We talk about gender discrimination but we often ignore bigger discrimination

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 07:26PM #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

FortySeven · 24-02-2016 07:33PM

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 07:42PM

FortySeven wrote: »

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

lazybones32 · 24-02-2016 07:58PM

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

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

The_Valeyard · 24-02-2016 08:30PM

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

*this is sarcasm

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 08:35PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

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

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

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

Canadel · 24-02-2016 08:44PM

All discrimination is class discrimination.

Fratton Fred · 24-02-2016 09:14PM

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

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

stunmer · 24-02-2016 09:41PM

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

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

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

teddykrueger · 24-02-2016 09:45PM

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

Permabear · 24-02-2016 10:27PM

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 10:50PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

thattequilagirl · 24-02-2016 10:57PM

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

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

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

Valetta · 24-02-2016 10:59PM

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

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

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

Anyone with genuine ambition today has every opportunity to progress.

FortySeven · 24-02-2016 11:12PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permabear · 24-02-2016 11:13PM

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:15PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

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

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

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

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

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:16PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

ceadaoin. · 24-02-2016 11:16PM

FortySeven wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:22PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

FortySeven · 24-02-2016 11:28PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

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

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

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

24-02-2016 11:28PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

wha?

Permabear · 24-02-2016 11:29PM

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:38PM

bluewolf wrote: »

wha?

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

24-02-2016 11:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

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

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:43PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

Also you linked to a website rather than a study.

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

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

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

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:46PM

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Listen you lost me at "wha" TBH.

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

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

Peter Anthony · 24-02-2016 11:52PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Permabear · 24-02-2016 11:53PM

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy · 24-02-2016 11:58PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

steddyeddy · 25-02-2016 12:01AM

By the way this is from the PNAS journal:

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

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

We talk about gender discrimination but we often ignore bigger discrimination

Comments