Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti-male movement
Options
Comments
-
Nope.0
-
-
Is anyone here in agreement with me when I say there's an anti-male movement in ireland gaining pace quickly, this movement consisting of both women and indeed some men to rather puzzlingly
Yes. There are certain double standards in the media where it's ok to criticise, belittle and point out men's shortcomings that are seen as ok. It has crept into real life too. But it's not anything to worry about, just annoying. As long as the quota system for employees, executives, directors, board members etc. doesn't reach taking the piss levels we are ok.
Everyone, male or female, should be judged on their own individual merits.0 -
Yes. There are certain double standards in the media where it's ok to criticise, belittle and point out men's shortcomings that are seen as ok. It has crept into real life too. But it's not anything to worry about, just annoying. As long as the quota system for employees, executives, directors, board members etc. doesn't reach taking the piss levels we are ok.
Everyone, male or female, should be judged on their own individual merits.
Yes indeed, Well phrased speech there, another example of this is that apparently the leaving cert is biased to boys because boys are better at the Stem subjects0 -
Yes indeed, Well phrased speech there, another example of this is that apparently the leaving cert is biased to boys because boys are better at the Stem subjects
Well that's not true. Girls are consistently outperforming boys in the vast majority of subjects every single year, including many of the STEM subjects.0 -
Advertisement
-
0
-
Nah, it's just a case of certain insecure men having things their own way for so long now viewing equality (which we still don't even have) as a threat to their status.0
-
Sorry lady but the statistics yesterday showed that while girls outperformed boys in more areas, STEM subjects were the exception
You're looking at total numbers but that's always going to give misleading results as more boys do STEM subjects than girls. That doesn't mean they outperform them. If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.
Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:
Mathematics
F: 13.9%
M: 21.7%
(MALE WIN)
Applied Mathematics
F: 29.7%
M:39.9%
(MALE WIN)
Physics
F: 31%
M: 25.8%
(FEMALE WIN)
Chemistry
F: 27.4%
M: 30.8%
(MALE WIN)
Physics and Chemistry
F: 28.2%
M: 20.6%
(FEMALE WIN)
Agricultural Science
F: 23.8%
M: 14.8%
(FEMALE WIN)
Biology
F: 22.3%
M: 19.3%
(FEMALE WIN)
Engineering
F: 23.1%
M: 21.5%
(FEMALE WIN)
Construction Studies
F: 24.3%
M: 17%
(FEMALE WIN)
Technology
F: 33.6%
M: 27.4%
(FEMALE WIN)
DCG
F: 30.9%
M: 26.6%
(FEMALE WIN)
So out of the 11 STEM subjects, boys did better in terms of percentages scoring the top grades in only 3.
If you want to consider it from the other end, i.e. in terms of failing the exams, a greater percentage of girls failed in only two of these subjects: Mathematics and Construction Studies.
None of this is unusual. Trends over the years generally reflect similar results.
PS I am a male. Please do not refer to me as 'lady' on this forum.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,112 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59041
What strikes me about these figures is not the whole "which is better", but how narrow the actual gaps are(maths seems to be the outlier). Kinda shoots down the whole [insert gender here] is better at [insert subject here].
As for the "anti male movement", the vast majority of that guff is online or in the media. In the real world while there are issues it's not nearly so marked a "gender war" as some suggest or think. The whole "gender war" itself is more imported American based bullsh1t anyway.
Speaking of...Sorry lady
Lady? What are you, a New York taxi driver? Let's dial that dismissive nonsense back please.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30615
I suspect the OP has been reading the summaries in the Indo- there is one article in particular which seems to be getting a lot of people's goat up:
Sinead Ryan's Piece here
All I can say is- its the media- and courting controvesy is a good method to sell papers. Perhaps Sinead even believes what she has written- but hasn't say down and actually looked at the statistics- or perhaps, it simply suits her to gloss over inconvenient truths.
There is a perception that there is an equality issue here- because more males than females study the stem subjects and end up in higher paying jobs. Well- the answer is not to dumb down the subjects- its to look at why fewer females gravitate towards these subjects.
Just because you can get wonderful grades in languages and artsy subjects- if ultimately these are not going to help you down the road- perhaps the answer is to try to get people to look at the bigger picture.
Then- you have the fact that over 86% of all teachers are female- perhaps there is a bias there- towards pushing girls into subject areas where teachers know they'll mop up marks- but ignoring the bigger picture.
Then again- you have the teachers themselves- getting additional increments for having a degree or a masters- but no cognisance whatsoever of what that degree or masters is in. How about trying to encourage science and engineering grads into teaching? Its certainly not happening at the moment........
All told- I think our children are very poorly advised by their teachers- and perhaps by career guidance counsellors? Just because your teacher is doing fine with a degree in Greek and Roman civilisations- doesn't mean its a viable or tenable option for 99% of pupils.
Just because more guys end up in computer science, or accountancy- does not mean there is an equality issue- which is what that reporter in the Indo seems to imagine there must be.0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »Then again- you have the teachers themselves- getting additional increments for having a degree or a masters- but no cognisance whatsoever of what that degree or masters is in. How about trying to encourage science and engineering grads into teaching? Its certainly not happening at the moment........
Do you mean paying a science teacher more than a geography teacher for doing the same amount of work?0 -
jsms88 wrote:Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:
"Lies Lies and Statistics" - Mark Twain0 -
You're looking at total numbers but that's always going to give misleading results as more boys do STEM subjects than girls. That doesn't mean they outperform them. If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.
Take the two top grades in HL papers this year, H1 (90-100%) and H2 (80-89%) and compare. In other words, these are the percentages of males and females who got over 80% this year in the STEM subjects:
Mathematics
F: 13.9%
M: 21.7%
(MALE WIN)
Applied Mathematics
F: 29.7%
M:39.9%
(MALE WIN)
Physics
F: 31%
M: 25.8%
(FEMALE WIN)
Chemistry
F: 27.4%
M: 30.8%
(MALE WIN)
Physics and Chemistry
F: 28.2%
M: 20.6%
(FEMALE WIN)
Agricultural Science
F: 23.8%
M: 14.8%
(FEMALE WIN)
Biology
F: 22.3%
M: 19.3%
(FEMALE WIN)
Engineering
F: 23.1%
M: 21.5%
(FEMALE WIN)
Construction Studies
F: 24.3%
M: 17%
(FEMALE WIN)
Technology
F: 33.6%
M: 27.4%
(FEMALE WIN)
DCG
F: 30.9%
M: 26.6%
(FEMALE WIN)
So out of the 11 STEM subjects, boys did better in terms of percentages scoring the top grades in only 3.
If you want to consider it from the other end, i.e. in terms of failing the exams, a greater percentage of girls failed in only two of these subjects: Mathematics and Construction Studies.
None of this is unusual. Trends over the years generally reflect similar results.
PS I am a male. Please do not refer to me as 'lady' on this forum.
Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.
It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.0 -
Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.
It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.
That's total speculation of course. It also implies that at the age of 15, when choosing their leaving cert subjects, girls are in some way more capable of choosing subjects that they are 'good' at than boys are. I don't buy that. A 15 year old boy who is great at chemistry is equally as likely to pick it for his leaving cert as a capable girl.0 -
Of course, that mightn't be a fair reflection either, because it may be that girls who are well above average in the above subjects are disproportionately more likely to do those subjects.
It may be a question of self-selection towards only the very best girls whereas there might be a sample of boys that are a more average representation of the population.
That's total speculation of course. It also implies that at the age of 15, when choosing their leaving very subjects, girls are in some way more capable of choosing subjects that they are 'good' at than boys are. I don't buy that. A 15 year old boy who is great at chemistry is equally as likely to pick it for his leaving cert as a capable girl.
Agreed, but I speculate having seen this myself that the less capable girl is more likely to choose a "girly" subject like Home Ec or a language whereas the less capable boy would be more likely to choose a "boy" subject like a science (bar biology, which is a more "girl" science.). So I think more capable students would be more likely to do subjects they like and are good at than less capable, who would go for stereotypical gendered subjects.0 -
...If 2,000 boys do a subject compared to only 200 girls, there are obviously going to be more boys with top marks than girls.
Very sound logic - which should be applied to all the data, even when it is not about school.As for the "anti male movement", the vast majority of that guff is online or in the media. In the real world while there are issues it's not nearly so marked a "gender war" as some suggest or think. The whole "gender war" itself is more imported American based bullsh1t anyway.
Mostly this - online / media are a different thing from reality, and I'd say a proper cesspit in many ways.
In "real life", I have met maybe one person who would go to extreme lengths of annoyance if she so much as heard a joke vaguely about women. The vast majority, women and men alike, tend to be quite frank and open - I've met many women who, for example, have a big issue with the way lots of topics are discussed in the largely feminist media, as they think it's more detrimental than anything else.
I've also met one or two who would have weird, idiotic idea about men and how we behave / think, mostly based on soaps portrayal of us. I would classify that as sheer, genderless stupidity.
TL;DR - don't think so; not yet, at least.
ADDENDUM - That said, I do firmly believe there's a big issue when it comes to largely ignoring men's issues; From health (both physical and mental) to social pressure and general risk, there's a big attitude at "brushing them under the carpet".0 -
professore wrote: »Agreed, but I speculate having seen this myself that the less capable girl is more likely to choose a "girly" subject like Home Ec or a language whereas the less capable boy would be more likely to choose a "boy" subject like a science (bar biology, which is a more "girl" science.). So I think more capable students would be more likely to do subjects they like and are good at than less capable, who would go for stereotypical gendered subjects.
Nicely put. Agreed.
However, there is nothing to say that a more capable student shouldn't pick the 'girly' Home Ec anyway. I have never bought into this idea that the brainy kids should do the science subjects and the less capable should stick to geography, etc.
Being mathematically gifted shouldn't mean you shouldn't do history if you enjoy it, for example. Equally, you'll find many less capable students in the physics and higher maths classes because they insist on being there.
I suppose the point I'm building to is that you'll find a mix of abilities in any class (unrelated to gender) and are unlikely to see a situation like that described in an earlier post where there are only excellent female students taking a particular subject or only less capable males, etc.0 -
Yes, confined almost entirely to the realms of the internet though. Go outside ,turn off your computer and enjoy the world where gender obsessed morons are a lot less mouthy about rights and social justice than they are on the internet . Normal people outside the Internet forums live a lot more happily alongside each other , whatever gender religion race sexuality , I think there's a lot less tension there than online .0
-
There are some idiots out there unfortunately but they do appear to be in the minority.
I can never understand those that have a problem with the opposite sex. The likes of Una Mullaly and Louise O'Neill obviously have fathers and maybe brothers in their lives.
Myself, I have a mother, wife and very soon a daughter. I would hate for any of them to be treated negatively purely because of their gender.
A lot of this rubbish comes from American culture where things need to be black and white, good Vs evil. We see it at the moment there with the far right Vs far left debate.
Quick frankly there are a minority of total gob****es in this world that are nothing but petulant bullies. Anyway, rant over.0 -
I suppose the point I'm building to is that you'll find a mix of abilities in any class (unrelated to gender) and are unlikely to see a situation like that described in an earlier post where there are only excellent female students taking a particular subject or only less capable males, etc.
I didn't say that's how it is, of course, but that that kind of situation could be one of any number of confounding factors that lead to those kinds of results.
Without controls in place we can't read much of anything into them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30615
Do you mean paying a science teacher more than a geography teacher for doing the same amount of work?
Honestly- yes.
I genuinely think that teachers should be paid accordingly to the subjects they teach.
I am not advocating penury for geography/language/religious studies teachers- I am suggesting that a chunky premium be paid to teachers of certain subjects- covering the stem subjects- alongside 'welcome' payments for new entrants to teaching- holding primary degrees in stem subjects.
I would also suggest that the Department should liaise with our multinationals- and put together a roving panel of trainers- who would undertake to take 1-2 hours a week in schools- perhaps after hours- and students could volunteer to attend these sessions.
As a student myself (25 odd years ago)- I did outreach teaching in a school in a disadvantaged area (Darndale) for 3 years (I taught Chemistry and Honours and Ordinary Level Maths). The classes were in the evening- and attendance was entirely voluntary for the students. Most days I had at least 15 students- in the run up to the Leaving- this swelled to almost 30. I was proudly told by the principal- that some of the students from my classes were offered places in Trinity and UCD- often the first members of their families to attend third level education- this was back in the early 90s.
I have no idea if similar schemes still run- but it would be a boon if they did- supported by our Hi-Tech sectors, the Department- and a new cadre of teachers- with good qualifications to teach these subjects.
I don't suggest we should tell the geography teachers of the world to take a hike- I do suggest that the blanket bonus payments and seniority structure- which rewards a degree, or a masters, or a post grad rather than a hdip, rather than looking at what prospective teachers qualifications actually are- is a very obvious target for addressing the manner in which we have teachers with all manner of soft subjects- and a dearth of those qualified or willing to teach the hard subjects.
We already look at disadvantaged schools via the Deise system- why not think outside the box- and actively encourage talented individuals who are willing to teach our children the skills they need to maximise their potential- to take up employment in our educational sector.
I.e. I am not suggesting we offer our geography or language teachers- a different payscale- I am suggesting we look at teaching stem subjects- in a similar manner to in the UK, France or Scandinavia- where there is a recognition that they *need* to teach children skills to equip them for the modern world- as opposed to simply maximising their exam potential. Hell- if exam results are used as a yardstick- your geography teacher you used as an example- would be grinning like a Chesire cat- I've no idea how or why their results are so exemplary. However- if we are corraling students into the highly regarded geography classes- at the cost of core science or other stem subjects- which patently is the case- the battle is lost- before a punch is ever thrown.
Its hard to explain to a class that looking at maximising their leaving cert points- isn't the be-all and end-all. Sure you can do a conversion course if you really want to do core science subjects but don't have the second level education to support your application- I was the last year of the Matric exam for university- that tells you how old I am- the leaving cert is not necessarily the be-all and end-all.
We need to encourage holders of core stem qualifications- into our schools. We do not need to encourage more geography and soft subject teachers.
This is the issue.0 -
havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 25663
There are many girls' schools where only one science subject is offered. If opportunities were equal the performance would be as equal at the top end as it is in others. The top end is not the issue, the main problem is the disengagement by many average to lower ability males from an early stage.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30615
silverharp wrote: »havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.
Yes- they've this in most other countries at this stage- Ireland is very much an outlier...........0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Honestly- yes.
I genuinely think that teachers should be paid accordingly to the subjects they teach.
I am not advocating penury for geography/language/religious studies teachers- I am suggesting that a chunky premium be paid to teachers of certain subjects- covering the stem subjects- alongside 'welcome' payments for new entrants to teaching- holding primary degrees in stem subjects.
I would also suggest that the Department should liaise with our multinationals- and put together a roving panel of trainers- who would undertake to take 1-2 hours a week in schools- perhaps after hours- and students could volunteer to attend these sessions.
As a student myself (25 odd years ago)- I did outreach teaching in a school in a disadvantaged area (Darndale) for 3 years (I taught Chemistry and Honours and Ordinary Level Maths). The classes were in the evening- and attendance was entirely voluntary for the students. Most days I had at least 15 students- in the run up to the Leaving- this swelled to almost 30. I was proudly told by the principal- that some of the students from my classes were offered places in Trinity and UCD- often the first members of their families to attend third level education- this was back in the early 90s.
I have no idea if similar schemes still run- but it would be a boon if they did- supported by our Hi-Tech sectors, the Department- and a new cadre of teachers- with good qualifications to teach these subjects.
I don't suggest we should tell the geography teachers of the world to take a hike- I do suggest that the blanket bonus payments and seniority structure- which rewards a degree, or a masters, or a post grad rather than a hdip, rather than looking at what prospective teachers qualifications actually are- is a very obvious target for addressing the manner in which we have teachers with all manner of soft subjects- and a dearth of those qualified or willing to teach the hard subjects.
We already look at disadvantaged schools via the Deise system- why not think outside the box- and actively encourage talented individuals who are willing to teach our children the skills they need to maximise their potential- to take up employment in our educational sector.
I.e. I am not suggesting we offer our geography or language teachers- a different payscale- I am suggesting we look at teaching stem subjects- in a similar manner to in the UK, France or Scandinavia- where there is a recognition that they *need* to teach children skills to equip them for the modern world- as opposed to simply maximising their exam potential. Hell- if exam results are used as a yardstick- your geography teacher you used as an example- would be grinning like a Chesire cat- I've no idea how or why their results are so exemplary. However- if we are corraling students into the highly regarded geography classes- at the cost of core science or other stem subjects- which patently is the case- the battle is lost- before a punch is ever thrown.
Its hard to explain to a class that looking at maximising their leaving cert points- isn't the be-all and end-all. Sure you can do a conversion course if you really want to do core science subjects but don't have the second level education to support your application- I was the last year of the Matric exam for university- that tells you how old I am- the leaving cert is not necessarily the be-all and end-all.
We need to encourage holders of core stem qualifications- into our schools. We do not need to encourage more geography and soft subject teachers.
This is the issue.
I don't like your use of term 'soft' subjects and 'hard' subjects. Go and look at the statistics. There are very few differences in the grading of different subjects every year. There are no soft/easy subjects in the Leaving Cert. Every subject requires commitment and hard work to do well. Alas, dare I say, your view is one which I have come across from many maths teachers over the years; that their subject is better than everyone elses. And yet, when I have gone on holidays I have found my school-learned French very useful but, to date, I have never yet stood on the side of a GAA pitch wondering what the angle of the sun to the goalpost is, nor indeed any application of that particular learning!
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what we, as a society, value in a person, most of which are not realistic or even acceptable. The first being that someone working in science/maths is more valuable than those in other disciplines. Of course, science/maths is important but who is anyone to go around telling someone else that becoming a historian or an accountant or a translator is effectively wasting their working life or not making a worthwhile contribution to society. A student who loves Spanish may go on to take part in UN/NATO work resolving international relations disputes or even wars. A student who loves music may go on to write symphonies, celebrated the world over, that bring hours of joy to people. These are not cures for cancer but we don't live in a Marxist state. We have free will to makes choices about what we do with out lives. It's not about allocating all the resources 'for the greater good' and, therefore, it is not appropriate for a government, through it's teacher pay structures, to effectively devalue anyone who doesn't go down the road of science. And, let's be honest, the vast majority who do go down that road are not going to cure cancer. With all due respect to them, they will work hard in their labs, etc. but they will achieve nothing of note. We cannot devalue everyone else in the hope that we will find the one in a billion scientist that makes a difference once a century.
Furthermore, for similar reasons to above, I would advocate keeping multinationals as far away from our schools as possible. Primarily because not only do they not care about the students, but there's a lot more to school life and even college life than simply being trained for the workforce. Thankfully, our schools are not mere factories, building robots to work in Apple or Pfizer, nor should we ever encourage them to become so.
Of course, a hugely practical consequence of your suggestions, is that there will no longer be any history or geography teachers if we refuse to pay them equally to their colleagues. Why would anyone want to go down a second-rate career path? Take a look at America and Trump and see what happens when people decide that they have nothing to learn from history. I wasn't around back then but I would imagine that Hitler's rise to power was based on similar rhetoric to what we're hearing out of America these days.
You strongly imply that the only reason to do a non-science subject is to score points in the Leaving Cert but this is totally incorrect as my several examples above show. So, your whole argument is based on an assumption that science is the way to go and we'll all be better off when science is the be-all-and-end-all of our school system, workforce, etc. This is simply not true.0 -
silverharp wrote: »it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher
I cannot believe I'm reading this. Really???? How can you back up such a sweeping statement? On the basis that you found Maths harder than Business when you were in school and, therefore, your Maths teacher must have been brainier than your Business teacher if s/he was able to handle it??? Absolutely ridiculous!
I know a very intelligent individual who went on to become a French teacher of all things. I know many people who could have gone to college but chose to stay at home on the farm instead. You're assuming that people always do what they are capable of, not what they want to do. Using that logic every single 625-pointer in the Leaving Cert must do Medicine - no choice! Sure, why would they even consider something else if they're able to go so high? Well, because they don't want to do Medicine.
There's no sense at all to what you're saying. Your Business teacher could well have had a much higher IQ than your Maths teacher.0 -
I cannot believe I'm reading this. Really???? How can you back up such a sweeping statement? On the basis that you found Maths harder than Business when you were in school and, therefore, your Maths teacher must have been brainier than your Business teacher if s/he was able to handle it???
Absolutely ridiculous! I know a very intelligent individual who went on to become a French teacher of all things. You're assuming that people always do what they are capable of, not what they want to do. Using that logic every single 625-pointer in the Leaving Cert must do Medicine - no choice!
There's no sense at all to what you're saying. Your Business teacher could well have had a much higher IQ than your Maths teacher.
there have been IQ studies on courses university students take. You would agree that the average IQ of a university Engineering class would be higher than a university social studies class?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Its a media thing being lead by the likes of Una Mullaly in the irish times, shes a serious chip on her shoulder about men for some reason and seems to blame them on a daily basis for everything thats wrong on planet Una but in the real world the average Josephine on the street doesnt have a problem with males to the extent she does. The media and social media are creating a false world where everything has to be right and no one can have an opinion different to that of the pc opinion0
-
silverharp wrote: »havnt they done that in England where maths teachers are paid a premium but probably have to complete an extra qualification. it seems reasonable, a good maths teacher will most likely have a higher IQ than say a Bus Org teacher and could easily double their salary by going into IT or similar so there is a relative shortage.
A problem I see with that is that it might encourage good business studies teachers to become bad maths teachers.0 -
Advertisement
-
silverharp wrote: »there have been IQ studies on courses university students take. You would agree that the average IQ of a university Engineering class would be higher than a university social studies class?
I'm talking about high achievers though... not the lad who hops into an arts degree to take advantage of no college fees because he has nothing else to do. Yes, a civil engineering student will have a higher IQ than him but not necessarily a commerce or finance student.0
Advertisement