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

Frontline (RTE1, 11/4/2011): "A Man's World?"

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.


  • Options
    #33
    Poor Craythur
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭Poor Craythur


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

    I've heard this said a few times - more info please! :)


  • Options
    #34
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Poor Craythur wrote: »
    pragmatic1 wrote:
    Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

    I've heard this said a few times - more info please! :)
    I might leave primary education to others - I've thought more about secondary but I certainly didn't find primary education that stimulating.

    Regarding secondary education: one of the big things for me is having to do three languages for the Leaving Cert (nearly half the subjects).

    I don't think everyone needs to do an English literature course. Many people have a perfectly good standard of English before the L. Cert syllabus; and it's not clear if the syllabus really improves any problems people might have e.g. with grammar. The material is not the sort of stuff a lot of males would be very inclined to read in the free time either then or later in their lives; while many women might read it/find it of interest.

    Note: I don't think either men's (or women's) interests are inherently "better" but I do think there are average differences in what men and women are interested in e.g. men are more interested/get more stimulated by watching sports on average and women are more interested/get more stimulated by watching dance and musicals. On an intellectual level, I can't say that seeing a ball being kicked around is a particularly "good" interest, but it does interest me.

    I think females on average find learning languages more stimulating. Over the years, I've come across plenty who learn new languages for fun. They seem to imagine themselves in the countries and this is of interest to them. To me, learning languages (I've learned a few) is a bit like reading "Mary and Pat" books (when not a young child) - the content tends not to be very stimulating.

    In general, studies show on average females are a bit better than males at languages.

    These are just average statements. I know plenty of guys who liked the English course, etc.


  • Options
    #35
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    it was an interesting show with both viewpoints being represented instead of the usual thing where only one side is highlighted.....the lady from the womans council main counter-argument to a lot of points put to her seemed to be "the exceptions prove the rule" which annoyed me a little bit


  • Options
    #36
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    There's far more to English in the LC than just literature. It is expanding teenagers ability to think creatively and their ability to express themselves. It is like Maths, the ability to think and problem solve is the main benefit to doing it in school. English is the same. It is a core skill for anybody in any future job they may have. Learning to express yourself and put words to your thoughts is a key skill.

    So lets just say I disagree about the above post on English. The LC has issues, but English and Maths are core skills everybody needs.

    I also disagree about the male/female divide. There are just brains better suited to languages and brains better suited to numeracy. Some men and women have these brains. Social trends may have just grouped men and women into such ideas.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    There's far more to English in the LC than just literature. It is expanding teenagers ability to think creatively and their ability to express themselves. It is like Maths, the ability to think and problem solve is the main benefit to doing it in school. English is the same. It is a core skill for anybody in any future job they may have. Learning to express yourself and put words to your thoughts is a key skill.

    So lets just say I disagree about the above post on English. The LC has issues, but English and Maths are core skills everybody needs.
    Perhaps the syllabus is different now. When I did the L. Cert (early 90s), 90% of class-time would have been on the literature course, in my class anyway (and got the impression it was the same in the rest of my school too).

    Many of us had a reasonably good standard of English before doing the syllabus and there wouldn't have been a huge improvement by doing the course, I imagine. And the course took a lot of hours - I would imagine a lot of the population spent more hours on it than most other subjects (i.e. the average amount of time spent on it was more than the average for other subjects combined).

    One can test people's ability in English without testing their knowledge of an English literature course e.g. the SATs used for college entry in the US (a bit like DATs=Differential Aptitude Tests some people may have done in school).

    Anyway, between that and having to do two other languages, I think the total L. Cert syllabus isn't as stimulating as it could be for some males.


  • Options
    #38
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    Perhaps the syllabus is different now. When I did the L. Cert (early 90s), 90% of class-time would have been on the literature course, in my class anyway (and got the impression it was the same in the rest of my school too).

    Many of us had a reasonably good standard of English before doing the syllabus and there wouldn't have been a huge improvement by doing the course, I imagine. And the course took a lot of hours - I would imagine a lot of the population spent more hours on it than most other subjects (i.e. the average amount of time spent on it was more than the average for other subjects combined).

    One can test people's ability in English without testing their knowledge of an English literature course e.g. the SATs used for college entry in the US (a bit like DATs=Differential Aptitude Tests some people may have done in school).

    Anyway, between that and having to do two other languages, I think the total L. Cert syllabus isn't as stimulating as it could be for some males.

    My point had nothing to do with standard of English or grammar. I mean the act of getting a question based on a topic, formulating your opinions and expressing those opinions. You can have the greatest spelling and grammar in the world, but be terrible at comprehending a piece of information and expressing your thoughts on it. The subject is another method of improving how a person thinks and how they respond.

    The SATs have nothing to do with my point. To repeat, I am specifically talking about how the subject improves the ability to think and respond.

    And yes, the syllabus is different now.


  • Options
    #39
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    My point had nothing to do with standard of English or grammar. I mean the act of getting a question based on a topic, formulating your opinions and expressing those opinions. You can have the greatest spelling and grammar in the world, but be terrible at comprehending a piece of information and expressing your thoughts on it. The subject is another method of improving how a person thinks and how they respond.

    The SATs have nothing to do with my point. To repeat, I am specifically talking about how the subject improves the ability to think and respond.
    Yes, but one may have picked up the skills sufficiently by the end of the Junior Cert cycle.

    Or such skills could be tested and developed in other ways e.g. reading and writing about philosophy, psychology, etc.

    Also, certainly when I was in school, it was often a test of how well one could fawn over the literature. Whether one really liked the piece or not, one was expected to say how wonderful the piece was, etc. So one wasn't necessarily taught independent thinking, etc.

    Anyway, my main issue is with the totality of the L. Cert curriculum where one has to do three languages (nearly 50% of the workload). Make them a smaller percentage of the total and I would have less of an issue.


  • Options
    #40
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    syklops wrote: »
    The problem is, few women want to work in the areas of IT and Engineering. For some reason it is not an area that appeals to women.
    Well, as a male-to-female transgender person whose career is in IT, I think I have something of a unique perspective on this.

    There has definitely been a change in the way I am reacted to now that I've (largely) transitioned. I'm not taken as seriously as I was when I go into a computer shop looking for stuff. The assumption about me has changed from an assumption that, as a male, I probably understand tech, into an assumption that, as a female, I'm probably somewhat ignorant on matters tech. When I display my knowledge, some people display signs of feeling threatened, or maybe they are feeling some sort of guilt because I've just showed up their sexism. It is no wonder that IT and engineering don't "appeal" to women under such circumstances. To be honest, I'm scared of what could happen to me were I to lose my job.

    I also reminded of a high-powered businesswoman I knew some years ago. She was very successful, and decided to buy herself a nice new car (a beamer, if I recall correctly). She went into the showroom, by herself, and started talking to the sales guy about the cars that were on sale. Eventually, she picked out the one that she wanted. The sales guy said "great - when will your husband be here so he can sign the papers?".

    Sexism exists, and there is quite a bit more of it than I thought there would be when I started treatment for my condition.


  • Options
    #41
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,029 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    deirdre_dub wrote: »
    Well, as a male-to-female transgender person whose career is in IT, <snip>
    KB looks curiously around office at female colleagues


    Edit: excuse the accidental pun with <snip>


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    kbannon wrote: »
    KB looks curiously around office at female colleagues
    OT - but - so you are curious about trans women? Head on over to the LGBT forum - in particular, the trans questions thread, and say "hi". :)
    Edit: excuse the accidental pun with <snip>
    Well, they don't actually <snip> ;)


  • Options
    #43
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    parker kent wrote: »
    I also disagree about the male/female divide. There are just brains better suited to languages and brains better suited to numeracy. Some men and women have these brains. Social trends may have just grouped men and women into such ideas.

    Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-women-really-better-with-language

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm


  • Options
    #44
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-women-really-better-with-language

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm
    Although researchers have long agreed that girls have superior language abilities than boys, until now no one has clearly provided a biological basis that may account for their differences.
    And one doesn't need to assume that there is any genetic differences between boys and girls to say that if, in a curriculum, 75% of the (effectively) compulsory subjects are languages (nearly 50% of the total syllabus), this puts boys at a disadvantage - the differences could theoretically be due to socialisation and how society treats boys and girls differently and the point would still hold.


  • Options
    #45
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    Yes, but one may have picked up the skills sufficiently by the end of the Junior Cert cycle.

    Or such skills could be tested and developed in other ways e.g. reading and writing about philosophy, psychology, etc.

    Also, certainly when I was in school, it was often a test of how well one could fawn over the literature. Whether one really liked the piece or not, one was expected to say how wonderful the piece was, etc. So one wasn't necessarily taught independent thinking, etc.

    Anyway, my main issue is with the totality of the L. Cert curriculum where one has to do three languages (nearly 50% of the workload). Make them a smaller percentage of the total and I would have less of an issue.

    That is not true. All the curriculum requires is that you find a stance and use supporting evidence to further that claim. I often received top marks for answers which were critical of the pieces. Perhaps your teacher failed to get this across or perhaps you were not able to do so. But independent thinking is one of the criteria required in the Leaving Certificate English marking scheme.

    Merely saying "I don't like this piece" or "This is great" is not what a top English student should say. Fawning over something is not what you are supposed to do in English. You need to critically analyse, which is my point. A good student learns to critically analyse in English. You may never look at literature again in your life, but the skills required in critically analysis will be useful in any field. So whether "one" (really there is no need to use that, you will suffice given this is an informal message board) was taught independent thinking or not, it is part of the current English Leaving Certificate syllabus.

    You would not have gained the level of skills I am talking about by the Junior Cert.
    Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-with-language

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303120346.htm

    The key words in both of those research papers is "may". Girls "may" learn language more completely than their male peers. It is argued by others that the brain can respond to what people learn in their society. Boys are socialised to be numerate and logical as they grow up (playing with lego, board games, playing football etc) and girls are likewise conditioned to be social in their childhood (playing with dolls, reading fluffy princess novels etc). So it becomes natural for brains to respond to what it has been trained to respond to growing up.

    I don't think we will understand this until there has been sufficient enough time where males and females have been taught in a society where there are no subjects perceived as male or female. To me, these issues hark back to the Victorian era and the start of secondary schools for girls. All education in the Victorian era was designed to create ideal men and women for the Empire and the subjects taught reflected that. Girls learned the subjects thought to be suitable to the creation of the ideal lady of the Empire. Languages and other so called soft subjects were chosen.

    It has only really been in the last 20 years that there has been a truly even playing field in education. And Leaving Cert results are one example of how girls are now outperforming boys in what were previously seen as male subjects. Obviously there are other issues such as different maturity levels, but it is an example of how a large amount of girls now show the abilities associated with the "male brain".


  • Options
    #46
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    It has only really been in the last 20 years that there has been a truly even playing field in education. And Leaving Cert results are one example of how girls are now outperforming boys in what were previously seen as male subjects. Obviously there are other issues such as different maturity levels, but it is an example of how a large amount of girls now show the abilities associated with the "male brain".
    I'm not sure if you're thinking of mathematics, but it is not the case despite how it is sometimes presented.

    Quite a lot more boys than girls get A1s in Honours Maths (while a lot more (a bigger difference again) girls than boys get A1s in English, Irish & French).

    Sometimes one will see it said that a higher percentage of girls than boys got honours in Honours Maths (usually the difference is quite small) but it ignores the fact that a lower percentage of girls take honours maths. A more relevant figure I believe is the percentage of the total who take the subject, which is pretty similar to the raw figures given that mathematics is taken by virtually everyone. Using either of those figures and more boys than girls get honours and quite a lot more get A1s; however as I tried to say above, the gender difference is even bigger in languages with girls doing much better particularly with regard to A1s.

    And as I said, it doesn't matter if we don't know where there might be differences in average aptitudes (whether it is a socialised difference or not); the differences exist most people accept and so somebody could make points such as
    Primary and secondary education (I picked out the L. Cert curriculum) in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

    A more extreme example, to get the point across, would be if football became a big part of the core syllabus; one* doesn't need to know if football skill is something that is more innate to males than females, one just knows that there is currently a difference.

    * I have taken part in Internet discussions for 20 years. I find using "one" decreases the chances a poster feels I am putting words in their mouth (and then responds aggressively) so I will continue to use it.


  • Options
    #47
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're thinking of mathematics, but it is not the case despite how it is sometimes presented.

    Quite a lot more boys than girls get A1s in Honours Maths (while a lot more (a bigger difference again) girls than boys get A1s in English, Irish & French).

    Sometimes one will see it said that a higher percentage of girls than boys got honours in Honours Maths (usually the difference is quite small) but it ignores the fact that a lower percentage of girls take honours maths. A more relevant figure I believe is the percentage of the total who take the subject, which is pretty similar to the raw figures given that mathematics is taken by virtually everyone. Using either of those figures and more boys than girls get honours and quite a lot more get A1s; however as I tried to say above, the gender difference is even bigger in languages with girls doing much better particularly with regard to A1s.

    That doesn't really change anything that I said.


  • Options
    #48
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    Regarding fawning and English: my view isn't simply based on what my teacher said but the myriad of study guides and the like I looked at at the time. Perhaps more criticism of works is encouraged now.

    Anyway, for whatever reason, virtually none of the guys in my maths class in college had got As in English. Many had got As in virtually everything else (except Irish). I don't think it was due to their lack of independent thinking. Nor do I think they had a particularly limited vocabulary.

    And, in general, for whatever reason, there is currently a big gender gap in the number of top grades in English.


  • Options
    #49
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    You don't have to get an A for a subject to be useful.


  • Options
    #50
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    You don't have to get an A for a subject to be useful.
    But if you are competing to get into college courses, it can be frustrating doing subjects like English and Irish where it is hard to get a top mark and may mean one may not get into the course even if having a strong aptitude for those subjects isn't particularly necessary.


  • Options
    #51
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    But if you are competing to get into college courses, it can be frustrating doing subjects like English and Irish where it is hard to get a top mark and may mean one may not get into the course even if having a strong aptitude for those subjects isn't particularly necessary.

    I'm sure people feel likewise about Maths and Science subjects. Due to my school having an extremely narrow subject selection, I had to do Art and could not do History.

    Just because the CAO (mistakenly in my view) promotes results over learning, does not make individual subjects worthless. I feel society as a whole is better if all people learn Maths and English due to the benefits of each subject. Grades are not the be all and end all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    I'm sure people feel likewise about Maths and Science subjects.
    But no science subjects are compulsory (in most schools anyway) and only one maths subject, compared to three* languages.
    parker kent wrote:
    Just because the CAO (mistakenly in my view) promotes results over learning, does not make individual subjects worthless.
    My point was more the percentage of the total curriculum that they are.

    * effectively


  • Options
    #53
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    But no science subjects are compulsory (in most schools anyway) and only one maths student, compared to three* languages.

    * effectively

    It is a lie to say three languages are compulsory in school. The fact that you say effectively shows that three languages are not compulsory. English and Irish are compulsory, although Irish can be dropped in certain situations. Anyway, most students study English, Irish, Maths and a science subject due to the way classes are arranged.

    Also, LC English is not studying a language in the way people study French, German etc.

    I feel your views are outdated as they don't reflect the current practice in schools.


  • Options
    #54
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    It is a lie to say three languages are compulsory in school. The fact that you say effectively shows that three languages are not compulsory. English and Irish are compulsory, although Irish can be dropped in certain situations. Anyway, most students study English, Irish, Maths and a science subject due to the way classes are arranged.

    Also, LC English is not studying a language in the way people study French, German etc.

    I feel your views are outdated as they don't reflect the current practice in schools.
    The viewpoint is relevant in that there is a big gender gap in the results. It doesn't particularly matter whether one sees English as a language like Irish or a foreign language, once there is a gender gap in the results.

    Given the choice there is with science subjects (biology is quite a lot different from physics), whether it is compulsory I think is less relevant in a discussion on gender. Also in a lot of schools a science subject is not compulsory while, particularly with the higher streams, a foreign language is (or is much closer to being compulsory e.g. if one has dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties, one may be excused).


  • Options
    #55
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

    I'd absolutely agree with this.

    Over the years I've heard of a number of initiatives centred around getting females more involved in the science subjects. Generally speaking these initiatives take two forms, either women in science grants (at a college level) or restructuring coursework to increase the parts that women are interested in (which of course will also increase the marks females get). In general I think these initiatives are a good thing, there is definitely too few young females getting involved in science and I'm happy to see something done to address that. Especially because I'd consider the problem more rooted in stereotypes than an inherit lack of female interest in science.

    However there is approximately an even number of boys and girls in education so it stands to reason that if there are subjects that are mostly boys then there must also be subjects that are mostly girls (excluding the very polarizing ones like home ec or metalwork). I have never once heard of an initiative to get boys evolved in these other subjects. Additionally I've also heard that in general girls score higher on the LC than boys, yet I've also never heard of an initiative aimed at getting boys more involved in the subjects where they score lower in order to redress the imbalance. That girls seem to do better is just seen as being part of the difference between girls and boys.


  • Options
    #56
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    parker kent wrote: »
    The key words in both of those research papers is "may". Girls "may" learn language more completely than their male peers. It is argued by others that the brain can respond to what people learn in their society. Boys are socialised to be numerate and logical as they grow up (playing with lego, board games, playing football etc) and girls are likewise conditioned to be social in their childhood (playing with dolls, reading fluffy princess novels etc). So it becomes natural for brains to respond to what it has been trained to respond to growing up.

    I don't think we will understand this until there has been sufficient enough time where males and females have been taught in a society where there are no subjects perceived as male or female. To me, these issues hark back to the Victorian era and the start of secondary schools for girls. All education in the Victorian era was designed to create ideal men and women for the Empire and the subjects taught reflected that. Girls learned the subjects thought to be suitable to the creation of the ideal lady of the Empire. Languages and other so called soft subjects were chosen.

    It has only really been in the last 20 years that there has been a truly even playing field in education. And Leaving Cert results are one example of how girls are now outperforming boys in what were previously seen as male subjects. Obviously there are other issues such as different maturity levels, but it is an example of how a large amount of girls now show the abilities associated with the "male brain".

    So up until 20 years ago boys had an advantage. Are lads just dumber than girls now that we have an even playing field. I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.


  • Options
    #57
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭iptba


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.
    The media have been saying that girls have been doing better than boys in honours maths for a few years, however when one looks at the figures, it's not true. For example, last year's results are at:
    http://examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/gender_ard_2010_excluding_less_than_10.pdf

    I explain a bit what I think happens in this post:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71702957&postcount=46
    If it was the other way around, I'm not sure the media would keep repeating the error.


  • Options
    #58
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    So up until 20 years ago boys had an advantage. Are lads just dumber than girls now that we have an even playing field. I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.

    Did I say boys were dumber? The fact that there is even a debate about who is doing better in maths and engineering, means that there is not that big of a difference between boys and girls. If there were tremendous differences between the genders, that wouldn't happen. I am just saying that education has levelled out a little in the past few decades and the girls' results emphasize that change.

    I stated that there are numerous reasons for the difference between genders results including different maturity levels. That shows I am aware of biological differences. My point is simple though, there are not the dramatic differences between the genders that are often changed. Differences between the genders comes down to biology AND sociology. Upbringing plays a big role and that is seen in the changing demographics in college courses. I believe there will be a trend towards increasing numbers of males in what were considered female courses in years to come.

    TL/DR: The differences between genders is a little bit of column A (biology) and a little bit of column B (societal norms).


  • Options
    #59
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    syklops wrote: »
    I work for a software company. In our building there are about 300 employees, of which 7 are women. Does that mean that my company is sexist towards women? No. Does it mean, all us ignorant men favour men when giving out jobs? No.

    In fact the opposite is true. They would love more women. I personally would love more women in the office for a number of reasons, one of which being that I think a healthy balance is more healthy. The problem is, few women want to work in the areas of IT and Engineering. For some reason it is not an area that appeals to women. The flip side is, our Facilities department is nearly all women. Our receptionists are all women, again not because we are sexist towards women and only like them in submissive roles, its because only women applied for the jobs of receptionist.

    For the most part men and women are different. As a result they have different goals and different instincts.


    feminists and various other PC do - gooders despise tradition so in thier eyes , a female dominated reception or secretarial area or an I.T or factory floor male dominate area is a crisis which needs reform , theese troublemakers are an answer to a question no one asked


  • Options
    #60
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    feminists and various other PC do - gooders despise tradition so in thier eyes , a female dominated reception or secretarial area or an I.T or factory floor male dominate area is a crisis which needs reform , theese troublemakers are an answer to a question no one asked
    Tsk - people! :rolleyes: What can you do? :confused:

    Then there are those people who say "I don't have a problem, so how could you possibly have one?", or "I don't see any problem, so how could one possibly exist?" Or, "your problem doesn't visibly affect me in my life, so why should I even acknowledge that it exists?"

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jgr12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 69 ✭✭jgr12


    deirdre_dub wrote: »
    The assumption about me has changed from an assumption that, as a male, I probably understand tech, into an assumption that, as a female, I'm probably somewhat ignorant on matters tech. When I display my knowledge, some people display signs of feeling threatened, or maybe they are feeling some sort of guilt because I've just showed up their sexism. It is no wonder that IT and engineering don't "appeal" to women under such circumstances. To be honest, I'm scared of what could happen to me were I to lose my job.

    Doesn't this seem like a bit of a vicious circle though? There are not as many women going into these areas so its presumed they have no interest which leads to examples of the above, where it's presumed that you don't know what you're talking about, which leads to women feeling unwelcome in those areas.


Advertisement