lawlolawl wrote: » The generations above the ones who would be the appropriate age for military service.It's a bit rich of women to want equality in the workplace and equal opportunities during peacetime and then turn around and say "i now have to stay at home and mind the kids" once war breaks out and there are life and death consequences involved. Also, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there isn't a huge rush of women to take "dirty" jobs either. They don't seem to mind at all that the gender representation in undesirable industries is heavily skewed in favor of men.
Jayop wrote: » lol that's a good one. I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page? I don't think in all I've read and watched about Thatcher and having been brought up in NI during her reign have I heard her referred to as maternal and feminine.
liz lemoncello wrote: » Who are these women? Are you certain that they support the draft? What countries where feminism has a stronghold also has both the draft and a group of feminists who refuse to be drafted but insist that men be drafted? I think you've made this scenario up.
IrishTrajan wrote: » You seem biased to dislike her, you'll just discredit her having got there on her own. There's no point in furthering this debate.
FortySeven wrote: » I'm in family court at the minute. To say it is biased is an understatement. I won't go into details but if I had done what my ex has done, I would be in prison now. Nothing. Nothing has happened to her. ..... .... As for mens rights in the family. Those rights to children and family homes. Disgraceful in this nation. The remnants of a catholic ethos that has no place in a modern society coupled with the (perhaps good intentioned) influence of modern feminism upon the courts has made destruction of men as fathers a simple task for a vengeful mother.
Jayop wrote: » OK, both of those examples are for posts in colleges in America. Not exactly representative of real world hiring, and certainly not of real world hiring in Ireland.Has there been similar studies done for STEM positions in a non Education setting?
LeBash wrote: » In fairness, we can p1ss standing up though.
Jayop wrote: » Where? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth that I never suggested or said anywhere?? I simply said that pointing to one female leader in the UK from the 73 PM's there's been since Walpole doesn't indicate a lack of sexism.
IrishTrajan wrote: » The problem in that is that even women who study in STEM fields tend to work in different industries than their male counterparts, according to the US Dept. of Commercehttp://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf
Tasden wrote: » And I can't even get to court because I dont have an address to serve papers to the father. Even if it did get to court I cannot force him to be a decent parent, i cannot enforce access if he is not willing to be involved. I can only apply for a tiny portion of his dole and if he shows that he can only afford a tenner a week then tough luck for me, yet somehow I'm supposed to pick up his slack and manage on my single income, while paying childcare fees in order to earn that income. He upped and left, as many do, and contributes in no way to his child which seems to be pretty accepted by society as he was "not ready to be a father", whereas my being a single mother through no fault of my own is not so easily accepted by some for whatever reason. Had I decided I was "not ready" to be a parent, as the mother of the child, I would be accused of all sorts-neglect, abandonment etc. As the woman and the mother I am expected to care for the child regardless. How many women are left "holding the baby" as they say? There are inequalities and injustices on both sides and too many men and women are being too selfish when it should be about the child.
Jayop wrote: » So apart from a few colleges in the US you can't show any research to prove that woman are twice as likely to be hired in STEM jobs than men despite the fact you've posted this assertion a few times in this thread? Seriously, give your head a wobble. From saying I'll discredit Thatcher getting elected because I don't like her to making assertions like that you're really having a mare here.
IrishTrajan wrote: » And there was a lack of Irish PMs (even among Protestants) when we were part of the Union, that doesn't mean there was racism/discrimination against the Protestant Ascendancy.
IrishTrajan wrote: » So, women who have the drive to do something without needing cop-outs and quotas, only got there because they're masculine and not because they were the best person? No True Scotsman is a fallacy.
RDM_83 again wrote: » Its good internet etiquette if somebody post evidence to support their argument to reply with evidence of your own rather than to keep dodging the question
AtomicHorror wrote: » I'll see your Scotsman fallacy and raise you a Straw Man. I'll even thrown in an Ad-Hom and sarcastically dub you "Captain Logic". You mis-stated my argument. I was pointing out that if the argument is that women can succeed on their own merits without quotas, then Maggie is a **** example of the same, because she succeed by being a man. Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.
Jayop wrote: » They didn't post evidence. Have you looked at either of the two articles posted as evidence that woman re twice as likely to be hired in STEM fields than men? Both point to the hiring process in third level institutions in the US. Hardly clearly representative of the STEM field as a whole and certainly not representative of it in Ireland. I've never said this was untrue so I have no burden of evidence. I'm dodging nothing because I've not said anything to the contrary.
Jayop wrote: » So apart from a few colleges in the US you can't show any research to prove that woman are twice as likely to be hired in STEM jobs than men despite the fact you've posted this assertion a few times in this thread?
Studies suggest that many factors contribute to the attitudes and achievement of young women in mathematics and science including encouragement from parents, interaction with mathematics and science teachers, curriculum content, hands-on laboratory experiences, high school achievement in mathematics and science, and resources available at home.[6] In the United States, research findings are mixed concerning the grade in which boys’ and girls’ attitudes about mathematics and science diverge. Analyzing several nationally representative longitudinal studies, one researcher found few differences in girls' and boys' attitudes towards science in the early secondary school years.[6]Students’ aspirations to pursue careers in mathematics and science influence both the courses they choose to take in those areas as well as the level of effort put forth in these courses. A report by the U.S. Department of Education found that the gap in the career aspirations of boys and girls in science or engineering fields exists as early as eighth grade. Among the eighth grade class of 1988, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to aspire to be scientists or engineers (9 and 3 percent, respectively), although girls were more likely than boys to aspire to professional, business, or managerial occupations (38 and 20 percent respectively). While male and female high school seniors are equally likely to expect a career in science or mathematics, male seniors are much more likely than their female counterparts to expect a career in engineering.[7] A 1996 study of college freshmen by the Higher Education Research Institute shows that men and women differ greatly in their intended fields of study. Of first-time college freshmen in 1996, 20 percent of men and 4 percent of women planned to major in computer science and engineering, while similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences. The differences in the intended majors between male and female first-time freshmen directly relate to the differences in the fields in which men and women earn their degree. At the post-secondary level, women are less likely than men to earn a degree in mathematics, physical sciences, and computer sciences and engineering. The exception to this gender imbalance is in the life sciences.[8]
Jayop wrote: » Seriously, give your head a wobble. From saying I'll discredit Thatcher getting elected because I don't like her to making assertions like that you're really having a mare here.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.
Icemancometh wrote: » I didn't make the original claim, so allow me to make my own new one. Women in academia in STEM fields in the US benefit from a 2:1 hiring bias.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Because women don't want to work in STEM jobs. You can't discredit a piece of research just because you don't like where it was done. Women don't want to work in STEM fields, but the ones who do, are favoured over males. Because you've "thanked" a post stating she got there because she exhibited masculine traits, and "let's start by agreeing she was a cúnt". You're quite obviously biased against her, there's no point in discussing it further with you.
Samaris wrote: » Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".
Jayop wrote: » Yeah I grew up in NI while she was in charge and I do think she was a cúnt. Call that a bias if you want but I'm not about to start congratulating that scum for anything. It's really not that important what I think about her. The fact that she's the only female PM in a list of 73 proves that there's institutional sexism in UK politics.
IrishTrajan wrote: » And forcing gender quotas will somehow "fix" this non-existent problem and not just plaster over those who are best for the job, replacing them with people put forward, not on the basis of their skill, but because it makes some limp-wristed Amadán feel good about themselves and their progressive policy?
IrishTrajan wrote: » No it doesn't.
