Samaris wrote: » Hells bells, if one person can make you freak out at the idea of anyone from an entire gender should have power I think the issue is more with you! I'd hope that there hasn't been a female leader of either of the two main UK parties since isn't reflective of that attitude or, god help us, we have a lot further to go than I thought!
Jayop wrote: » Asian 6.9% of UK Population Black 3% of UK populationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom While woman make up 51% of the UK population.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom Your argument is invalid.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Or maybe not the right leadership credentials ? Being a woman makes one the best choice for the roll of party leader ?
Jayop wrote: » Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way. I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.
darkpagandeath wrote: » When was the last Asian PM or Black ? Being a woman makes one a good PM or even right for being PM ?
RDM_83 again wrote: » Why is biology often not considered a science when people talk about STEM? Back in the 2000's most of my biology classes had either equal or majority women in them? Is it just left out of the conversation because more women do it so it ruins the, women are put off from STEM thing or is it because its not considered "real science"?
Jayop wrote: » Lefty here too and like you I can see the long game in denying these speakers a platform. What's to then stop right wing organisations stopping liberals from having a platform and pointing to the left's attitudes here as a justification. Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way.I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.
Jayop wrote: » 1 in 73 and you can't see an imbalance? Madness. So are newly elected first time TD's running the country? It was for the upper branches of the PSNI as well as for new members.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » 100% agreed, and I say that as a liberal lefty myself. It'll be hilarious if Donald Trump gets elected US president and the UK actually puts its "we don't like your politics so we're going to ban you" bullsh!t into practise. As somebody who despises Trump, it really makes me facepalm how some leftists don't understand that such tactics very obviously antagonise Trump's supporters and actually earn him new ones.
Samaris wrote: » Yeah, fair enough Although I'm going to toss in ...I know, horrors, personal anecdotal evidence... by saying that my experience, here, in -this- country was not encouraging for me as a female in getting into science. Not when subjects in single-sex schools down to the equipment available was so heavily gendered. Girls do biology, boys do physics. While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit. To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.
IrishTrajan wrote: » The onus is on you to prove such sexism exists - and if it does, you'd surely have no problem finding cases in the European or UN Courts of Human Rights on the grounds of discrimination. Running a country and being a policeman are not really comparable, it takes a bit more ambition and skill to run for office than it would to train as a police officers. Maybe if you were talking about the upper branches of the police force it could be compared.
Samaris wrote: » Girls do biology, boys do physics.
Jayop wrote: » Another good point well made. :rolleyes:
Jayop wrote: » You see you're starting on the assumption that quotas don't work or are inherently wrong. I disagree with your starting point so of course I'm going to disagree with your end point. Take the PSNI, there was favourable hiring practices for Catholics to address a complete imbalance of hiring in favour of protestants for generations. Irish policics are attempting to do something similar with party sex quotas (quite unambitious ones) to redress the imbalance of pro male selections by the parties for generations.
Samaris wrote: » While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit. To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.
Icemancometh wrote: » It's a problem in most research fields. America is producing an abundance of good quality research (that's also in English!); we just don't have the numbers here. Asking for research on Irish figures is asking for something you know doesn't exist.
AtomicHorror wrote: » 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: » The no platforming thing is a disgrace and will be a complete embarrassment to the liberal left when looking back on this era in the future.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It's not too surprising, most of this identity politics crap is being generated in America and then exported to other countries via the internet. Man shaming campaigns in Irish and British universities for instance are extremely predictable, since like clockwork they appear here roughly one academic year after they have taken hold in the US.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » If you use Reddit, you had early warning of the "mandatory consent classes" sh!tstorm here, because the same sh!tstorm happened in America back in 2014. Same applies to recent campaigns in the UK for universities to deny a platform to speakers with "objectionable" opinions - that sort of mob censorship was a craze which originated in the US and Canada maybe ~6 months before it started happening in the UK.
IrishTrajan wrote: » No it doesn't.
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?
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.
Samaris wrote: » Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".
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.
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.
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.
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.
