you should stop digging.

Nobody has refuted my claims with data. I have provided data to back up my claims. Nothing has been pointed out to me as of yet

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Nobody has refuted my claims with data. I have provided data to back up my claims. Nothing has been pointed out to me as of yet

The Specialist

Perifect wrote: »

Posting pictures only proves you have nothing to counter his points.

Perifect

The Specialist wrote: »

Posting pictures only proves you have nothing to counter his points.

The Specialist

Perifect wrote: »

Point proven yet again, can we expect anything original or logical out of you?