Women Only Professorships

PonchoMcHoncho

Didn't see this posted on here over the last few days:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/twenty-women-only-professorships-to-be-established-this-year-1.4128975

20 new women only professorships will be created in the coming academic year and 45 new women only professorships over the next 3 years to address gender imbalance in third level education.

This confuses me as firstly I thought equality legislation was brought in with the purpose of stopping discriminatory job allocations based on among other things, gender. The government and universities are now ignoring that legislation and discriminating when hiring for these new positions because only women will be considered.

Secondly, I get that if there's a pay issue it needs to be fixed, if there's issues with hiring they need to be fixed or lack of women going into certain fields. So we have laws discriminatory job hiring and compensation and campaigns to promote different career paths to kids to open up options they might not of otherwise taken. Addressing issues at the root etc.

But is it really an issue that there's more male professors in a college department? Surely their primary role is education in their field and if more males graduate in that field there's going to be more male applicants for positions. Why is there a requirement to have "representation" to the point that equality laws can be broken to fast track people into professorships for the sole purpose of increasing the numbers of that gender in a department?

Eric Cartman

Just blatant sexism and a move that will throw questionmarks over the credibility and achievements of women who can compete on merit

Augme

That same legislation allows for positive action.

Treppen

Augme wrote: »

That same legislation allows for positive action.

You mean discriminate on the grounds of gender... To stop discriminating on the grounds of gender. Because discriminating on the grounds of gender is wrong, except when it's right.

Caquas

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

Didn't see this posted on here over the last few days:

.....

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/twenty-women-only-professorships-to-be-established-this-year-1.4128975

Existing thread here http://https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112160029

Gynoid

The irony is how PATRronising this is. (Patronise and patriarchy include in their etymology Pater, or father.) There are perfectly fine and brilliant women who can compete in the open market for these jobs if they want them.
Eindhoven University did this last year with their engineering dept when for 6 months men were barred from applying for any positions. One day people will say ....hang on....ooops....maybe lets stop infantilising people. Duh.

lainey_d_123

Because it's a cycle. If certain education paths are careers are hugely male dominated, young girls and women are given the message 'this isn't for me'. I've always been a giant computer nerd but was massively put off by being the only girl in the class in secondary. My teacher even openly dissuaded me from doing a comp sci degree because of how isolating it would be, surrounded by only male students and taught by all male professors. It's intimidating and annoying. I wanted to learn, not have to listen to stupid comments and faux compliments about how I was good at coding 'for a girl' when I was the best student in the class.

It's also a well known fact that there is massive bias in hiring in that people tend to hire people who are like themselves. This is not only gendered - it also manifests in things like class/background/accent, but in certain professions, an all-male interview panel means it's highly likely that they'll choose a new hire who is just like them because they'll 'fit in' better, regardless of which candidate is actually more competent. I went through a number of software developer interviews fairly recently (in the last 18 months) and was rejected from more than one for not being a 'cultural fit'. They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman. I got through all the technical challenges just fine and I interviewed well. I just knew when I saw the office full of men with beards in black T shirts that I was never going to get the job, and lo and behold I was right.

Lots of men in this field like to believe that women don't get hired because they're not good enough or that any woman hire is automatically a 'diversity hire'. I've now been on panels myself where a man had to be talked through the simplest challenges and couldn't answer the most basic questions, and yet the men on the panel wanted to hire him because he 'seemed cool', i.e. just like them. They didn't want to hire the 43-year-old single mother because it would mean having to stop swearing constantly in the office and holding meetings in the pub, not because she lacked technical skills and ability.

I understand that men feel hard done by by initiatives which encourage hiring women but honestly...it doesn't even begin to make up for the years of disadvantage women have faced in STEM fields.

lainey_d_123

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just blatant sexism and a move that will throw questionmarks over the credibility and achievements of women who can compete on merit

Except that women often don't have the chance to compete on merit thanks to years of inbuilt sexism and people hiring people who are just like themselves (see my other post).

touts

Mary Mitchell O’Connor throws something like this into the public discussion every now and then to keep her name in the public eye. She is an irrelevant politician in an irrelevant role but refuses to accept that so she has to do something controversial every now and then to elbow her way onto page 2 of the national newspapers. This announcement will never be implemented as the people she expects to implement it will be terrified of being sued. They will just sit on their hands until she is booted out in a few weeks at the election.

Augme

Treppen wrote: »

You mean discriminate on the grounds of gender... To stop discriminating on the grounds of gender. Because discriminating on the grounds of gender is wrong, except when it's right.

You can take positive action for any of the nine grounds.

Eric Cartman

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Except that women often don't have the chance to compete on merit thanks to years of inbuilt sexism and people hiring people who are just like themselves (see my other post).

The greatest obstacle to women progressing is other women, women who had to walk accross hot coals to get where they are in tge past when institutional sexism was actually an issue routinely pull the ladder up and refuse to promote women.

Caquas

Treppen wrote: »

You mean discriminate on the grounds of gender... To stop discriminating on the grounds of gender. Because discriminating on the grounds of gender is wrong, except when it's right.

The Equality Act provides for “positive action” against discrimination e.g. encouraging women to apply for posts which are male dominated. It does not allow for “positive discrimination”.

This would be in the courts on day one except that these posts are additional posts I.e. the taxpayers are financing jobs which only exist because the Minister wants them. Or, I suspect, we will pay 20 female lecturers to do the same work for a Professor’s pay. No male academics were harmed in the making of this political stunt.

http://https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/positive-discrimination-fears-surround-women-only-academic-posts-1.3764525

Civil Servants warned about the legal issues but were ignored. I call BS on the claim by the Department that the Netherlands has positive experience of such appointments. The Dutch are very advanced on equality issues but they are also a canny people. They won’t give out highly paid sinecures just to placate any lobby.

lainey_d_123

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The greatest obstacle to women progressing is other women, women who had to walk accross hot coals to get where they are in tge past when institutional sexism was actually an issue routinely pull the ladder up and refuse to promote women.

Nonsense.

CageWager

Equality is only for the elites. Plum jobs in the PS/Universities etc. Its all about getting a bigger slice of the pie for themselves disguised as a noble cause to inspire young girls. No issues with primary education being female dominated through. That would probably be a hate crime.

Arrival

Anyone who played a part in this bull**** being implemented isn't intelligent enough to be working in academics. This type of stuff is both extremely condescending and patronising to the women who would get to these positions based on merit and sexist, discriminatory and misandrist towards men who would be interested in the positions. Shameful stuff, this is in no way a positive way of dealing with an issue regarding gender imbalances

vriesmays

There won't be true equality until we have male-only professorships in women's studies departments.

Calhoun

Miss Piggy trying to be relevant before election time. Imagine what an extra 4 million a year could do to early intervention for children special needs ECT but we have it being pumped into a vanity sexist project.

No attempt to fix the gender imbalance in the fields of nursing or even primary or secondary education (bar the cushy well paying jobs).

lainey_d_123

CageWager wrote: »

Equality is only for the elites. Plum jobs in the PS/Universities etc. Its all about getting a bigger slice of the pie for themselves disguised as a noble cause to inspire young girls. No issues with primary education being female dominated through. That would probably be a hate crime.

There are plenty of initiatives globally for more men to consider primary education, actually.

The thing is that most men aren't clamouring to be able to do the traditionally 'female' jobs like cleaning, childminding, nursing, etc., you know the ones which are generally horrible jobs with awful pay. Funny that.

JohnnyFlash

Any dude who badly wants one of these roles should just say he’s a woman and apply anyway. Then sue if he doesn't get it. Simple enough.

Melanchthon

Caquas wrote: »

The Equality Act provides for “positive action” against discrimination e.g. encouraging women to apply for posts which are male dominated. It does not allow for “positive discrimination”.

This would be in the courts on day one except that these posts are additional posts I.e. the taxpayers are financing jobs which only exist because the Minister wants them. Or, I suspect, we will pay 20 female lecturers to do the same work for a Professor’s pay. No male academics were harmed in the making of this political stunt.

http://https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/positive-discrimination-fears-surround-women-only-academic-posts-1.3764525

Civil Servants warned about the legal issues but were ignored. I call BS on the claim by the Department that the Netherlands has positive experience of such appointments. The Dutch are very advanced on equality issues but they are also a canny people. They won’t give out highly paid sinecures just to placate any lobby.

They should simply fund a few more professorships with strict research output standards, Irish universities are plummeting in the rankings and I don't think it's all to do with the rise of non western universities and the other methodological issues in these lists.

Better yet make the posts for those under 40-45 then it's pretty likely that you'l get a more equal gender balance of applications anyway

Charles Babbage

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because it's a cycle. If certain education paths are careers are hugely male dominated, young girls and women are given the message 'this isn't for me'. I've always been a giant computer nerd but was massively put off by being the only girl in the class in secondary. My teacher even openly dissuaded me from doing a comp sci degree because of how isolating it would be, surrounded by only male students and taught by all male professors. It's intimidating and annoying. I wanted to learn, not have to listen to stupid comments and faux compliments about how I was good at coding 'for a girl' when I was the best student in the class.

This is the point, the direction people are going in is set a schools and that is the place for action. When you do go to university you want to be taught by the best people, not those who got positions because of their gender, race or anything else.

The number of women in IT hasn't hugely changed since I as a student, but that has little to do with the industry or universities, who welcome women, but has a lot to do with dysfunctional attitudes in schools.

If there is bias in appointments then that should be addressed directly.

lainey_d_123

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Any dude who badly wants one of these roles should just say he’s a woman and apply anyway. Then sue if he doesn't get it. Simple enough.

Yes, because men are just so terribly hard done by in the working world. Some STEM companies are 90+% men while men make up < 50% of the population, but this is some great injustice now that women are being given the tiniest fraction of what men have taken for granted for decades?

OK.

KWAG2019

The sad reality is that the hidden and unadmitted bias in academia made this necessary. If appointments had been made with the logical integrity that posters here are pointing to about gender discrimination this would not be necessary. Unfortunately it is.

lainey_d_123

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is the point, the direction people are going in is set a schools and that is the place for action. When you do go to university you want to be taught by the best people, not those who got positions because of their gender, race or anything else.



The number of women in IT hasn't hugely changed since I as a student, but that has little to do with the industry or universities, who welcome women, but has a lot to do with dysfunctional attitudes in schools.



If there is bias in appointments then that should be addressed directly.

The point is that plenty of men got their position BECAUSE they were men!!!

Why is this such a challenge to understand?

There are lots of men in positions where they were not the best candidate for the job, but they were a 'good fit' for the job, chosen by people just like them. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Anyone who believes that a department is 90% men because the women aren't good enough to get the jobs is sexist or delusional.

spurious

It will be the women's fault anyway, whoever brought it in. As long as we are clear on that.

lainey_d_123

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The sad reality is that the hidden and unadmitted bias in academia made this necessary. If appointments had been made with the logical integrity that posters here are pointing to about gender discrimination this would not be necessary. Unfortunately it is.

Exactly.

I find it shocking and unbelievable that we don't hear a peep out of any men while men are hiring and promoting other men, but the second the tables are turned (just more openly), they're up in arms about it.

Augme

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Any dude who badly wants one of these roles should just say he’s a woman and apply anyway. Then sue if he doesn't get it. Simple enough.

Well if they could provide that stated their gender then there is nothing stopping them doing this. I wonder if any of them will have the balls to do that though? I doubt it.

CageWager

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There are plenty of initiatives globally for more men to consider primary education, actually.

Are there male only postings?

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

The thing is that most men aren't clamouring to be able to do the traditionally 'female' jobs like cleaning, childminding, nursing, etc., you know the ones which are generally horrible jobs with awful pay. Funny that.

Just like women aren't clamouring to work in mines, clean sewers, collect bins, oil rigs, backbreaking construction jobs etc.?? I'd say you're quite happy to live in a nice apartment or house and turn on the heating or the lights whenever you want. Where do you think all that stuff comes from?

Needles73

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There are plenty of initiatives globally for more men to consider primary education, actually.

The thing is that most men aren't clamouring to be able to do the traditionally 'female' jobs like cleaning, childminding, nursing, etc., you know the ones which are generally horrible jobs with awful pay. Funny that.

Ever see a female worker on a bin truck ? Funny that.

Calhoun

The irony when you dismiss equality in primary education or nursing as just individual choices because it favors your sex but then want to get the violin out when it does not.

Damned patriarchy.

Augme

CageWager wrote: »

Ar
Just like women aren't clamouring to work in mines, clean sewers, collect bins, oil rigs, backbreaking construction jobs etc.??

Btw, which one of these jobs do you do?

TheValeyard

The sad fact is, any woman who gets one of these postings will not be seen as an academic equal by her male and female peers. She will simply be seen as a political appointment, not based on ability, but which way the genitals are facing.

Ballso

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

The point is that plenty of men got their position BECAUSE they were men!!!

Why is this such a challenge to understand?

There are lots of men in positions where they were not the best candidate for the job, but they were a 'good fit' for the job, chosen by people just like them. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Anyone who believes that a department is 90% men because the women aren't good enough to get the jobs is sexist or delusional.

I work in a tech consultancy. We have no women in tech. Practically no women apply for roles with us despite the fact that we pay highly, have great work life balance and have probably the best rep in our sector of the business.

We finally found a single suitable candidate for a role last year but the applicant took a role elsewhere for crazy money. Everyone is crying out for female staff to the point that they will outbid each other on run of the mill candidates simply because they are female.

Yet we STILL get practical no female applicants. At what point does this become an issue of the choices women are making?

Calhoun

TheValeyard wrote: »

The sad fact is, any woman who gets one of these postings will not be seen as an academic equal by her male and female peers. She will simply be seen as a political appointment, not based on ability, but which way the genitals are facing.

I would love to say rightly so but academia is very much left leaning and they will probably be progressive heroes.

Calhoun

Ballso wrote: »

I work in a tech consultancy. We have no women in tech. Practically no women apply for roles with us despite the fact that we pay highly, have great work life balance and have probably the best rep in our sector of the business.

We finally found a single suitable candidate for a role last year but the applicant took a role elsewhere for crazy money. Everyone is crying out for female staff to the point that they will outbid each other on run of the mill candidates simply because they are female.

Yet we STILL get practical no female applicants. At what point does this become an issue of the choices women are making?

Your wrong it's the patriarchy keeping women down, the tech consultancy sector is just sexist.

Yellow_Fern

Totally backward and will undermine our universities.

Minister O'Connor isn't the brightest.

Jimbob1977

Maybe males have a greater aptitude for certain subjects and skills.

And women have a greater aptitude for different subjects and skills.

Treppen

I was wondering why they didn't do the same for primary school where there is a deficiency of men applying.
The only conclusion I can come to is because there isn't a lack of women applying for professorships in 3rd level.... But rather they are applying but the interviewing panel is favouring men.

Maybe look at how the interview panel is made up rather than tokenism.

Arrival

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

The point is that plenty of men got their position BECAUSE they were men!!!

Why is this such a challenge to understand?

There are lots of men in positions where they were not the best candidate for the job, but they were a 'good fit' for the job, chosen by people just like them. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Anyone who believes that a department is 90% men because the women aren't good enough to get the jobs is sexist or delusional.

Or we believe that women make different career choices and the best qualified and suitable candidates for jobs should rise to the top. I wouldn't care if a department was 100% women as long as it's a given that they got those positions due to their credentials and experience, regardless of their sex. I wouldn't see that and think "but muh gender imbalances, muh representation" like loads of women seem to get worked up over. Just because perhaps there was such an attitude that men were naturally more suited for the job in the past doesn't mean it's going to continue from now into the future. The world is a lot more aware of the necessity to treat women equally and so provided women get the qualifications and experience these things will naturally balance themselves out going forward, into the future. Rushing to get to that point by discriminating against one sex is simply moronic. Any discrimination is bad and shouldn't happen, ever from this point onwards. What needs to be concentrated on is ensuring that no woman, or man, goes through a similar experience as you where their teacher discourages them from entering their ideal industry.

All secondary students should be given access to information about every course and industry which includes evidence that there are women and men working in them all. Personal experiences from an equal number of men and women currently in the degrees and working in the industry would be a good idea. People working in career guidance should all be trained to try to instill confidence in all students that they can enter whichever industry they have an interest in. Then it's up to each individual to follow their own choices and pursue their careers

lainey_d_123

CageWager wrote: »

Are there male only postings?





Just like women aren't clamouring to work in mines, clean sewers, collect bins, oil rigs, backbreaking construction jobs etc.?? I'd say you're quite happy to live in a nice apartment or house and turn on the heating or the lights whenever you want. Where do you think all that stuff comes from?

Well funnily enough, there is a big physical disadvantage for women doing those jobs. There are plenty of equivalent manual jobs done by women. Where are the equivalent well-paid jobs for the women who are locked out of STEM?

lainey_d_123

Treppen wrote: »

I was wondering why they didn't do the same for primary school where there is a deficiency of men applying.
The only conclusion I can come to is because there isn't a lack of women applying for professorships in 3rd level.... But rather they are applying but the interviewing panel is favouring men.

Maybe look at how the interview panel is made up rather than tokenism.

This is the problem...the biased selection process.

And how are you going to make up an interview panel with equal numbers of men and women if the place is full of men???

Gynoid

I dunno. Back in my day, girls must have been tougher. If a teacher ever mistakenly suggested something to you like you should not do this, or you cannot do that ir you will be isolated if you go there, the inner reaction was fcuk you, WATCH me do it. And that was from a very shy nerdy girl.

I studied in a male dominated college course, and I was the first of any gender in my extended family to go to college We were working class and going through college meant pulling 8 hour shifts in Abrakebabra till 4 am 3 nights a week and living in bedsits that people would be ashamed to house a cat in these days. Life is tough, be tougher. I had girl friends who studied engineering, medicine, physics, accountancy, wait for it - gasp - in the fecking mid 80s!! They were perfectly normal before, during and after, and needed no trauma counselling and took up careers thereafter as suited their desires, full time, part time, top of their fields if they had ambition, middle ground if it suited them better, not at all if they prefered something completely different like living barefoot in the mountains.

Did something awful happen in the last 3 or 4 decades that nobody told me about?

lainey_d_123

Ballso wrote: »

I work in a tech consultancy. We have no women in tech. Practically no women apply for roles with us despite the fact that we pay highly, have great work life balance and have probably the best rep in our sector of the business.

We finally found a single suitable candidate for a role last year but the applicant took a role elsewhere for crazy money. Everyone is crying out for female staff to the point that they will outbid each other on run of the mill candidates simply because they are female.

Yet we STILL get practical no female applicants. At what point does this become an issue of the choices women are making?

Yes, blame the women for not applying and not the fact that the entire sector has historically been extremely hostile to women. I absolutely loved programming as a kid and yet didn't choose comp sci as my degree...why? Because I hated being in the only girl in the class, subject to sexist 'jokes', not being credited for my work. It wasn't until I got old enough and angry enough at being underemployed with my sh1tty Arts degree that I decided to move into tech finally...and I still get plenty of stupid comments about being a 'diversity hire' from men who weren't even born yet when I was starting programming.

But yeah, let's blame women for the 'choices' they're making.

Yellow_Fern

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

This is the problem...the biased selection process.

And how are you going to make up an interview panel with equal numbers of men and women if the place is full of men???

There is no evidence of biased selection. There is no evidence that men mostly like to hire other men. 55% of lecturers are female and most postdoc and PhD students are female. Universities are very mixed and have been for decades and decades. Professors job is to research. Being female doesnt make you more likely to make discoveries.

PonchoMcHoncho

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because it's a cycle. If certain education paths are careers are hugely male dominated, young girls and women are given the message 'this isn't for me'. I've always been a giant computer nerd but was massively put off by being the only girl in the class in secondary. My teacher even openly dissuaded me from doing a comp sci degree because of how isolating it would be, surrounded by only male students and taught by all male professors. It's intimidating and annoying. I wanted to learn, not have to listen to stupid comments and faux compliments about how I was good at coding 'for a girl' when I was the best student in the class.

It's also a well known fact that there is massive bias in hiring in that people tend to hire people who are like themselves. This is not only gendered - it also manifests in things like class/background/accent, but in certain professions, an all-male interview panel means it's highly likely that they'll choose a new hire who is just like them because they'll 'fit in' better, regardless of which candidate is actually more competent. I went through a number of software developer interviews fairly recently (in the last 18 months) and was rejected from more than one for not being a 'cultural fit'. They might as well have come out and said it's because I'm a woman. I got through all the technical challenges just fine and I interviewed well. I just knew when I saw the office full of men with beards in black T shirts that I was never going to get the job, and lo and behold I was right.

Lots of men in this field like to believe that women don't get hired because they're not good enough or that any woman hire is automatically a 'diversity hire'. I've now been on panels myself where a man had to be talked through the simplest challenges and couldn't answer the most basic questions, and yet the men on the panel wanted to hire him because he 'seemed cool', i.e. just like them. They didn't want to hire the 43-year-old single mother because it would mean having to stop swearing constantly in the office and holding meetings in the pub, not because she lacked technical skills and ability.

I understand that men feel hard done by by initiatives which encourage hiring women but honestly...it doesn't even begin to make up for the years of disadvantage women have faced in STEM fields.

My experience is the polar opposite. More than half my lecturers were female. I graduated from a class with only 2 female students (to 25 male).Neither of which was fantastic academically but they were both the first picked up by multinationals for engineering roles while better students didn't fair so well. Where I work now most of the female applicants are for BA or tester roles. More women than men get hired for those roles. If a female engineer applies you can guarantee they have the job. There's huge demand for female engineers.

The actual disparity is caused by the lack of women in software development and engineering which is why there's huge demand for female engineers and a lot more men with the experience required for senior roles.

Something tells me if you as an experienced female engineer are struggling and getting feedback of "it's not a good cultural fit" your interviews are absolutely horrendous.

Ballso

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, blame the women for not applying and not the fact that the entire sector has historically been extremely hostile to women. I absolutely loved programming as a kid and yet didn't choose comp sci as my degree...why? Because I hated being in the only girl in the class, subject to sexist 'jokes', not being credited for my work. It wasn't until I got old enough and angry enough at being underemployed with my sh1tty Arts degree that I decided to move into tech finally...and I still get plenty of stupid comments about being a 'diversity hire' from men who weren't even born yet when I was starting programming.

But yeah, let's blame women for the 'choices' they're making.

This is incredible, I'm telling you we will overlook any number of issues and pay over the odds just to get a women into our org but we can't get one.

The only viable applicant we had last year waltzed into another role she was underqualified for on a salary way over the odds precisely because she was female. Yet we STILL can't get women to hire. We are screaming for women to hire.

lainey_d_123

Arrival wrote: »

Or we believe that women make different career choices and the best qualified and suitable candidates for jobs should rise to the top. I wouldn't care if a department was 100% women as long as it's a given that they got those positions due to their credentials and experience, regardless of their sex. I wouldn't see that and think "but muh gender imbalances, muh representation" like loads of women seem to get worked up over. Just because perhaps there was such an attitude that men were naturally more suited for the job in the past doesn't mean it's going to continue from now into the future. The world is a lot more aware of the necessity to treat women equally and so provided women get the qualifications and experience these things will naturally balance themselves out going forward, into the future. Rushing to get to that point by discriminating against one sex is simply moronic. Any discrimination is bad and shouldn't happen, ever from this point onwards. What needs to be concentrated on is ensuring that no woman, or man, goes through a similar experience as you where their teacher discourages them from entering their ideal industry.

All secondary students should be given access to information about every course and industry which includes evidence that there are women and men working in them all. Personal experiences from an equal number of men and women currently in the degrees and working in the industry would be a good idea. People working in career guidance should all be trained to try to instill confidence in all students that they can enter whichever industry they have an interest in. Then it's up to each individual to follow their own choices and pursue their careers

Except, you know what?

Men in STEM tend to hire other men, regardless of whether they are actually the best candidate for the job. And those men who were hired never question whether or not they deserved to be hired, and thus the cycle continues.

I was on a panel where a young 20-something guy was interviewed for a developer role. He was absolutely useless, couldn't code his way out of a paper bag. And yet he got the role because he had 'potential', i.e. complete fluffy, nonsense decision making from the men on the panel who wanted someone just like them. We also interviewed a woman who had far superior technical skills and was far more deserving of the job, also a very nice lady, but 'not a good fit', apparently. Do you not think this happens every single day?

Men in this field very rarely seem to suffer from the same imposter syndrome women do. This guy truly believes he got the job because he was the best candidate. And why wouldn't he? He has no idea that a woman who was better qualified lost out because she was the wrong age and gender. He thinks he got it because he was the best, and he'd likely be against any gender-specific hiring process, even though he unknowingly benefitted from such a thing himself.

And so it continues.

mickdw

Does it even matter that they advertise women only roles - sure if you are a man and fancy one of the jobs, with the whole.gsnder nuetral thing, just roll up to the interview and state that today you feel like a woman.

Arrival

Gynoid wrote: »

I dunno. Back in my day, girls must have been tougher. If a teacher ever mistakenly suggested something to you like you should not do this, or you cannot do that ir you will be isolated if you go there, the inner reaction was fcuk you, WATCH me do it. And that was from a very shy nerdy girl.

I studied in a male dominated college course, and I was the first of any gender in my extended family to go to college We were working class and going through college meant pulling 8 hour shifts in Abrakebabra till 4 am 3 nights a week and living in bedsits that people would be ashamed to house a cat in these days. Life is tough, be tougher. I had girl friends who studied engineering, medicine, physics, accountancy, wait for it - gasp - in the fecking mid 80s!! They were perfectly normal before, during and after, and needed no trauma counselling and took up careers thereafter as suited their desires, full time, part time, top of their fields if they had ambition, middle ground if it suited them better, not at all if they prefered something completely different like living barefoot in the mountains.

Did something awful happen in the last 3 or 4 decades that nobody told me about?

No, you see you're talking about taking personal responsibility for your own choices as an individual and seeing them through to the end, working through any obstacles in your way instead of fixating on them and how they're specific only to your gender and demanding the world to balance everything in your favour to get past them instead

Fair ****ing play to you and your friends by the way. And I know plenty of women doing the same these days as well, they just get on with things and they're the ones who get on in life. All of this bull**** here is just these weirdo third wave feminists who spend too much time online who've nothing significant to fight for compared to the proper feminists in the past, clutching at straws to feel like they're seriously discriminated against. Playing the victim is attractive to them

SPDUB

Needles73 wrote: »

Ever see a female worker on a bin truck ? Funny that.

Ever watch any of those programmes about what happens to those trucks when they get back to their depot.

There's usually plenty of women there .

lainey_d_123

Gynoid wrote: »

I dunno. Back in my day, girls must have been tougher. If a teacher ever mistakenly suggested something to you like you should not do this, or you cannot do that ir you will be isolated if you go there, the inner reaction was fcuk you, WATCH me do it. And that was from a very shy nerdy girl.

I studied in a male dominated college course, and I was the first of any gender in my extended family to go to college We were working class and going through college meant pulling 8 hour shifts in Abrakebabra till 4 am 3 nights a week and living in bedsits that people would be ashamed to house a cat in these days. Life is tough, be tougher. I had girl friends who studied engineering, medicine, physics, accountancy, wait for it - gasp - in the fecking mid 80s!! They were perfectly normal before, during and after, and needed no trauma counselling and took up careers thereafter as suited their desires, full time, part time, top of their fields if they had ambition, middle ground if it suited them better, not at all if they prefered something completely different like living barefoot in the mountains.

Did something awful happen in the last 3 or 4 decades that nobody told me about?

Yes, I actually think it has got worse. I notice way more overt sexism and toxic attitudes now than I did as a kid/teenager in the 90s and my mother's generation actually seemed to have it easier in this regard than mine did. I think the 80s was probably the best time for women getting into male dominated roles...there has been a decline since then and I don't think it's fair to blame individuals rather than some structural cause.

It would have been the height of uncool to have a pink bedroom or wear pink back when I was a kid, and now I see little girls everywhere head to toe in pink or wearing Elsa costumes to the supermarket. There seems to have been a massive shift back to 'traditional' gender roles. I volunteer as a mentor in a Dublin school and I see it there as well, girls feeling like they have to be pretty for boys, huge fake eyelashes, hair extensions, even a few saying directly to me that programming isn't a job for girls.