Equal rights for women, not preferential treatment

johnnyskeleton

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Didn't she make some comment recently about how she was delighted to hear about boys feeling like they belonged to an underclass, or had no chance in life, or something? If anybody can find that quote please post a link.

I don't know, maybe she did. But considering what she has done for Irish Constitutional Law, and International Human Rights I think she's entitled to a few snide comments:D

Sleepy

To paraphrase possibly the most successful female politician of the last century*: "Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination". We cannot allow it in any fashion in society whatsoever. Whether it's intentions are 'good' or not, we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Our generation still carry the markings of our parents' one. In general, women of our generation don't see 'emasculated' men who would be prepared to be a house husband as a satisfactory sexual partner. They still want a 'real man' yet want the equality that can only be afforded to them if they as one half of a generation are prepared to see progressive men that aren't as career-focused as themselves as potential mates. (Obviously that equality can be maintained in such a fashion if both parties are career orientated to the extent they'll sacrifice their opportunity to be parents). On the other side, many, if not most, men (perhaps partially because of this) are unprepared to emasculate themselves in the name of equality. They still want to be the breadwinner, the role their own fathers more likely than not had in the Irish society of our childhood.

While the legislation and rights are there on paper, we are still at the turning point in regards to equality. The old guard have to die off and pass on the reigns of power before we start to approach genuine equality and I'd submit that it will be the children of most of the posters here that will be the first generation to live in a world where equality may actually be achieved. Society doesn't change overnight. It changes over lifetimes. Maybe you're one of the women unfortunate enough to be 'just missing' the point where you would have as much social equality as you have legislative but be grateful you at least have that much equality, that you're getting to be part of the process of change and that should you choose to have children, they'll live in a more equal world than the one your mother brought you into.

*Whether you agree with her politics or not is arbitrary, the woman held power for eleven years (the longest continuous run since the 1800's) and holding power is the ultimate marker of success in politics.

oscarBravo

Sleepy wrote:

...we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Frozen life insurance salesmen?

leninbenjamin

Sleepy wrote:

While the legislation and rights are there on paper, we are still at the turning point in regards to equality. The old guard have to die off and pass on the reigns of power before we start to approach genuine equality and I'd submit that it will be the children of most of the posters here that will be the first generation to live in a world where equality may actually be achieved. Society doesn't change overnight. It changes over lifetimes. Maybe you're one of the women unfortunate enough to be 'just missing' the point where you would have as much social equality as you have legislative but be grateful you at least have that much equality, that you're getting to be part of the process of change and that should you choose to have children, they'll live in a more equal world than the one your mother brought you into.

i agree with this, i think people are overly concerned over this seeing as most of the people currently in power were born and raised in the era when discrimination was the norm (if coming to an end). i think wait until this current generation (where women out perform men in academic achievement) come into their own. if the skew still persists in 20/30 yrs then will be the time for action. but doing too much too soon could be counter-productive i feel.

padser

For some reason this thread seems to have begun to equate equality in life and in careers with politics and public representation. I would say that the quality of people suceeding in politics is far FAR inferior to those who rise to the top law, medicine, accoutancy and business in general.

Could anyone see Dermot Ahern as a sucessful Barrister? Could anyone even see him as a senior manager in one of the big four accountancy firms? Politics is one of the least meritorcratic professions possible - so if women want to struggle for equal representation I think they would be better off starting with professions where compentancy is rewarded.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

From my general observations, women seem to be dominating the higher points college courses, especially law. It may be only a matter of time before the vast majority of top professionals are female, and not because of positive discrimination, purely because (it would seem) women are better than men at law, medicine, accountancy etc. This is how it should be in a meritocracy.

Women dominate the high points courses purely because they do better in the leaving cert - in my opinion is soley because they mature at an earlier age and study harder for the leaving cert.

There is no documented gap (in favour of women) at university level. For example in my course (which was 500 point course) there is roughly 50 50 gender split - if women were better at accountancy and Law (my degree encompases both) we would expect a higher proportion of them to get firsts. This doesn't happen.

I also disagree with Jonny when he says that 'the vast majority of top professionals' will be female. I assume he is basing this on the fact that a higher proportion of people going in at the bottom of these proffessions are female. The assumption that these people will rise to the top is not one I subscribe to. I believe that men will continue to dominate the top levels of the professions mainly because the women will 'self select' themselves out before they reach the top.

Where the man is willing to put in 60 or 70 hours a week during peak season the average woman will chose to work 55 or 65 hours. YES there will be exceptions but I believe on average men put more of their energy into their job. Women prioritise other things.

A final example. I recently signed up for a job when I leave college that I know will require 60 hours week most weeks. I am willing to put in that time. I have talked to numerous others and I have found that by and large womwn I talk to tell me I am mad to be willing to spend that long working - while men don't see the same problem with it. Now there are roughly 30 people signed up for the same and I think about 10 are female. I have seen critisisms of the company for lack of female directors at the top, and yet I know form talking to my friends that none of my female friends would consider applying - while at least 2 of my male friends would.

So I would ask people out there who moan about lack of equal oppertunities for women, and who use a basis for the basis of their argument a lack of women in top management positions - How much of this is down to 'self selection'?????

Dontico

padser wrote:

Women dominate the high points courses purely because they do better in the leaving cert - in my opinion is soley because they mature at an earlier age and study harder for the leaving cert.

the average age of someone doing the leaving certy is 18.
women or girls, start to mature ealier but boys/men catch up at 16. i would argue that after 16 boys generally start to mature faster and then exceed women. college men are deffinately on average more mature than women in college. but thats not something one can messure.

i would imagine that the reason that girls do better in school cause boys generally dont think about thier careers in advance. my guess anyway.

oscarBravo

Dontico wrote:

college men are deffinately on average more mature than women in college. but thats not something one can messure.

And yet, you seem very sure of it.

fly_agaric

Padser wrote:

There is no documented gap (in favour of women) at university level.

Doesn't the fact (which you mentioned) that girls do far better than boys in the leaving (the university entrance exam as well as the school leaving exam) contradict that?

More women than men get degrees each year. Women outnumber men (e.g. its about 2:1 in TCD I think) in all our universities. Now reverse that stat in your head. Is there still "no gap"??:)

Padser wrote:

we would expect a higher proportion of them to get firsts.

Eh, but a higher absolute number will get "firsts" because there are more of them in college! The boys who played with their dícks during the leaving instead of doing some work and never went to university have self-deselected themselves by failing to get in in the first place.
What's your "roughly equal" "50/50" split? Is it closer to 60/40 F/M (falling a little further away from "50/50" each year maybe)? (I think if your course is typical for an Irish university degree course it would be).

johnnyskeleton

padser wrote:

Women dominate the high points courses purely because they do better in the leaving cert - in my opinion is soley because they mature at an earlier age and study harder for the leaving cert.

That women study harder for the leaving cert could suggest that women are more industrious than men and/or they care more about their future careers.

padser wrote:

There is no documented gap (in favour of women) at university level. For example in my course (which was 500 point course) there is roughly 50 50 gender split - if women were better at accountancy and Law (my degree encompases both) we would expect a higher proportion of them to get firsts. This doesn't happen.

I'm not sure that there is documentation either way, we are both going on anecdotal evidence. From my experience, it seems that women do perform better than men at college level. For example, I've heard that there is a significant majority of women doing the Law Society Professional Practice Course than men. Since to get in you need to pass the FE1s, this could suggest that women are outperforming men in these tests. So I think that, based soely on anecdote, women seem to be academically outperforming men generally.

padser wrote:

I also disagree with Jonny when he says that 'the vast majority of top professionals' will be female. I assume he is basing this on the fact that a higher proportion of people going in at the bottom of these proffessions are female. The assumption that these people will rise to the top is not one I subscribe to. I believe that men will continue to dominate the top levels of the professions mainly because the women will 'self select' themselves out before they reach the top.

Please don't take me out of context. I said "It may be only a matter of time before the vast majority of top professionals are female" (emphasis added). I would also ask you to bear in mind the context of my statement. I am not making a prediction based on facts, what I am suggesting is that it is possible that women will come to dominate top professions in the future. I am not saying that this is certain, likely or even desireable. I am making the point that women appear to be in the ascendant at the moment, so my argument generally is that women are not the subject of "positive discrimination" in the political sphere, but more likely they are making progress in that sphere in the same way that they are making progress in the other top professions.

padser wrote:

Where the man is willing to put in 60 or 70 hours a week during peak season the average woman will chose to work 55 or 65 hours. YES there will be exceptions but I believe on average men put more of their energy into their job. Women prioritise other things.

I find it interesting that this is your experience, because my experience is almost the opposite. I find that women are prepared to go that extra bit for work and advancement. Most of the men I know prioritise other things (like drinking). It also seems to me that men generally feel less guilty about calling in sick when they are hungover or tired.

padser wrote:

A final example. I recently signed up for a job when I leave college that I know will require 60 hours week most weeks. I am willing to put in that time. I have talked to numerous others and I have found that by and large womwn I talk to tell me I am mad to be willing to spend that long working - while men don't see the same problem with it. Now there are roughly 30 people signed up for the same and I think about 10 are female. I have seen critisisms of the company for lack of female directors at the top, and yet I know form talking to my friends that none of my female friends would consider applying - while at least 2 of my male friends would.

Your conclusions might be right or they might be wrong. However, consider this: when you tell a woman that you will be working hard, they instinctively reply with sympathy, when you tell a man they react more stoically. As a man, I instinctively woudn't want to be seen as weak or lazy in the workplace. So if you tell me you are going to be working 60 hours a week I wouldn't want to be seen as less successful than you, even if I only work part time.

padser

fly_agaric wrote:

Doesn't the fact (which you mentioned) that girls do far better than boys in the leaving (the university entrance exam as well as the school leaving exam) contradict that?

More women than men get degrees each year. Women outnumber men (e.g. its about 2:1 in TCD I think) in all our universities. Now reverse that stat in your head. Is there still "no gap"??:)

The differnce in numbers of women getting degrees is the same gap logically that exists in leaving cert level. Your using one phenoneon, and saying that it provides two distinct pieces of evidence of something - when really both of them are consequences of the same event - in this instance the leaving cert exam.

It would be impossible (unless the women were failing the exams once they got to college) for the gap to evened out over the course of the 3/4 years in college. HOWEVER what I would be interested is whether the among the people in TCD getting Schols women outnumber men 2:1. Anytning less then a 2:1 ratio would indicate that the men who do make it into trinity do better there then their female counter parts.

Unfortunatly online I cant find a list of schols names however from
http://www.tcd.ie/scholars/Scholar/committee.php
it would appear that 4 of the 6 positions on the scholars committee are filled by male schols (of the other two one appears to be jointly held by two females)

fly_agaric wrote:

Eh, but a higher absolute number will get "firsts" because there are more of them in college! The boys who played with their dícks during the leaving instead of doing some work and never went to university have self-deselected themselves by failing to get in in the first place.

The higher absolute number is again irrelevent for the argument of who performs better in college, it is once again a product of the leaving cert.

fly_agaric wrote:

What's your "roughly equal" "50/50" split? Is it closer to 60/40 F/M (falling a little further away from "50/50" each year maybe)? (I think if your course is typical for an Irish university degree course it would be).

When i was in first yr we counted and there was a 50/50 split to within about 5 people (about 3%) of my course, I can't remember which way it went. I don't know exactly what it is now due to erasmus students leaving/returning etc etc.

Dontico wrote:

i would imagine that the reason that girls do better in school cause boys generally dont think about thier careers in advance. my guess anyway..

You could well be correct here, I would refer to this as being less mature then their female counterparts.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

That women study harder for the leaving cert could suggest that women are more industrious than men and/or they care more about their future careers.

Possibly, but I know of women who studied hard for their leaving cert, and studied hard in college but who fully intend to be a stay at home parent once they marry and have kids. It doesn't appear they studied hard with a view to their future careers

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I've heard that there is a significant majority of women doing the Law Society Professional Practice Course than men. Since to get in you need to pass the FE1s, this could suggest that women are outperforming men in these tests. So I think that, based soely on anecdote, women seem to be academically outperforming men generally.

Again ignoring the fact the there may be greater women then men taking this test - and if there are greater numbers of women at third level then this is prehaps quite likely.

Let me ask you this, if I administer a test to 20 people, 3 of them men. And the men rank number 1, 4 and 15 and half the people taking the test pass it. Is it far for me to say that the women (8 of them passed as opposed to 2 men) fared better acedemically on the test?

If a greater number of women are taking the FE1's this is once again attributable to women outperforming men in the leaving cert. Now if for example you told me women had a higher pass RATE then this would mean something different.

Johnny, your last two points seem to be saying that men will be less likely to admit not being willing to put in that extra time. While its difficult to know for sure whether someone is lying or not I know of (including me) 6 people who applied from UCD to the company 5 were male.

johnnyskeleton

padser wrote:

The differnce in numbers of women getting degrees is the same gap logically that exists in leaving cert level. Your using one phenoneon, and saying that it provides two distinct pieces of evidence of something - when really both of them are consequences of the same event - in this instance the leaving cert exam.

It would be impossible (unless the women were failing the exams once they got to college) for the gap to evened out over the course of the 3/4 years in college.

It is not logically the same gap. You seem to accept that it is possible that the proportion of men could increase if more women failed their exams. By that logic the gap between the sexes could increase as more men fail their exams and drop out (if that were the case). If that is what the statistics show, then it would be fair to say that women outperform men in college as well as in school.

padser wrote:

When i was in first yr we counted and there was a 50/50 split to within about 5 people (about 3%) of my course, I can't remember which way it went. I don't know exactly what it is now due to erasmus students leaving/returning etc etc.

Is it possible that there are more women now? More fundamentally, is it possible that Business & Legal in UCD (for example) attracts proportionately more men than pure Law or Commerce in UCD(for example).

padser wrote:

Possibly, but I know of women who studied hard for their leaving cert, and studied hard in college but who fully intend to be a stay at home parent once they marry and have kids. It doesn't appear they studied hard with a view to their future careers

You might know of women who studied hard without ambitions of a career; I know personally people of both genders who studied hard without any ambitions either. This does not prove of anything either way. I think that you should give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it is more likely that they studied with a view to a future career rather than that they were more mature and so studied hard just for the sake of it.

I would reiterate my point that women out performing men in the leaving cert could suggest that they work harder, and it follows that if they work harder then this is an asset to them in the workplace vis a vis promotions.

padser wrote:

Again ignoring the fact the there may be greater women then men taking this test - and if there are greater numbers of women at third level then this is prehaps quite likely.

Let me ask you this, if I administer a test to 20 people, 3 of them men. And the men rank number 1, 4 and 15 and half the people taking the test pass it. Is it far for me to say that the women (8 of them passed as opposed to 2 men) fared better acedemically on the test?

If a greater number of women are taking the FE1's this is once again attributable to women outperforming men in the leaving cert. Now if for example you told me women had a higher pass RATE then this would mean something different.

Again, I must ask you to please stop taking me out of context. I said "I've heard that there is a significant majority of women doing the Law Society Professional Practice Course than men. Since to get in you need to pass the FE1s, this could suggest that women are outperforming men in these tests. So I think that, based soely on anecdote, women seem to be academically outperforming men generally" (emphasis added) but you went on to interpret this as me saying "more women sit the exams than men". You then go on to say that if I told you that more women pass the exams that would be something different. This is exactly what I was saying because in order to get in, you need to pass the FE1s therefore, the fact that there are more women doing the course means that they must have passed the exams.

In any case, the reason I used this example is that, notwithstanding that I disagree with you about the performance of women in undergrad courses, I think it is reasonably unlikely that women would continue on to post grad without any ambition, and even less likely that they would go on to this speific professional course without any thoughts of becoming a solicitor. I would imagine that most, if not all of them, would have solicitor's firms lined up to take them as apprentices, and I would also imagine that most of them would follow up with it. I believe that there are more women becoming solicitors than men at the moment and, with respect, it is not fair to them to say that this is all because they did better in the leaving cert.

padser wrote:

Johnny, your last two points seem to be saying that men will be less likely to admit not being willing to put in that extra time. While its difficult to know for sure whether someone is lying or not I know of (including me) 6 people who applied from UCD to the company 5 were male.

I'm not saying that they would lie, but if they stay silent (ie. not wanting to admit they don't want to work hard) then this might be taken as "men don't see the same problem with it" as you put it. By contrast, I think a fair proportion of women will sympathise with you if you work hard, even if they work harder than you.

I'm not saying that your ideas are not tempting. As a man, it is an appealing thought that women would, by going through high points college courses and then quitting, remove a lot of the competition in the top professions, and that I will rise to the top, not by working hard, but because I am not a woman. As I say, this is a tempting thought. It just isn't true though, is it? I know time will tell, and we are basing this argument on anecdote rather than statistics, but being realistic, there is no reason to suggest that women will not rise to the top, and I think that as a matter of probability it is more likely that they will.

padser

OK very quickly cos I am off to bed

johnnyskeleton wrote:

It is not logically the same gap. You seem to accept that it is possible that the proportion of men could increase if more women failed their exams. By that logic the gap between the sexes could increase as more men fail their exams and drop out (if that were the case). If that is what the statistics show, then it would be fair to say that women outperform men in college as well as in school.

This makes absolutely no sense. Is there prehaps a typo here?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Is it possible that there are more women now? More fundamentally, is it possible that Business & Legal in UCD (for example) attracts proportionately more men than pure Law or Commerce in UCD(for example).

Of course either of the above is possible. The question I was answering was
'What's your "roughly equal" "50/50" split? Is it closer to 60/40 F/M'. Why bother asking a question if you simply move the goalposts when you get an unfavourable answer?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I think that you should give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it is more likely that they studied with a view to a future career rather than that they were more mature and so studied hard just for the sake of it.

I actually would say that studying hard with a view to a future career IS a sign of maturity? Surely looking at the future, planning for it - and doing the sensible and 'mature' thing by studying is a sign of maturity?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

So I think that, based soely on anecdote, women seem to be academically outperforming men generally" (emphasis added) but you went on to interpret this as me saying "more women sit the exams than men".

No I didn't. Re Read my post - which has not been edited. I am putting forward the possibility that greater numbers of women taking the exam may account for greater numbers of them on the subsequent court. I am saying this is a possible explaination - as opposed to the one you have chosen which is that women are outperforming men in the exams. Without either of us knowing the pass rate of men and women we can't know which explaination is correct.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

You then go on to say that if I told you that more women pass the exams that would be something different.

If you don't like me misquoting you [and I am not saying I did] then dont misquote me. Here is what I actually said

Padser wrote:

Now if for example you told me women had a higher pass RATE then this would mean something different. [the emphasis here on RATE was already in the original post - just to ensure it couldn't be missed]

By higher pass RATE what I mean is for every 100 women sitting the exam, more will pass then for every 100 men sitting the exam.


I never said that you are going to rise to top by not working hard but by virtue of the fact that you are not a woman.

My simple point is very very very simple -
Many women do not rise up the ranks in their various professions not by virtue of lack of ability but bacause they choose to prioritise different things in their lives. Men are more likely to prioritise their careers (often to the detriment of other things such as family).

PHB

The real question here is can you really reduce egalitarian democracy to meritocracy? If you can do that, then there is not justification for positive discrimination, if not, then there's an argument to be made, albeit a slightly marxist (not in communist ideology, but in terms of perceptions of equality) one.

Khannie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

With two more or less equal sexes, it is self evident that something is amiss when a job is dominated by one sex.

Not at all....two obvious examples are the building industry (where males extra muscle helps) and the engineering industry (where men have a stronger desire to do these types of job). edit: Before this happens, anyone who tries to tell me that women have the same innate desire as men to do engineering jobs will be scorned by me. Men and women may be intellectually equal (give or take) but their interests certainly differ.

I work in a software company. The split is about 90/10 male to female. The CV's come in that way. Should we ignore the best candidates just to try to have a 50/50 split? Rhetorical question ofc. Why should it be any different in politics?

Nevyn

But is that difference down to male brians vs female brains or due to the fact
prgogramming is still seen a a male area of work ? A man/boys job ?

metrovelvet

An article on womens exclusion from science:

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/featadapt

Nearly half of undergraduate science and engineering degrees are earned by women, but that number plummets to a third at the doctoral level, propped up by high numbers in fields such as psychology. Just 22 percent of doctorates in physics and 12 percent in engineering are awarded to women. At the faculty level, women's representation shrinks to 20 percent, concentrated, after controlling for age, in the lower ranks and at less prestigious institutions.

Women lack authority - thats why they cant get into politics and other boys clubs like science, and when they adopt a more aggressive style they are called "difficult women."

The Corinthian

There is one factor that, while quite politically incorrect, seems to be ignored by people. For example, and purely anecdotally, of my own close circle of friends, six are in stable monogamous relationships and with children. Of those six, two of the women in the relationships continue to actively pursue their careers, two have scaled back to a few days a month and two have left their careers to become full time mothers and homemakers (they had actually abandoned their careers long before they had become pregnant).

I’m sure everyone has at times looked at their career and felt that they weren’t happy and that they wanted a fresh direction in their lives. As a result, many move into areas related to their existing careers, while others go so far as to retrain into new ones, abandoning their old professions or trades completely. The reality is that for right or wrong, for biological, sociological or whatever reasons, women do have the option to opt for a traditional career and men do not.

This is not to say that all women should or do or that it is the principle – let alone only – factor involved, but some do indeed choose that course and that this should not be ignored when we start waving statistics around.

metrovelvet

That is not true entirely. Both men and women have that choice, but it is dependent on another person [spouse] giving them that choice.

Time Magazine

padser wrote:

Unfortunatly online I cant find a list of schols names

http://www.tcd.ie/assets/documents/calendar/part1_scholars_of_trinity_college.pdf

The Corinthian

I’m sure in theory this is the case, but one cannot deny that the reality is quite different.

Men as homemakers or full time fathers are typically seen as somehow lacking. Women still do often judge men in part on how he will be as a provider, while the opposite is almost never the case. Successful men are still considered ‘better catches’ than those who may be more domestic, but poor earners.

So while in theory the option could be open to both men and women, a man seeking to do this will have his available pool of potential partners reduced drastically, not to mention the stigma that will be attached to any man who does not ‘wear the pants’ in the relationship.

I’m not condoning this situation, and naturally would believe that greater acceptable choice in both men and women should be strived for. However, the option is not realistically there for the vast majority of men, while it is for women, and this should not be ignored if we are trying to view these statistics.

metrovelvet

No one would deny that a woman who is the main bread winner and busting her ass 50-60 hours a week could potentially resent the man at home shopping online for microwaves and dishtowels, or that the man wouldnt feel emasculated by having to ask for a weekly allowance, but the choices are still available [in areas and countries where women can make this kind of money and rank], there are just a different set of consequences to them.

This however is not really a gender issue but a married status one. Single women and single men do not have these choices or decisions to make.
It maybe a greater choice for married women than for married men [within the heterosexual model], but not for the gender as a whole. And if it is the case that married women have more options, its because men are in better position generally speaking to offer the choice, ultimately making it his choice.

Kevin Federline, David Gest, John Kerry, and the late Mr. Nicole Smith being the obvious exceptions.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

No one would deny that a woman who is the main bread winner and busting her ass 50-60 hours a week could potentially resent the man at home shopping online for microwaves and dishtowels, or that the man wouldnt feel emasculated by having to ask for a weekly allowance, but the choices are still available [in areas and countries where women can make this kind of money and rank], there are just a different set of consequences to them.

As I said, the choice is technically there, but as you’ve admitted yourself, it’s not terribly practical if the woman resents the ‘househusband’ or he inevitably feels emasculated by it in the long run.

This however is not really a gender issue but a married status one.

It’s certainly a married issue (more correctly a stable monogamous relationship one), but given the vastly differencing attitudes between the position of housewife and househusband, it’s obviously a gender one too.

And if it is the case that married women have more options, its because men are in better position generally speaking to offer the choice, ultimately making it his choice.

That may or may not be the case, but it’s not what I was discussing. All I said is that women will generally have the homemaker option open to them while men realistically do not and this should be taken into account if we’re going to start quoting statistics.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

That may or may not be the case, but it’s not what I was discussing. All I said is that women will generally have the homemaker option open to them .

Only if they have a spouse who is willing and able to give them that choice.

The Corinthian wrote:

while men realistically do not and this should be taken into account if we’re going to start quoting statistics.

And why is that?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

Only if they have a spouse who is willing and able to give them that choice.

Naturally.

And why is that?

Say, for arguments sake, that 10% of women choose to become full time homemakers and that this is an option ostensibly open to women (with partners that are willing and able to give them that choice) and not to men. If you compare the whole population in terms of 'career jobs' you'll be comparing 50% against 45% which will give you a biased result. Indeed, if you consider that if 10% of women choose not to be in 'career jobs' you will in fact never get a 50-50 split.

Of course, that they are choosing not to be in 'career jobs' may be down to inequality in the labour market to begin with, but that's another argument again, and certainly nothing that's been said here would have made it a given.

Also, none of this is claiming that there is not inequality in the labour market, only that some of the statistics that are being used are ignoring such factors.

johnnyskeleton

padser wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense. Is there prehaps a typo here?

Your point, as I understand it, is that the gap between the number of men and women getting degrees is logically the same gap as that which exists at leaving cert level

i.e. 100 boys and 100 girls sit the leaving cert hoping to get a particular course with 100 places. If a ratio of 75 girls : 25 boys (3:1)get into the course then logically, as I understand your point, the ratio of degrees would be the same e.g. 75 girls : 25 boys (3:1).

You then go on to state that it would be impossible for the gap to decrease unless girls were failing and dropping out of the course

i.e. 25 girls drop out making a ratio of 50 girls : 25 boys (2:1) this would close the gap.

However, this does not take account of the possibility that boys can also drop out

i.e. 10 boys drop out making a ratio of 75 girls : 15 boys (5:1).

Therefore it is not logically the same gap; the gap between men and women who get degrees could be greater than the gap between men and women at leaving cert level. I apologise for the extreme number differences they are for mathematical ease rather than to indicate the actual ratios. You would find it interesting if the gap closed, but if the gap increased, would this not disprove what you say about women's success being down to the leaving cert?

padser wrote:

Of course either of the above is possible. The question I was answering was
'What's your "roughly equal" "50/50" split? Is it closer to 60/40 F/M'. Why bother asking a question if you simply move the goalposts when you get an unfavourable answer?

This is fair enough, however I did not ask the original question (so I neither moved the goal posts nor received an unfavourable answer). The reason I brought it up was that if there are more women now, that would disprove the logic of the first point mentioned above.

padser wrote:

I actually would say that studying hard with a view to a future career IS a sign of maturity? Surely looking at the future, planning for it - and doing the sensible and 'mature' thing by studying is a sign of maturity?

Well, earlier you seemed to be dismissing women's results at leaving cert level as part of their maturity and not a sign of their ambition. "in my opinion is soley because they mature at an earlier age and study harder for the leaving cert". While ambition could be a sign of maturity, it is more likely a sign that young women want to succeed.

padser wrote:

No I didn't. Re Read my post - which has not been edited. I am putting forward the possibility that greater numbers of women taking the exam may account for greater numbers of them on the subsequent court. I am saying this is a possible explaination - as opposed to the one you have chosen which is that women are outperforming men in the exams. Without either of us knowing the pass rate of men and women we can't know which explaination is correct.

If you don't like me misquoting you [and I am not saying I did] then dont misquote me. Here is what I actually said

By higher pass RATE what I mean is for every 100 women sitting the exam, more will pass then for every 100 men sitting the exam.

Well, Ok, I'm sorry if I mis-understood your point here, but I still think that you are taking me out of context. The exams are open to anybody who wishes to sit them - you don't need a college law degree. So even if there are more women sitting them than men, it is open to anyone to do them. In the same way that you suggested that because 5 out of 6 people who applied for a job were male that this suggests that women have "self selected" themselves out of that career, so too it is possible that men "self select" themselves out of becoming a solicitor. Whether less men sit the exams because they feel they are too hard etc, or whether they sit them and don't get in amounts to the same thing in the context of indicating ambition and entry into the profession by women.

I reiterate my point that:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

In any case, the reason I used this example is that, notwithstanding that I disagree with you about the performance of women in undergrad courses, I think it is reasonably unlikely that women would continue on to post grad without any ambition, and even less likely that they would go on to this speific professional course without any thoughts of becoming a solicitor. I would imagine that most, if not all of them, would have solicitor's firms lined up to take them as apprentices, and I would also imagine that most of them would follow up with it. I believe that there are more women becoming solicitors than men at the moment and, with respect, it is not fair to them to say that this is all because they did better in the leaving cert.

padser wrote:

I never said that you are going to rise to top by not working hard but by virtue of the fact that you are not a woman.

Well this is how your points come across to me. You seem to be underplaying the fact that women do work hard (in many instances harder than their male counterparts) and you also are putting forward the idea that women "self select" themselves out of careers, but that men don't do the same. I can't agree with this interpretation of the way things are going. I think women are becoming more ambitious, and many are having a successful career and a family. I stand by my view that because women seem to me to be performing better at all academic stages of medicine, law, accounting, etc, I believe that it is probable that they will go on to dominate those professions in the future.

padser wrote:

My simple point is very very very simple -
Many women do not rise up the ranks in their various professions not by virtue of lack of ability but bacause they choose to prioritise different things in their lives. Men are more likely to prioritise their careers (often to the detriment of other things such as family).

While this may be true of the past, I see things slowly but surely changing. That is my point, and that is why I think (to return to the original post) that the number of women becoming elected (or at least running) has nothing to do with "positive discrimination" or anything like that, but it is a reflection of how women are progressing generally.

metrovelvet

Say, for arguments sake, that 10% of women choose to become full time homemakers and that this is an option ostensibly open to women (with partners that are willing and able to give them that choice) and not to men.

Why dont men have that choice if they are in a situation where they are with a "partner" who is able and willing to give them that choice?

fly_agaric

padser wrote:

The differnce in numbers of women getting degrees is the same gap logically that exists in leaving cert level. Your using one phenoneon, and saying that it provides two distinct pieces of evidence of something - when really both of them are consequences of the same event - in this instance the leaving cert exam.

Okay - a misunderstanding. You were just saying that the causes/origins of any gap were not in the universities themselves [although, perhaps admitting more mature students outside of the CAO/points race might help??].
I thought you were actually denying the existence of a gap whatever its' causes.

metrovelvet wrote:

Say, for arguments sake, that 10% of women choose to become full time homemakers and that this is an option ostensibly open to women (with partners that are willing and able to give them that choice) and not to men.

Why dont men have that choice if they are in a situation where they are with a "partner" who is able and willing to give them that choice?

I think he is of the opinion that the number of women both able and prepared to give men that choice at this point in time is pretty low! Maybe lower than the number of men who wouldn't mind that option?

Certainly much smaller than the number of men able and prepared to give women that choice (and maybe prepared to, even if they aren't very able!).

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

Why dont men have that choice if they are in a situation where they are with a "partner" who is able and willing to give them that choice?

You highlighted the reasons yourself:

No one would deny that a woman who is the main bread winner and busting her ass 50-60 hours a week could potentially resent the man at home shopping online for microwaves and dishtowels, or that the man wouldnt feel emasculated by having to ask for a weekly allowance

The reality is that the reverse is not true. There is not the same stigma towards housewives as there is towards househusbands.

How can anyone suggest that it is as socially acceptable for a man to make the choice to be a homemaker as a woman can in a World where he is also expected to pay for dinner at a date? It makes no sense.

metrovelvet

Oh I see, because the amount of available women who can offer that kind of support is limited. But men would opt for it if women's salaries were on par with men's?

As it stands now the amount of men who can provide for another person is limited, and very few people have the option of househusbanding or housewifing.

metrovelvet

I never said it was socially acceptable or there was no stigma to it. I just said that he has the choice as much as she does, but he pays a different price for it, that would be pride.

Plenty of people make choices that are stigmatised. Its not easy and it takes courage to be different and put up with it, but you can do it.

Every decision has its cost. The hosuewife pays hers too, its just a different one.