Mens Rights Thread

iptba wrote: »

Also interviewers can ask challenging questions. There are different types of interviews and interviewees. If somebody is describing a personal tragedy, one will generally ask them easy questions and let them talk while with a politician, say, the questions will be more demanding. I don’t consume a lot of RTE’s broadcast output these days (I prefer NewsTalk) but I have noticed for a long time they usually give feminists soft, easy interviews.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TV watching was never a big thing in my family. We're more a bunch of bookworms, however, my parents religiously check the news whenever it's on. News and weather... and then after the news, whatever "special" show RTE have about the state of Ireland. I wouldn't be big into watching it myself, but, whenever I'm in Ireland, it's the best time to 'bond' with my parents. Feel them out regarding their viewpoints.. that kind of thing.

I was thinking back and I can only think of a few weather men. Nearly every weather person was female. And the news nearly always had a male and a female presenter as long as I can remember.

"On Monday 3 October 1988, RTÉ launched its first hour-long news programme Six One News, a new format incorporating national, international and regional news as well as live interviews and sports coverage. The programme's first anchors were former political correspondent Seán Duignan and long-standing newsreader Eileen Dunne (replaced two years later by Anne Doyle)."

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm confused.

""It is nonsensical that partners or husbands of pregnant women are not allowed into the delivery ward with their partner, and even doubly so that they are not allowed to attend the 20-week scan and have to sit outside in the car park in many cases.""

How is that "'male chauvinistic privilege'"? Since husbands (who are male) are excluded... I don't understand the logic (if there is any there at all)

Is this guy a retard? How was he not pulled up on the stupidity of the statement?

TV and film have long depicted man troubles as funny sports-car-buying capers... until now. Ed Power looks at how modern shows are ditching the macho stereotypes for a more sensitive and realistic view

"People will often find themselves in mismatched relationships, unfulfilling careers, financial distress or struggling generally. The grumpy middle-aged man phenomenon is fair game for TV 'haymaking'. It's not a demographic that sees many run to its defence. Nor one that defends itself much either. Unfortunately, the 'lost' middle-aged man is often portrayed in an unflattering and unsympathetic light.

"The grumpy older man stereotype is portrayed so well by Martin Freeman as he exclaims angrily in Breeders: 'Nobody understands me.' In the therapy room, when anger is around, we'll describe it as a secondary emotion," says Evans.

"We'll look for the primary emotion that lies beneath. Imagine an iceberg and anger is that part above water. What lies beneath the waterline - beneath the anger are the real reasons for what's happening. It might be sadness, despair, loneliness, stress, grief, worry, regret, trauma, rejection, guilt, shame, hurt and many more possibilities. Anger has to be understood in the context of what lies beneath.

"So yes, the person whose anger is not understood in that context will feel misunderstood…[but] it is important that anger is always expressed in a way that is safe and appropriate for oneself and those around us."

There are lots of over-the-top set-pieces in Us - starting with an early sequence in which a shoeless Douglas sprints down the road after Connie. Yet it strikes at a deep-seated truth in having the dissatisfied Connie end the marriage rather than, for instance, resorting to the cliche of Douglas running off with his secretary.

"Bringing focus to the plight of the middle-aged man is a healthy and constructive thing on the whole. And it's not just helpful to middle-aged men being understood. The TV show is such a good medium to engage our consciousness and help to expand awareness. Any process that brings awareness will help the community at large.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

As sure as night follows day, here come the misandrist moaners complaining that girls weren't given enough extra marks compared to boys in this year's Leaving Cert.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40045100.html

A very confused article - starts out detailing how girls do better than boys, and how this has been made even more so this year. I actually thought the piece was going to highlight discrimination against boys but, no, they then start saying that girls should have been given even more marks.

The Leaving Certificate was cancelled on May 8 to be replaced by the teachers’ subjective judgments on what percentage mark they thought each of their students might have received in the Leaving Certificate.

They also gave their ranking of each student relative to their peers, with oversight by their school principal.

These scores were adjusted by National Standardisation Group in the Department of Education and Skills through a standardisation process.

Nevertheless, the final grades are 4.4% on average higher this year than in previous years.

So how has this process affected boys’ and girls’ results in particular subjects and in single-sex and coeducational schools?

Teachers were asked to take into account records of their students’ performance including continuous assignments, projects, mock exams (‘with caveats’), previous results and any other relevant information. It was a subjective assessment of their own named students as compared with the usual anonymous Leaving Certificate examination.

It appears that these teacher-based assessments valued steady continuous work.

Since boys tend to do less well at this form of assessment and rely more on cramming for exams, boys tended to be scored lower than girls in the teachers’ assessments.

Girls typically do better than boys overall in the Leaving Certificate and this difference has been increasing over time for a variety of reasons. Girls on average outperformed boys by 5.7 points in 2017; 5.9 in 2018 and 6.5 in 2019.


Based on the teachers’ assessments, girls scored on average 7.9 points higher in 2020 compared to the previous three-year Leaving Certificate average.

The teacher’s assessments were then modified by the National Standardisation Group in a standardisation process.

Through this process, the gap between girls and boys was reduced to an average of 7.6 points. This process appeared to value Junior Certificate exam results more, and so it reduced the teachers’ overall assessment of girls relative to boys on average.


With the exception of Maths, the teacher’s assessments of high achieving girls on higher level papers were marked down particularly severely in this standardisation process. There was no rationale given for this.
For the past three years, boys have tended to perform better than girls in Honours Maths. Over this time, boys have had a 4.5 percentage point advantage over girls at H1 level on the Honours Maths paper. This year the school assessment reduced that gap to 2.5 percentage points, and standardisation reduced it to one percentage point. In addition, at H2 and H3 on honours level Maths, the gender pattern was reversed as assessed by both the teachers’ assessment and the standardisation process, so that girls outperformed boys at H2 and H3 in Honours Maths.

Data by gender has only been published for English, Irish and Maths. The lack of analysis by other subject areas means that the teachers’ assessments and standardisation by gender and type of school (single-sex boys, girls and co-educational) are not revealed across the other subject areas.


This is a crucial omission. It is particularly important since the proportion of H1s on Honours papers has increased dramatically in male-dominated subjects this year relative to last year e.g. from 10.9% to 15.6% in Honours Physics; from 13.5% to 17.1% in Honours Chemistry; from 16.5% to 29.6% in Honours Applied Maths. This contrasted with smaller increases in female-dominated areas such as Honours Biology (from 8.2% to 10.8%) and Honours French (from 6.6% to 7.7%).

Even in Honours Maths, where girls performed well, the proportion of H1s only increased from 6.4% last year to 8.4% this year.

In previous years, girls in single-sex schools had the best overall Leaving Certificate grades, followed by boys in single-sex schools, girls in co-ed schools and boys in co-ed schools. This year, both the teachers’ assessment and the standardised process maintained this pattern, although with higher scores.

The standardisation process resulted in boys in single-sex schools increasing their average grades by 8.1 percentage points based on the previous three-year average, followed by girls in single-sex (6.5%), girls in co-ed (6.2%) and boys in co-ed schools (5.6%).

The adjustment downwards for girls in the standardisation process was greatest in co-educational settings. This raises questions about the apparent difficulty the National Standardisation Group had with girls being seen to do better than boys in co-educational settings.


Over the past three years, girls in single-sex schools have secured higher Leaving Certificate results than boys in single-sex schools. With teacher’s assessments and standardisation, the gap between high achieving girls in single-sex schools and their male counterparts has been reduced. This may affect these girls’ access to high points courses.

Furthermore, this reduction to the disadvantage of girls is a worrying indicator of the perpetuation of stereotypical attitudes by the National Standardisation Group as reflected in the model. It has potential implications for undermining gender parity in the profile of professional areas in the future.

The differential increases in the proportion of H1s in male-dominated as compared to female-dominated disciplines also militates against the promotion of such gender equality.

Teachers’ assessments, with their focus on effort and performance appeared to increase recognition of girls’ work, countering gender-stereotyping which international evidence shows typically does not favour girls. However, the standardisation process, ultimately emanating from the Department of Education and Skills, appears to have emphasised Junior Cert results more.

Given the growing focus on promoting a more creative and learner-centred experience where students engage more critically and individually with their learning, the grading standardisation appear to be at odds with broader policy goals at second level.

Note the lack of comment re the 'gender gap' widening this year - while this was portrayed yesterday as tiny, it's actually almost 17% bigger this year on average (7.6 points versus 6.5 in 2019) - this is by far the largest increase in the gap since 2017, yet the (female) authors are whinging that this was reduced by standardisation!

They make the claim that "high achieving girls on higher level papers were marked down particularly severely in this standardisation process. There was no rationale given for this" - yet then not alone fail to produce any evidence of this, but bizarrely cite Honours Maths where girls 'mysteriously' got much better scores than previous years - scores which were increased compared to boys by standardisation?! Eh?

Their central thesis (such as it is) seems to be that a few hand picked traditionally "male dominated" subjects* saw a "dramatic" increase in number of H1s awarded. This is used as a stick to beat boys and the Department with because traditionally 'female' subjects did not see as great an increase - this is "worrying" and "has potential implications for undermining gender parity". Yet they themselves prefix the relevant section by saying that gender data was not published for these subjects (it was only published for English, Irish, and Maths). So they have no idea if these big increases were due to 'male dominated' subjects being marked easier in order to give boys higher marks (their apparent claim) or - and I'm going out on a limb here - maybe, just maybe, girls' marks in these subjects shot up compared to previous years resulting in the overall increase......we literally don't know!
*their use of "male dominated"is interesting and possibly misleading. Does this mean boys generally get higher marks on average, or that more boys do these subjects usually (but girls may still get higher marks)?

They then finish off with a section even I can't make head nor tail of wailing about girls in co-ed schools having their marks downgraded.....even though they were actually increased....and the overall pattern of girls doing better than boys in either single sex or mixed schools remained the same. This section features this howler: "the gap between high achieving girls in single-sex schools and their male counterparts has been reduced. This may affect these girls’ access to high points courses". It's there in black and white - even though girls did better overall, and by a greater proportion compared to boys of any other year, the fact that the gender gap was reduced in some settings is a serious problem for our authors - should we not be celebrating (one tiny step towards) equality?

The web page also features a bizarre tweet from one of the authors linking this "potential gender bias" (!!!) with the Phil Hogan situation (wut?!) and "sexual harassment" (presumably referring to the UCD case).

Little surprise that all three of our authors are professors of Sociology and not proper science (certainly not maths or statistics anyway...) and are of course representing equality by all being white middle class females......

Girls’ maths ability underestimated due to stereotypes, study finds
Perception girls not as numerate as boys takes root from as young as nine

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-maths-ability-underestimated-due-to-stereotypes-study-finds-1.4376105

Gender stereotyping is resulting in girls’ performance at maths being significantly underestimated by teachers and parents from primary school onwards, according to new research.

A study of 8,000 pupils in Ireland concludes that the perception that girls are not as good as boys is occurring at all levels of achievement, with the gap widest for high-performing girls.

The study’s authors – Dr Pat O’Connor, Dr Selina McCoy and Dr Delma Byrne – say the findings raise concerns for girls’ subsequent maths performance in a society where it is highly valued as an indicator of intelligence.

The study says other work needs to be done on the extent to which this over-estimation exists in other subject areas and the “extent to which it is reflected in boys’ wider sense of entitlement: a phenomenon which is related to the international reproduction of privilege inside the home and in the wider society”.

The study also references the 2020 Leaving Cert, which it says provided an opportunity to assess the impact of teachers’ subjective assessments, since they were effectively asked to predict how their students would perform.

It says the picture that emerged was one in which teachers presented highly positive assessments of the girls they taught, “arguably reflecting both their own perceptions of their competence as teachers and the girls’ willingness to co-operate with them”.

“Thus, in this context they appeared to be able to transcend the negative stereotypes surrounding girls’ achievements, even in areas such as mathematics, and even in co-educational settings,” the report states.

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd have to wonder how the hell that happened when their market is teenagers and young men who wouldn't typically be all that woke.

iptba wrote: »

An interesting if controversial viewpoint I have just read:



--
If true, it does suggest that there could well be a gender pay gap long into the future.

November 3 webinar

GENDER PAY GAP REPORT LAUNCH FOR THE COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY & CHARITY SECTOR
With the ongoing support of the Community Foundation for Ireland, The Wheel is delighted to launch the 2nd Gender Pay Gap Report for Ireland’s Community, Voluntary and Charitable Sector. Both this report and the first one from 2017 uses the National Pay & Benefits survey data, the most recent one from November 2019.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Just look at any element of what would be called male culture...

Gaming
Star Wars
Star Trek
Doctor Who
Comics

etc etc

All been destroyed by woke/feminist presence....

These people cannot create, they can only destroy...just look at the viewing figures and financial implications for those cultural institutions that have been around for decades.