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

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You have an impressive ability to use a lot of words and yet say so little.

There is no evidence that boys are being shoved into STEM, nor is there any evidence women are being shoved out of STEM. It ain't like an Arts degree program!

Wibbs

maybe

Perifect properly engage with other posters or don't post in this thread until you do. No more pics.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

You have an impressive ability to use a lot of words and yet say so little.

There is no evidence that boys are being shoved into STEM, nor is there any evidence women are being shoved out of STEM. It ain't like an Arts degree program!

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that boys are being shoved into STEM careers which aren’t suitable for them, and part of the explanation does appear to be because they are given the impression that there are glamorous careers at the end of it in what are generally known as “the hard sciences” which suit their “male brains”.

That’s often the explanation proferred by males for the ratio of males to females in STEM careers. Personally, I think that explanation is bullishìt.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that boys are being shoved into STEM careers which aren’t suitable for them, and part of the explanation does appear to be because they are given the impression that there are glamorous careers at the end of it in what are generally known as “the hard sciences” which suit their “male brains”.

That’s often the explanation proferred by males for the ratio of males to females in STEM careers. Personally, I think that explanation is bullishìt.

Who is shoving them into STEM...the patriarchy? Who is shoving women into Law? Who shoves people into Arts...

You are ignoring people making their own choices... https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

What is wrong with people accepting, that in general, men and women make different choices, that is beyond obvious in every part of every day life...trust me, we do not want to live in a world where our choices are thrust upon us!

Kidchameleon

Men are generally attracted to "thing" oriented careers (science, engineering) and women are generally attracted to people oriented careers (psychology, teaching). There is a push to get more women into STEM because currently our economy values these jobs more hence they are paid more and therefore seen as more glamorous.

These preferences between men and women are visible in everyday life and are demonstrable from birth. The same preferences between the sexes (objects v people) can be seen in Chimpanzee's for example so it seems to be a universal trend.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that boys are being shoved into STEM careers which aren’t suitable for them, and part of the explanation does appear to be because they are given the impression that there are glamorous careers at the end of it in what are generally known as “the hard sciences” which suit their “male brains”.

That’s often the explanation proferred by males for the ratio of males to females in STEM careers. Personally, I think that explanation is bullishìt.

I don't know how anyone would have gotten the impression that working in IT is glamorous. It's anything but. It's underpaid in respect of the the amount of hours one must put in to keep up to speed in one's spare time. Certainly in Ireland it is anyway, I hear in the US it's a lot better.

There is noting fun about a uni eduction in STEM subjects. You could not possibly pass least of all get a First without full commitment when you have to watch those around you doing arts subjects going out on the town as many times a week as they can get away with or afford.

I would agree with you that STEM subjects have been pushed to men in this country. They appeal mostly to the working classes who decades ago would not have had a chance of a third level education. If one wants to have a glamorous lifestyle the last subject you should study is a STEM subject, especially IT. You certainly won't have a glamorous 'best years of your life ' experience in uni and certainly won't earn good money only after a decade of pure slog in the industry, and even then your life will be so wrapped up in it you won't have much spare time to enjoy you successes.

As far as women not going into STEM fields , especially IT, I'm certain that the reason for it is that they know exactly the level of spare time commitments that it requires and even if they were interested would rather do something that isn't so brutal a career where they might be able to have a life and raise children. Edit: Incidentally, when I studied IT in Uni there were only 2 women in the class. Both of them were lesbians.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that boys are being shoved into STEM careers which aren’t suitable for them, and part of the explanation does appear to be because they are given the impression that there are glamorous careers at the end of it in what are generally known as “the hard sciences” which suit their “male brains”.

That’s often the explanation proferred by males for the ratio of males to females in STEM careers. Personally, I think that explanation is bullishìt.

Well no one ever shoved me into anything.

I was good at Biology in LC so got a Bio honours degree (old syllabus was not a match for college Bio to be fair)
Bio class had girls outnumber boys about 2:1 or more


Comp Science course later had a 3:1 guys to girls ratio so noone was getting pushed one way or the other

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Who is shoving them into STEM...the patriarchy? Who is shoving women into Law? Who shoves people into Arts...

You are ignoring people making their own choices..https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

What is wrong with people accepting, that in general, men and women make different choices, that is beyond obvious in every part of every day life...trust me, we do not want to live in a world where our choices are thrust upon us!

I’m absolutely not ignoring the fact that young people are making their own choices. I acknowledged earlier that girls appear to be making good choices for themselves in pursuing courses in education and health in University.

I’m also not the person who argued we should be cutting half the courses available at third level, I’m not the person who argued that Irish people are too snobby that they aren’t choosing apprenticeships. You’re the person who argued that we should live in a world where our choices are limited.

It’s obvious without linking to the Atlantic (a US publication), that the problem is that boys are choosing courses for which they are ill prepared, and then dropping out of those courses. That is the problem. They aren’t performing as well as girls in second level education, achieving less points in their Leaving Certificate, and choosing courses which require less points, but have a higher math content than other courses. They’re picking up a false impression from somewhere, and that’s what needs to be questioned - focussing on why boys are picking courses for which they are ill-equipped, and then dropping out after first year. There has to be a reason, or reasons for why they’re doing that.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m absolutely not ignoring the fact that young people are making their own choices. I acknowledged earlier that girls appear to be making good choices for themselves in pursuing courses in education and health in University.

I’m also not the person who argued we should be cutting half the courses available at third level, I’m not the person who argued that Irish people are too snobby that they aren’t choosing apprenticeships. You’re the person who argued that we should live in a world where our choices are limited.

It’s obvious without linking to the Atlantic (a US publication), that the problem is that boys are choosing courses for which they are ill prepared, and then dropping out of those courses. That is the problem. They aren’t performing as well as girls in second level education, achieving less points in their Leaving Certificate, and choosing courses which require less points, but have a higher math content than other courses. They’re picking up a false impression from somewhere, and that’s what needs to be questioned - focussing on why boys are picking courses for which they are ill-equipped, and then dropping out after first year. There has to be a reason, or reasons for why they’re doing that.

You are twisting my words...please stop. I did not argue that we should live in a world where our choices are limited.

I believe that we are sending too many kids to Universities, that is completely different...they still could be solicitors, or journalists, just serve apprenticeships , earn a few bob, save your folks a few quid, learn to work in a fast moving environment would do these kids no harm whatsoever.

We know that boys do not perform as well as girls in our educations system, https://www.thejournal.ie/leaving-cert-gender-4185395-Aug2018/, this has been consistent over the last number of decades (please show us a link for one year where boys outperformed girls if you do not agree) we still don't know what impact that has on boys entering third level education. It seems, there is nothing being done about the gender point gap.

I went to a mixed secondary school, where girls outperformed boys, yet, the top classes were predominantly male, so too were the classes at the other end.

We are not helping boys fulfill their potential, that is sad.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are twisting my words...please stop. I did not argue that we should live in a world where our choices are limited.

I believe that we are sending too many kids to Universities, that is completely different...they still could be solicitors, or journalists, just serve apprenticeships , earn a few bob, save your folks a few quid, learn to work in a fast moving environment would do these kids no harm whatsoever.

How is that any different from limiting their choices because they’re not making the choices you want them to make? They don’t want to serve apprenticeships!

We know that boys do not perform as well as girls in our educations system, https://www.thejournal.ie/leaving-cert-gender-4185395-Aug2018/, this has been consistent over the last number of decades (please show us a link for one year where boys outperformed girls if you do not agree) we still don't know what impact that has on boys entering third level education. It seems, there is nothing being done about the gender point gap.

We do know what impact this has on boys entering third level education! It’s right there in the analysis we’re discussing which examined trends from 2007 up to the present! What they discovered is the impact it is having is that boys are entering third level education and dropping out at a higher rate than girls. When they traced it back, they were able to determine that one of the best predictors of completion of third level education was their Leaving Certificate results - the higher their Leaving Certificate results, the more likely a student was to to complete their chosen third level education.

I went to a mixed secondary school, where girls outperformed boys, yet, the top classes were predominantly male, so too were the classes at the other end.

Your anecdote doesn’t tell anyone a whole lot unfortunately. We’re talking about students entering and completing third level education education, and if we were to take the top 10 secondary schools in the country for 2017, and the percentages of students going on to third level education, the table looks like this -


The top 25 10, plus % of pupils going on to university.

1 Laurel Hill Colaiste FCJ, Sth Circular Rd, Limerick 92.4%

2 Presentation Brothers College, Mardyke, Cork 87.8%

3 Scoil Mhuire, Sidney Place, Cork 85.3%

4 Colaiste Iosagain, Booterstown, Co Dublin 85.2%

5 Gonzaga College, Ranelagh, Dublin 6 85.0%

6 Alexandra College, Milltown, Dublin 6 84.3%

7 Glenstal Abbey School, Murroe, Co Limerick (B only) 84.2%

8 Mount Anville Secondary School, Dublin 14 84.2%

9 Colaiste na Coiribe, Tuam Road, Galway 81.5%

10 Jesus & Mary Secondary School, Salthill, Galway 81.5%


Of the top 10, ALL are single-sex schools, and of the top 10, the top 5 are all girls only schools, the second 5 are all boys only schools. Mixed schools don’t feature in the top 10 at all.

We are not helping boys fulfill their potential, that is sad.

That’s exactly what the analysis identified, and as I pointed out earlier - hopes to address. That’s precisely why I didn’t see the analysis or the reporting of the analysis as sexism against men. It aims to address the issue of boys underperforming in secondary school leading to their inability to cope in third level education, dropping out at a phenomenal rate in some colleges in courses they’re choosing for themselves, that they simply aren’t suited to.

Silentcorner

Oh jesus...limiting Third Level Courses does not imply limiting career choices...it is simply a different path to employment stability....an apprenticeship can be just as valuable as a Third Level Degree...it is snobbishness that thinks otherwise.

We know the education system is tilted in favour of young women....so, from primary through secondary schools, we are not helping boys fulfill their potential, this has been evident for a long long time, and nothing has been done about it.

We see the impact in 3rd Level, girls are not choosing the more difficult courses, which also see the largest dropout rates. (Engineering, Construction, Computers)...it is not because, like you suggested, boys are being shoved into STEM...instead, as you said, our education system is failing to prepare students to enter, the economically vital courses.

If this report, finally snaps our Education Sector into action regarding the performance of boys then great...it is about time...it is stunning that it has taken this long.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Oh jesus...limiting Third Level Courses does not imply limiting career choices...it is simply a different path to employment stability....an apprenticeship can be just as valuable as a Third Level Degree...it is snobbishness that thinks otherwise.

No, it’s the free market that dictates otherwise. It’s young people making free choices for themselves that dictates otherwise.

We know the education system is tilted in favour of young women....so, from primary through secondary schools, we are not helping boys fulfill their potential, this has been evident for a long long time, and nothing has been done about it.

No we don’t know any such thing. What we do know is that boys are not valuing education as much as girls. We’re not helping boys to fulfill their potential because fundamentally - boys are unwilling to help themselves, precisely because they don’t value education like girls do. This is what has been evident for a long time and there has been plenty been tried to be done about it.

We see the impact in 3rd Level, girls are not choosing the more difficult courses, which also see the largest dropout rates. (Engineering, Construction, Computers)...it is not because, like you suggested, boys are being shoved into STEM...instead, as you said, our education system is failing to prepare students to enter, the economically vital courses.

The particular difficulty of one course over another is entirely subjective, it’s not that computer science is any more difficult than social science, they’re literally apples and oranges. It’s just silly to try and compare them and say that one is more difficult than the other. Girls are choosing courses which suit them - boys, are not. That’s the reality. Education and health are just as economically vital as engineering and construction btw.

If this report, finally snaps our Education Sector into action regarding the performance of boys then great...it is about time...it is stunning that it has taken this long.

It hasn’t taken this long at all though, it’s been an ongoing problem for the last few decades as you pointed out, and this is just another analysis which identifies the same problem, and is outlining the initiatives to tackle the issue that has been known about for a long time now. The problem is that it requires a massive shift in the attitudes of boys towards their own education and their future careers. Otherwise we’ll continue to see high dropout rates in education among boys in particular.

Calhoun

I think a big part of the sexism angle here is the type of coverage its getting, when its female students its a national crisis if they are dropping out but if it the men sure its just because of a few logical reasons.

For me i actually agree with the reasoning behind why males would drop out compared to females but i just think the coverage of it in comparison is quite funny.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s the free market that dictates otherwise. It’s young people making free choices for themselves that dictates otherwise.





No we don’t know any such thing. What we do know is that boys are not valuing education as much as girls. We’re not helping boys to fulfill their potential because fundamentally - boys are unwilling to help themselves, precisely because they don’t value education like girls do. This is what has been evident for a long time and there has been plenty been tried to be done about it.





The particular difficulty of one course over another is entirely subjective, it’s not that computer science is any more difficult than social science, they’re literally apples and oranges. It’s just silly to try and compare them and say that one is more difficult than the other. Girls are choosing courses which suit them - boys, are not. That’s the reality. Education and health are just as economically vital as engineering and construction btw.





It hasn’t taken this long at all though, it’s been an ongoing problem for the last few decades as you pointed out, and this is just another analysis which identifies the same problem, and is outlining the initiatives to tackle the issue that has been known about for a long time now. The problem is that it requires a massive shift in the attitudes of boys towards their own education and their future careers. Otherwise we’ll continue to see high dropout rates in education among boys in particular.

Ah, ok, so it is boys who are failing the education system and it is not the education system that is failing boys.

Boys just need to study harder...ingenious...you should be on a coast to coast tour with that message.

You have a problem with apprenticeships...if it was a viable option, a lot of students may very well prefer to go into a law office, or an accountancy practice or a media organisation and serve a four year apprenticeship, earning money along the way, paying taxes and saving their parents a small fortune...they still quality as a Solicitor or Accountant or Journalist, that should still appeal to the curtain twitchers!!!

"No, it’s the free market that dictates otherwise. It’s young people making free choices for themselves that dictates otherwise"...I'm sorry that is just gibberish.

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

I think a big part of the sexism angle here is the type of coverage its getting, when its female students its a national crisis if they are dropping out but if it the men sure its just because of a few logical reasons.

This is the point. There are many and varied reasons and the HEA stats do not explain them.

But if the dropout rate from 3rd level for women was 53% higher than for men, rather than the other way around as it actually is, this would have been by far RTE's main focus.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ah, ok, so it is boys who are failing the education system and it is not the education system that is failing boys.

Boys just need to study harder...ingenious...you should be on a coast to coast tour with that message.

You have a problem with apprenticeships...if it was a viable option, a lot of students may very well prefer to go into a law office, or an accountancy practice or a media organisation and serve a four year apprenticeship, earning money along the way, paying taxes and saving their parents a small fortune...they still quality as a Solicitor or Accountant or Journalist, that should still appeal to the curtain twitchers!!!

"No, it’s the free market that dictates otherwise. It’s young people making free choices for themselves that dictates otherwise"...I'm sorry that is just gibberish.

Where are you getting the idea that I have a problem with apprenticeships when I’ve already pointed out that two of my brothers have done apprenticeships in engineering related disciplines and are doing well for themselves? I myself wanted to join the army and do an apprenticeship but my parents wouldn’t allow it (long story short I failed the medical for the army anyway and went on to study computer science).

It essentially does come down to boys need to take their education more seriously and make better choices for themselves when it comes to their education so that they’re not going on to third level education and dropping out after first year. It’s a particularly prevalent issue among boys from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds who are attracted to lower paid jobs.

If we were to leave it up to your “people need to accept that people make choices for themselves”, apprenticeships in law, journalism and accounting still aren’t viable options because employers in those areas are more interested in hiring interns to work for free while they’re still in third level education -

Summer Internships at PwC for example

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where are you getting the idea that I have a problem with apprenticeships when I’ve already pointed out that two of my brothers have done apprenticeships in engineering related disciplines and are doing well for themselves? I myself wanted to join the army and do an apprenticeship but my parents wouldn’t allow it (long story short I failed the medical for the army anyway and went on to study computer science).

It essentially does come down to boys need to take their education more seriously and make better choices for themselves when it comes to their education so that they’re not going on to third level education and dropping out after first year. It’s a particularly prevalent issue among boys from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds who are attracted to lower paid jobs.

If we were to leave it up to your “people need to accept that people make choices for themselves”, apprenticeships in law, journalism and accounting still aren’t viable options because employers in those areas are more interested in hiring interns to work for free while they’re still in third level education -

Summer Internships at PwC for example

Boys need to take their education more seriously it is meek attempt at passing the buck...it is an issue across the developed world and as education is a female dominated field it is being left to fester...unless you can show me a country that has successfully tackled the issue...I'd be interested in reading that!

I don't have the answers on how to redress the situation, but if it were the other way round the state would be throwing a fortune at it!..boys are very different to girls in attitude and aptitude, despite the obstacles boys fair fine in adult life...it seems women on the other hand don't.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Boys need to take their education more seriously it is meek attempt at passing the buck...it is an issue across the developed world and as education is a female dominated field it is being left to fester...unless you can show me a country that has successfully tackled the issue...I'd be interested in reading that!

I don't have the answers on how to redress the situation, but if it were the other way round the state would be throwing a fortune at it!..boys are very different to girls in attitude and aptitude, despite the obstacles boys fair fine in adult life...it seems women on the other hand don't.

It’s not an attempt to pass the buck. It’s deliberately putting the responsibility for their attitudes to education squarely where it belongs - on their own shoulders. If boys were faring fine in adult life then you wouldn’t be able to identify the fact that they are falling behind in education as an issue across the developed world while girls are dominating education! The statistics speak for themselves in relation to how boys are doing in later adult life - they’re not doing so well at all.

That’s precisely why the State is throwing a fortune at the problem of boys underperforming in education, but it’s not an issue that’s going to be solved simply by throwing money at it. Women are faring much better in adult life in terms of how many of them are now entering third level education and completing their third level education, whereas boys entering third level education simply aren’t faring so well at all. That’s what the analysis was pointing to using data going back over the last decade.

iptba

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s precisely why the State is throwing a fortune at the problem of boys underperforming in education, but it’s not an issue that’s going to be solved simply by throwing money at it.

Is it? What are you referring to?

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not an attempt to pass the buck. It’s deliberately putting the responsibility for their attitudes to education squarely where it belongs - on their own shoulders. If boys were faring fine in adult life then you wouldn’t be able to identify the fact that they are falling behind in education as an issue across the developed world while girls are dominating education! The statistics speak for themselves in relation to how boys are doing in later adult life - they’re not doing so well at all.

That’s precisely why the State is throwing a fortune at the problem of boys underperforming in education, but it’s not an issue that’s going to be solved simply by throwing money at it. Women are faring much better in adult life in terms of how many of them are now entering third level education and completing their third level education, whereas boys entering third level education simply aren’t faring so well at all. That’s what the analysis was pointing to using data going back over the last decade.

The state is not spending a fortune on it....you are passing the buck, two kids from the same household should be afforded the same chance at fulfilling their potential...that is not happening.

Third Level success does not infer success in later life, if feminists are anything to go buy, women are doing terribly!

Isn't it funny how when young women are struggling in the workplace it is societies fault...when schoolboys struggle in school it is their own fault!

Calhoun

After all the back and forth the good people of the media have provided an example of the hypocrisy that exist in reporting.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/teachers-top-the-pay-league-for-new-graduates-but-gender-pay-gap-remains-37825469.html

Men earn 4K more than women when they graduate but no explanation why that might be. However when there is an issue that impacts men they are quick to explain it away.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

The state is not spending a fortune on it....you are passing the buck, two kids from the same household should be afforded the same chance at fulfilling their potential...that is not happening.

The cause of that has more to do with parental favouritism than anything it has to do with their sex. Two kids from the same household you say? Have you actually still not bothered to read the analysis which details a hell of a lot better than your anecdotes how children from families in D4 and D6 are more likely to avail of third level education due to their proximity to a variety of third level educational institutions?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Third Level success does not infer success in later life, if feminists are anything to go buy, women are doing terribly!

Isn't it funny how when young women are struggling in the workplace it is societies fault...when schoolboys struggle in school it is their own fault!

Actually that's exactly what it does. Combine that with the parents attitudes to their children's education, and the children's attitudes to their own education, and you really can predict with a fair degree of accuracy how their children will fare in later life. The whole point of the analysis was to determine how best to tackle the rate of non-completion of their third level education among students, and the highest proportion of non-completion was among males from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds. If you imagine for a minute I give a shiny sh...ugar about feminism or identity politics, you're barking so far up the wrong tree we may have to call the fire brigade.


Me, many weeks ago now, in this very thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The simplest answer to that is - it doesn't stop, and it'll never stop, because a lot of this identity politics stuff really doesn't apply in Ireland. It's more applicaple to the UK and the US, and it's being imported here to try and point out "systematic, problematic" issues where really there aren't any. From the Athena SWAN FAQ -

"What do we mean by ‘intersectionality’?

By intersectionality we mean people’s identities and social positions being shaped by several factors at the same time, creating unique experiences and perspectives. These factors include among others, age, disability, gender, race, religion and sexuality.

For example, the experiences of, and outcomes within, higher education will be very different for a Black woman compared to a white woman. In practice, intersectionality is less about bringing two different factors together, eg older people and disabled people; and more about considering the experience of older disabled people, people at the ‘intersection’ of older age and disability."

The above sort of tokenism reminds me of a conference I was at last year regarding the future of education in Ireland, and one of the speakers was from the UK, and she was giving it welly about the lack of women and BME at third level, which was definitely more relevant in a UK context. It's as though she hadn't even thought of her audience and tailored her presentation accordingly, when the room was filled with Casper white Irish women and only a handful of men.

Now granted it was a teacher training college so I didn't expect much variance in the audience, but that didn't stop this woman going on to talk about how there weren't enough women in STEM, and how it was mostly socially awkward men (I'd lost the will to listen at this stage), before she moved on to the topic of 'unconscious bias', without so much as stopping for a breather to spot the irony.

iptba

(Not in Ireland so not hugely important, unless it were to take off here)
I just heard this mentioned on FM 104

Two Chinese firms have offered single female employees over the age of 30 an additional eight days of annual leave to “go home and date”.

Hangzhou Songcheng Performance and Hangzhou Songcheng Tourism Management have said unmarried women over 30 in “non-frontline” roles would be granted the additional days of leave over the Chinese New Year on top of the traditional seven-day break.

https://www.buzz.ie/news/companies-offer-women-30-dating-leave-316003

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

(Not in Ireland so not hugely important, unless it were to take off here)
I just heard this mentioned on FM 104



https://www.buzz.ie/news/companies-offer-women-30-dating-leave-316003

Does this not exist for more cultural reasons?

Kidchameleon

It is to increase the fertility rate in China which is below replacement levels. It is the same situation in Ireland but our government is importing the third world as a "solution" instead

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

Men earn 4K more than women when they graduate but no explanation why that might be.

There is an explanation in the article itself, but the reporter ignores it, just as RTE ignored the "gender gap" on drop out rates. The reason is simply that women are less likely than men to choose to study STEM subjects, for which there is a higher demand and therefore higher pay rates.

Calhoun

gizmo555 wrote: »

There is an explanation in the article itself, but the reporter ignores it, just as RTE ignored the "gender gap" on drop out rates. The reason is simply that women are less likely than men to choose to study STEM subjects, for which there is a higher demand and therefore higher pay rates.

True enough but the articles are just so different like the bias in the title in this one alone ect.

Defunkd

Saw a new Gillette advert last night.

The gist was that you have to be tough in certain situations...

1) Shows meeting with boss - boss is portrayed as Alpha, domineering type.
2) Shows sexy woman in gym walking past, with an ambiguous look that can be interpreted as either 'are you confident enough to approach me?' or 'how dare you look at me'
and my favourite bit
3) A group of black men standing in line.

...but shaving your face is a time to be sensitive, so use Gillette...you privileged, misogynistic, racist pieces of $hit.

Went looking for it on yt but t'udder one is the only one i could find. Interesting to note how quickly they brought out a new ad...and then shot themselves in the other foot.

iptba

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is to increase the fertility rate in China which is below replacement levels. It is the same situation in Ireland but our government is importing the third world as a "solution" instead

No sign I saw it was a government programme.

The Specialist

Defunkd wrote: »

Saw a new Gillette advert last night.

The gist was that you have to be tough in certain situations...

1) Shows meeting with boss - boss is portrayed as Alpha, domineering type.
2) Shows sexy woman in gym walking past, with an ambiguous look that can be interpreted as either 'are you confident enough to approach me?' or 'how dare you look at me'
and my favourite bit
3) A group of black men standing in line.

...but shaving your face is a time to be sensitive, so use Gillette...you privileged, misogynistic, racist pieces of $hit.

Went looking for it on yt but t'udder one is the only one i could find. Interesting to note how quickly they brought out a new ad...and then shot themselves in the other foot.

Yeah sorry Gillette, I don’t have a vagina to shave so have no need of your products anymore.