We talk about gender discrimination but we often ignore bigger discrimination

steddyeddy

I work in science where there is big push to get more women involved in science and research. Saying this there's no gender discrimination in science or education. Girls are not denied to access the same education as boys. You are however denied the same access to education based on the wealth that you are born into. Not how hard you work or how intelligent you are but how wealthy your parents are. We need to close the gap between the education of children of differing parental wealth. In other words we need equality of opportunity.

A study by Dr Philip Kirby shows the difference in equality of opportunity. Link to the article from the Independent here. There's a hypocritical nature of some social justice warriors at play here. They say that women are excluded from some stem subjects while ignoring the fact that some law firms actually bin the CVs of law graduates from certain areas.

One employer suggested firms were unwilling to sift through applications from those of working-class backgrounds. “Is there a diamond in the rough out there?” the unnamed recruiter told researchers. “Statistically it’s highly probable but the question is … how much mud do I have to sift through in that population to find that diamond?”

Today’s report, carried out by Dr Philip Kirby, goes on to show that 71 per cent of senior Army officers – two-star generals and above – went to private schools. Only 12 per cent attended comprehensives. In medicine, 61 per cent of doctors were privately educated while 22 per cent went to selective state grammar schools and just 16 per cent to comprehensives. The list goes on – 48 per cent of civil servants were educated privately, 29 per cent went to selective grammar schools and 23 per cent to comprehensives.


The higher echelons of journalism are also dominated by the private sector, with 51 per cent educated in independent schools. And of those chief executives of FTSE 100 companies who were educated in the UK, 34 per cent were privately educated.
Nearly half the top actors – 42 per cent of Bafta Award winners – went to private schools, fuelling criticism made in the past month that the profession is becoming more elitist.
“Our research shows that your chances of reaching the top in so many areas of British life are so much better if you went to an independent school,” said Sir Peter Lampl, the chairman of the Sutton Trust. “As well as academic achievement, an independent education tends to develop the essential skills such as confidence, articulacy and teamwork, which are vital to career success.
“The key to improving social mobility at the top is to open all independent schools to all pupils based on merit, not money – as well as highly able students in state schools.”


Sir Peter advocates the adoption of the Open Access scheme, which the Sutton Trust tried out at the Belvedere Academy for girls, in Liverpool – where it paid the fees of all the girls who passed the entrance exam whose parents could not afford the fees.
The Department for Education said that 1.4 million more pupils were being taught in schools rated as “good” or “outstanding” by the education-standards watchdog, Ofsted, than in 2010.
“As The Independent Schools Guide has recognised, the state sector is increasingly matching the private sector in terms of academic attainment and learning environment,” a spokesman added.

FortySeven

steddyeddy

FortySeven wrote: »

That's pretty much it. I had a feminist in my uni tell me that I was privileged to be a scientist and had an easier time because I was a man. Despite the fact the school she went to a far superior school than me and my school didn't offer higher level maths.

lazybones32

Well, gender discrimination is bad if it adversely affects women. If it adversely affects men, it is called positive discrimination and another blow against the mythical patriarchy (which I am a member of) and must be celebrated.

Money opens up a lot more opportunities to people: we didn't need a new study to tell us that.

The_Valeyard

Once again white male privilege are complaining!!!! Whiners*






*this is sarcasm

steddyeddy

lazybones32 wrote: »

Well, gender discrimination is bad if it adversely affects women. If it adversely affects men, it is called positive discrimination and another blow against the mythical patriarchy (which I am a member of) and must be celebrated.

Money opens up a lot more opportunities to people: we didn't need a new study to tell us that.

No we didn't but it's always good to highlight discrimination.

Canadel

All discrimination is class discrimination.

Fratton Fred

I am morally opposed to private education. Access to top class schools is a right we should all enjoy regardless of background.

That said, I live in the real world so I'm forking out to send my daughter to a fee paying school.

stunmer

I have to agree. Here is a good video on Christopher Hitchens taking about faith schools and how they divide the community.

http://youtu.be/tt-rF_-DRYY

I think this maps across the class lines in a similar way. Division for religious, class, income reasons should be avoided as much as possible especially when children are young.

teddykrueger

There's also not enough women on building sites. Nobody ever mentions those kinds of jobs though. I wonder why...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll tackle your points in full but first I'll point out there is no need to send our children to private school if that was the case?

thattequilagirl

I don't understand why your post about class discrimination, which is a real thing and you raised valid points, had to start out with a dig at gender discrimination, by pretending that's not a real thing.

If gender discrimination is made up and the patriarchy is a myth, why are the vast majority of powerful people (judges, barristers, doctors, politicians) male?

You don't have to demean another group to make your point.

Valetta

If there was pure equality of opportunity, would everyone opt for science, or medicine?

If so, who would build the facilities for them all to work?

Who would man (or woman) the canteens in those buildings ?

Anyone with genuine ambition today has every opportunity to progress.

FortySeven

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I don't understand why your post about class discrimination, which is a real thing and you raised valid points, had to start out with a dig at gender discrimination, by pretending that's not a real thing.

If gender discrimination is made up and the patriarchy is a myth, why are the vast majority of powerful people (judges, barristers, doctors, politicians) male?

You don't have to demean another group to make your point.

I didn't see anyone being demeaned. Any human with any sense can see that the feminist movement in the first world is nothing more than an overindulged parody of itself by this point. Get thee feministas off to somewhere they are needed, the middle east perhaps?

Anyone can become anything in the western world. The reason more of them are men than women is because women do not choose to pursue those types of careers in the same numbers men do.

This fallacy of discrimination does not sit well with me. My doctor is a female, the judge sitting over my custody hearings is a female, my solicitor is a female. My psychiatrist is a female, my psychologist is a female, my kids headteacher is a female as are all the teachers in the school. My local TD is female as is the local counselor. Right now there are billboards all over the country with women grinning maniacally on them.

Where is this discrimination you speak of? It is certainly not obvious in my day to day life. I detest this idea of quotas, if we need quotas for the high and mighty then let us have quotas also for binwomen, sewage workers, labourers, farmers, and the countless other tasks seemingly overpopulated with us domineering men.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I don't understand why your post about class discrimination, which is a real thing and you raised valid points, had to start out with a dig at gender discrimination, by pretending that's not a real thing.

If gender discrimination is made up and the patriarchy is a myth, why are the vast majority of powerful people (judges, barristers, doctors, politicians) male?

You don't have to demean another group to make your point.

Oh I'm not saying it isn't real. I was saying this has been taken more seriously than socioeconomic status discrimination.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you misunderstood cognitive development. Could you provide scientific studies please?

ceadaoin.

FortySeven wrote: »

I didn't see anyone being demeaned. Any human with any sense can see that the feminist movement in the first world is nothing more than an overindulged parody of itself by this point. Get thee feministas off to somewhere they are needed, the middle east perhaps?

Anyone can become anything in the western world. The reason more of them are men than women is because women do not choose to pursue those types of careers in the same numbers men do.

This fallacy of discrimination does not sit well with me. My doctor is a female, the judge sitting over my custody hearings is a female, my solicitor is a female. My psychiatrist is a female, my psychologist is a female, my kids headteacher is a female as are all the teachers in the school. My local TD is female as is the local counselor. Right now there are billboards all over the country with women grinning maniacally on them.

Where is this discrimination you speak of? It is certainly not obvious in my day to day life.

Why do you think less women choose those kinds of careers?

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're reminding me of that scientist I mentioned previously who didn't like hiring women. He used to say it was because of differences in cognitive development or like Francis Crick who thinks blacks have differing cognitive development therefore both women and Blacks don't do science. It ignores the obstacles.

FortySeven

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why do you think the same amount of women as men don't choose to pursue those careers?

Why did my step daughter choose media studies when she excelled in the leaving cert? God alone knows. I know her class is mostly female. That is choices they made. I don't know why. The attraction of glamour perhaps? She didn't think architecture was fun enough even though she was well suited to it with artistic and academic capabilities.

My sister on the other hand has a doctorate in microbiology and a masters in veterinary science, she is one of the most qualified animal oncologists in the UK and lectures at Cambridge university. She chose to do that and there was certainly no discrimination stopping her rise to the top of her game and she studied over 20 years ago.

I cannot tell you why people choose things but it is obvious to me just looking around myself that women are not being held back.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

. Saying this there's no gender discrimination in science or education..

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I'm not saying it isn't real. I was saying this has been taken more seriously than socioeconomic status discrimination.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're reminding me of that scientist I mentioned previously who didn't like hiring women. He used to say it was because of differences in cognitive development.

wha?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

wha?

It's called a typo dude. Any real points to add or would you like to base your retort on a slip of the finger rather than actual points if you're capable.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's called a typo dude. Any real points to add or would you like to base your retort on a slip of the finger rather than actual points if you're capable.

What's a typo? You declared it doesn't exist and then you backtracked a bit?
You seem a bit confused is all
As ttg said, I don't see why you had to start off with a dig either

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually it's fairly evident you're describing development attached to language rather than development leading to an understanding of science say. You think cognitive development stops at 13?

Also you linked to a website rather than a study.

Some schools don't offer higher levels in some science subjects for instance. You don't think that would effect cognitive development?

Please link me papers that conclusively prove cognitive development is connected exclusively with socioeconomic status. Also please correlate wealth of parents with use of language.

You're building your thesis on assumption upon assumption. Basing your beliefs on the previous assumption and running with it. Then linking to a website instead of a study.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

What's a typo? You declared it doesn't exist and then you backtracked a bit?
You seem a bit confused is all
As ttg said, I don't see why you had to start off with a dig either

Listen you lost me at "wha" TBH.

I'm not having a dig at gender discrimination I'm saying that participation of women in gender studies has very little to do with discrimination. Private schools genuinely discriminate.

Saying that there is some discrimination in science. I was pointing out that people who discriminate against socioeconomic status and brain development are the same types of people who say that women's brains are not primed for STEM subjects.

Peter Anthony

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I don't understand why your post about class discrimination, which is a real thing and you raised valid points, had to start out with a dig at gender discrimination, by pretending that's not a real thing.

If gender discrimination is made up and the patriarchy is a myth, why are the vast majority of powerful people (judges, barristers, doctors, politicians) male?

You don't have to demean another group to make your point.

There are plenty of women Judges, barristers doctors and politicians, and certainly nobody is stopping Women from becoming one. In fact they nearly have an easier path now, and the Gender Quotas are just sexist and discriminatory, and totally backward.

What we have now is token women being thrown in who are unqualified and have not paid their dues and this causes resentment. The Minister for Justice, Gardai comissioner and Tanaiste are all women and in the first 2 cases, are way out their depth, and more and more looking like token appointments. It's quite typical now to hear Female politicians playing the sexist card when they don't get their way. Gone are the days of personal responsibility, it's a victimhood and blame culture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To save me trouble of pointing it out which areas of the brain do the authors say weren't effected and highlight the effect of education on cognitive development as laid out in the paper.

steddyeddy

By the way this is from the PNAS journal:

Certain cognitive functions differ in men and women, although the anatomical and functional substrates underlying these differences remain unknown. Because neocortical activity is directly related with higher brain function, numerous studies have focused on the cerebral cortex when searching for possible structural correlates of cognitive gender differences. However, there are no studies on possible gender differences at the synaptic level. In the present work we have used stereological and correlative light and electron microscopy to show that men have a significantly higher synaptic density than women in all cortical layers of the temporal neocortex.

According to these guys men have significantly higher synaptic density than women. This paper has been used by sexists to explain lack of women in science. Funny how similar their argument is to yours Pbear.

Aka Ishur

steddyeddy wrote: »

No we didn't but it's always good to highlight discrimination.

How many times are you going to bring it up tho steady, couldn't you revive one of the many old threads you've had discussing this?

Peter Anthony

What has actually surprised me is how many Women I've heard will vote for certain Politicians because they are women. Ruth Coppinger seems to be playing up to it totally ignoring have her voter base (coincidentally a reason she is struggling in polls). On prime time the other night, there was spurious arguments for quotas for Immigrants, Young people, Travellers and Homosexuals in the Dail. While it may seem laughable, and I said from day 1 would happen, they have no less reason to have a quota than anyone else.

Maybe Homeless people should have a quota too, and stay at home mothers. And Farmers. Just shows how ridiculous it is when you go down that path. The facts are if you're good enough you will get voted in/get the job/whatever. It's time people in this country grew up and took personal responsibility for their own lives, instead of blaming others for where they are.

steddyeddy

Aka Ishur wrote: »

How many times are you going to bring it up tho steady, couldn't you revive one of the many old threads you've had discussing this?

Until it ends dude and those who discriminate stop .

Earthhorse

I would say the advantage of attending these prestigious schools isn't so much the education you receive as much as it is the connections you make. Class discrimination is obviously a real thing but difficult to fight. Making people aware of their biases is certainly a good first step.

Eugene Norman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

why wouldn't we ban private school then? What's the benefit? Why do people spend money on it?

Eugene Norman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this argument not also racist? If whites on average have higher socio economic status than blacks on average tten by this logic blacks are less cerebral than whites (or do we accept genetic determinism in class and not race, and if so why?)

andekwarhola

Eugene Norman wrote: »

why wouldn't we ban private school then? What's the benefit? Why do people spend money on it?

It's clear that they're not needed.

People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds just have to all suddenly become educated professionals in order to set their kids on the right path.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eugene Norman

Identity politics,I think by design, ignores class politics ( I just read yesterday a sociological professor who dismissed the idea of "working class whites" - his scare quotes).

Dublin 17 (coolock, darndale) sends 15% of its secondary school graduates to uni, Dublin 10 (ballyfermot, cherry orchard) sends 16%, while Dublin 6 sends 100%, and Dublin 4 84%.

Source. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/some-99-of-dublin-6-students-go-on-to-third-level-1.1901885

Unless you think that Dublin 6 is an Irish lake wobegone, where all the kids are above average, there are clearly students of below average intelligence from that area going to university. Most of them are probably doing gender studies.

Now that's a statistic ripe for any kind of affirmative action, if any. It would be easy enough too within the Irish points system. Just give a handicap, +100 points to students from D17,10 and -100 for those from D4,D6.

We could be other handicapps as well. Affirmative action into law or medicine for the working classes.

I bet those who believe in quotas, and affirmative action for gender or race will find that an appalling attack on fairness or some such cant.

EDIT:

I should say I'm not a fan of affirmative action including this one but the stats on college entry are good to shut up south side feminists.

(If the 13% pay gap is so significant what about this you should say).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eugene Norman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you abandon the catchment area and not private schools then private schools will take off. Also busing kids randomly hither or thither is open to abuse, and comes at great potential travel costs.

You are right about Ireland and private schools but in England the private schools (the ones they call public) dominate the top jobs. As the op pointed out.

Earthhorse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm curious; do you fully read all these reports you link to or just their abstracts?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with this.

My parents were working class, and not highly educated, but encouraged all of their children to read, debate, discuss the news.

When I was seven I'd a reading age of something like a twelve year old, and at that young age, sat down everynight with my Dad during the week, and we'd read the Evening Herald as it was then and discuss what was in the news.

So although I'm contesting your premise, my parents took the approach you are suggesting and essentially invested in their children and I'd have to say it makes a difference.

I'm female and work in the STEM area too which might be an interesting correlation if someone were to study that.

Additionally my careers teacher in school suggested I become an engineer, and while I didn't what I do now uses similar skills.

Earthhorse

Parenting has a huge effect on ability, no doubt. But as mentioned in the OP, employers will still discriminate based on post codes. Arguably, people from those post codes are better candidates because we can be more certain that they achieved there qualifications based on merit rather than through means e.g. they self studied rather than took additional grinds to achieve their results.

So there's a real issue at play here though whether it is worse than gender discrimination I don't know.

Stheno

Earthhorse wrote: »

Parenting has a huge effect on ability, no doubt. But as mentioned in the OP, employers will still discriminate based on post codes. Arguably, people from those post codes are better candidates because we can be more certain that they achieved there qualifications based on merit rather than through means e.g. they self studied rather than took additional grinds to achieve their results.

So there's a real issue at play here though whether it is worse than gender discrimination I don't know.

TO be very blunt, it's an awful lot easier to change address than it is to change gender.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I agree, we are on the same page, mine and your examples are possibly an exception to the study that you linked to, but proof that taking that interest does influence children.

My parents were fans of corporal punishment, but on the other side of the equation encouraged us to be involved in the community (regardless of our involvement), to engage in sports, to contribute to the household through tasks, and to take an interest in the wider world.

Looking back now, I really appreciate the approach they took (corporal punishment aside) I'm an introvert by nature, but their parenting approach actually gave me a lot of the skills that as an adult I've used to negate the fact that I am introverted.

So for me, what steadyeddy is talking about doesn't apply at all.
Maybe it comes back to his point that STEM doesn't discriminate, or maybe, just maybe it comes back to the fact that I had parents who valued personal achievement, encouraged it, allowed a bit of self development/rebellion within limits, and engrained an ethic to achieve?

Edit, I think you are close to me in age, and in reference to watching tv, that was monitored. I remember watching Top of the Pops in the eighties with Sig Sig Sputnik (SP) and my mother supervising, and being mortified at their outfits and my mother there watching