Discrimination against Men

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

And I hate how feminism is always brought into these discussions - as if it's the only reason for discrimination experienced by men.

It's not the reason, but it is certainly a reason why such discrimination persists.

Feminism as a movement sought to redress those disadvantages that affected women, originally in a time when they far outweighed the advantages. However, those advantages that women had, such as their control of child care, were left well alone or - worse still - actively argued against greater equality of rights in those areas, equating fathers rights or masculism with misogyny.

Ultimately (and I already said it here) the single biggest reason that this discrimination persists is due to mens' own attitudes to being seen as victims. However, it cannot be denied either than some branches of modern feminism also act against equality.

While I acknowledge feminism has been twisted by many with a warped agenda, thank fuk for feminism - because women would not be able to work wherever they want, study/train in whatever they want, vote or go back to work when married/after having babies, if it were not for feminism.

At this stage women have more choice than men. For example, it is still stigmatized for a man to 'stay at home' to care for the children or even as a home-maker. Where it comes to reproductive rights, men actually have only abstinence or sterilization as choices, while women have numerous other options.

Ironically, the former imbalance of choice has come to bite women on the ass, as it were. Women are still assumed to be the ones who will stay at home and care for the children, because they retain all the power in this area and have made no attempt to change this or the surrounding attitudes, and so it is women's careers that lose out in the end, leading to lower long-term salaries and positions (women are several times more likely to take breaks in or leave their careers early than men). You can't have your cake and eat it.

Commonly this salary gap has been repeatedly been portrayed as discrimination, but it is beginning to dawn on people that it is largely a self-inflicted discrimination, and claims that women get paid less for the same job than men are simply not being believed any more.

metrovelvet

iptba wrote: »

Personally, I don't accept that this has been proven satisfactorily. Men were conscripted (often dying or being injured on the battlefield), women generally weren't conscripted. Men were more likely to die in the workplace.

But what happened in the past isn’t nearly as important as what happens now.

I agree re conscription [although weren't officers afforded a pretty good career through military options?]

I should have been clearer. I meant men have had it better in relation to having children out of wedlock.

iptba

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection. So I disagree with the assertion in the article that it "has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Female genital mutilation on the other hand

* (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
* The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
* Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
* An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
* It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
* In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
* FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

(From the World Health Organisation website). There is no comparison to male circumcison.

I think female circumcison (=FGM) is a bad thing and haven't seen any justification for it.

However there are quite a lot of people who think male circumcison is a bad thing. For example, I read bits of a discussion on the BMJ website where many people including doctors were advocating against it. But I think FGM is worse myself.

Herbal Deity

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection.

So what? If you cut off someone's ear it eliminates the chance of getting an ear infection. Doesn't make it right.

The way I see it, male circumcision is a medical procedure which is sometimes necessary (and tbh, from what I've heard, I think doctors are far too quick to suggest it), however, I would consider it male genital mutilation when done routinely at birth or for non medical/religious reasons.

The FGM stories are much more horrifying, and the damage inflicted is generally much more varied and severe, but it doesn't mean there's no comparison. I would consider the fact that male circumcision is so accepted in the supposedly developed, civilised, western world without there needing to be any real medical reason for doing so, to be perhaps more horrifying on a different level.

spurious

Back to the point that the reason most men don't complain (for example about offensive ads) is possibly because of a reluctance to seem weak - do the guys here think that's true?

I found the recent CSO figures regarding the gap between the numbers of female and male graduates (for I think it was the 23-30 age group) horrifying. There was something like an almost 20% higher proportion of female graduates in the age cohort.

That is unsustainable in a society that wants to avoid serious trouble in the future. If those figures were the other way round, there would be major protests and calls for action from women. Why is there such apparent silence from men?

Mr. Presentable

Cliona99 wrote: »

OP, Male circumcision has been shown, (by some studies), to reduce the risk of HIV infection. So I disagree with the assertion in the article that it "has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Female genital mutilation on the other hand

* (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
* The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
* Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
* An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
* It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
* In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
* FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

(From the World Health Organisation website). There is no comparison to male circumcison.

For the male it is a medical term "circumcision"

For the female it is an evocative title "Female genital mutilation"

I don't agree with either procedure but I draw your attention to the phraseology. This is (small) symptomatic of the overall problem. Feminism has been great for women, but it needs to be moderated.

Mr. Presentable

spurious wrote: »

Back to the point that the reason most men don't complain (for example about offensive ads) is possibly because of a reluctance to seem weak - do the guys here think that's true?

I found the recent CSO figures regarding the gap between the numbers of female and male graduates (for I think it was the 23-30 age group) horrifying. There was something like an almost 20% higher proportion of female graduates in the age cohort.

That is unsustainable in a society that wants to avoid serious trouble in the future. If those figures were the other way round, there would be major protests and calls for action from women. Why is there such apparent silence from men?

Because evidence from the press, the courts, the society in general is that men would be wasting their time due to the extra protection women get, and because the female "poor downtrodden me for generations" card will come out.

Mrmoe

I am not really bothered about adverts that demean men. I think there is an equal balance between adverst that demean both men and women. I would prefer to focus attention on areas that have a direct effect on men where they are routinely discriminated against such as family law and parental rights. I can happily ignore adverts that make men out to be buffoons but I could not do the same if I was denied equal rights towards my offspring. It is important to pick the battles and not lose sight of what is actually important to the majority of men.

spurious

I think you can't really do one without the other. If one group are portrayed as 'less able' foolish creatures, or IMO more offensively as hormone driven sex maniacs (which is another spin that is put on men) I think you can forget anything more serious.

I would be very worried about future educational trends for young men. An almost exclusively women-run society is not one I would like to live in, any more than I would have liked to live in an almost exclusively male-run one.

Macha

spurious wrote: »

I would be very worried about future educational trends for young men. An almost exclusively women-run society is not one I would like to live in, any more than I would have liked to live in an almost exclusively male-run one.

Are we are anywhere near an almost exclusively women-run society? What relationship does that have with the education of young men?

On that topic: why do women generally outperform men in education - and what exact measurement is being used?

Re: male circumcision - I personally agree that it is a form of unnecessary mutilation based on outdated cultural norms. But it should not be confused with FGM, which normally involves a far more serious and physically damaging operation.

amacachi

taconnol wrote: »

Are we are anywhere near an almost exclusively women-run society? What relationship does that have with the education of young men?

On that topic: why do women generally outperform men in education - and what exact measurement is being used?

Not yet, however I thought it was more or less accepted that in the long term higher levels of education lead to better paid and more powerful jobs.

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

Dr Galen

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

once you stay within the rules as laid out in the charter, go ahead and make your point. I think its a very interesting topic for discussion tbh. Maybe even worthy of a new thread

Macha

amacachi wrote: »

Not yet, however I thought it was more or less accepted that in the long term higher levels of education lead to better paid and more powerful jobs.

If that were the case, women would be in the best paid, most powerful jobs. This is not the case.

amacachi wrote: »

Why do women outperform men? I'd probably have my throat jumped down if I were to say why I think it is so. What measurement is being used? I'd guess the number of degrees, Leaving Cert results, that kind of thing.

No, I mean is it that people feel the system is not suited to men? If so, in what way and what should be changed about it? If not, what else is impacting on men's education, outside the education system?

Would we be advocating similar if women were not performing as well as men? For example, look at the recent introduction of an additional test to get into Medicine in university, with the explicit intent of reducing the numbers of women studying medicine - is this an example of the type of positive discrimination that people want to see?

Zulu

A (somewhat) interesting aside for your information, for those who live in Dublin: Meadows & Byrne at Clare Hall have a huge add hanging on their shop front since before christmas. It consists of a number of pictures (of home ware etc.) to the motto: "New home, new life, new man, new woman...". Not a whole lot wrong there, however:

The picture of the model for "new woman" is a full head to toe shot, clothed.
The picture of the model for "new man" is a male naked torso, torso only.

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who pointed out (my issue was the imbalance - both should be naked) that the real concern was that the head of the man was missing. She was of the opinion that this represented the intellegence. To her the add meant that the only use of the man was for the body.

Four months later the add persists (yes I did complain btw). It goes without saying if the sexes were reveresed the add would never had seen the light of day.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Four months later the add persists (yes I did complain btw). It goes without saying if the sexes were reveresed the add would never had seen the light of day.

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Which do you feel more accuratly coincides with the point I was making?

Put another way, do you have a problem with the point of my post, or do you simply not understand?

metrovelvet

Were you complaining that she wasnt also topless or wasnt also headless?

citytillidie

taconnol wrote: »

Do you mean an ad involving a topless woman or an ad involving a significant amount of nudity on the part of the woman?

Or they both could have been clothed. There was no reason for the man to be shirtless.

Zulu

My complaint was that their close up of a male torso with the head cut out was sexist and inappropriate.
I suggested that a similar representation of the female form in a bikini focusing only on the chest would be utterly unacceptable.

Zulu

citytillidie wrote: »

Or they both could have been clothed. There was no reason for the man to be shirtless.

...or for the head to be missing.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

My complaint was that their close up of a male torso with the head cut out was sexist and inappropriate.

I agree. Especially by cutting out the head, it suggests the total objectification of the man's body, as in the head is totally irrelevant to him being there.

Zulu wrote: »

I suggested that a similar representation of the female form in a bikini focusing only on the chest would be utterly unacceptable.

I would also consider it inappropriate but it happens all the time. Actually, I remember when I lived in France, an advert for Sanex was a close up of a pair of breasts, completely bare, with a smile made out of Sanex soap foam on the model's stomach. Everywhere -all over the Metro etc - it was unbelievable.

spurious

citytillidie wrote: »

Or they both could have been clothed. There was no reason for the man to be shirtless.

Shirtless and headless objectifies him. He's not a person, he's a chest or a six-pack. It's exactly what women had to put up with for years. Disgraceful that it is continuing with male bodies.

Macha

spurious wrote: »

Disgraceful that it is continuing with male bodies.

Yes, I'm all for equality but not equality like this! I hope men put up more of a fight against it than women have done in the past, where many women have become part of the problem.

Edit: On the subject of men's negative portrayal in advertising, Sarah Haskins does a great short on the "Bumbling Husbands" meme:

http://current.com/items/90569059_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-doofy-husbands.htm

citytillidie

spurious wrote: »

Shirtless and headless objectifies him. He's not a person, he's a chest or a six-pack. It's exactly what women had to put up with for years. Disgraceful that it is continuing with male bodies.

But its been like that for years you just have to look at Hollywoods L shaped duvet in films.

You know the one that goes up to the females neck but only reaches the males waist.

Zulu

citytillidie wrote: »

But its been like that for years you just have to look at Hollywoods L shaped duvet in films.

Thats not really the same thing TBH.
The sheet is often of the non-L varity when the woman lies on her back. It's not really about objectifing either sex & more about keeping the movie suitable for more age groups.

Elle Collins

james finn wrote: »

the prostitutes should keep both legs in one sock if they dont want to be ambushed, nobody forced them to walk the streets and jump in to cars with people they dont know, end of story, if you dont wana be ambushed dont walk in to an ambush and then blame men for it.

Maybe you should have kept both legs in one sock, nobody forced you to take your lad out and stick it in a woman you didn't know well enough to expect some common decency from, end of story. If you don't want to be emotionally ambused and have your rights stripped from you then don't follow your langer into an ambush and then blame women or the law for it.

keane2097

sam34 wrote: »

oooooh you've sussed my hidden agenda, good on ya :rolleyes:

i cannot blame someone who has sex without first investigating the consequences?

why not?

i cannot think that they were irresponsible and foolish?

i should instead blame some entity like teh school or government, because then the person wouldnt have to take responsibility for their actions?


if they can look up porn they can look up paternal rights.

it isnt rocket science.

You are either being deliberately disingenuous or are woefully out of touch with the mindset of 15 and 16 year olds who are sexually active.

I get the impression from your other posts in the thread that you're being deliberately obtuse tbh.

source

There's a documentary on BBC4 now called "Women" according to the blurb, it's about: "Activists. Vanessa Engle's film looks at a small group of passionate and committed young activists, who believe that the need for feminist politics is now more urgent than ever."

some of the views of the women on this show is shocking.

Herbal Deity

taconnol wrote: »

look at the recent introduction of an additional test to get into Medicine in university, with the explicit intent of reducing the numbers of women studying medicine

wait.... What?

Macha

Herbal Deity wrote: »

wait.... What?

Yup. This is an article on the new HPAT test:

The new system of entry into medical school aims to help achieve a 50/50 gender balance, writes BRIAN MOONEY

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0825/1224253189932.html

and

Professor of Academic Medicine and Director of Undergraduate Teaching and Learning at Trinity College, Prof Shaun McCann, said one of the aims of changing the entry system to medical school was to adjust the gender balance. “From the [medical] profession’s point of view, a 50/50 mix is desirable,” he said.

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2010/02/hpat_to_engender_a_better_bala.html

But this thread isn't about discrimination against women (if you consider the above to be an example, that is..) - I was asking specifically if posters would support this type of positive discrimination in favour of men, particularly in relation to education.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

But this thread isn't about discrimination against women (if you consider the above to be an example, that is..) - I was asking specifically if posters would support this type of positive discrimination in favour of men, particularly in relation to education.

No. I believe that the main problem with 'positive discrimination' is not that it goes against the principle of meritocracy, but that it attempts to solve a social ill without bothering to consider its cause.

As I previously put forward here, I believe the evidence towards the infamous salary gap between genders is not down to sexism in the workplace, but ironically due to effective monopoly in choice that women have where it comes to staying a home, thus resulting in many doing so and losing out on work experience and work hours that would otherwise add to the bottom line. Naturally, imposing 'positive discrimination' here would not solve this problem, but actually make the inequality even worse.

Similarly, if fewer boys are going onto higher education, then it is more important that we understand why, rather than impose some form of ham-fisted solution to the problem. For example and purely hypothetically, what if the reason for this was because men required fewer qualifications than women to advance in their careers (due to sexual discrimination)? Legislating 'positive discrimination' would end up further exacerbating the problem.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Yup. This is an article on the new HPAT test:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0825/1224253189932.html

and



http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2010/02/hpat_to_engender_a_better_bala.html

But this thread isn't about discrimination against women (if you consider the above to be an example, that is..) - I was asking specifically if posters would support this type of positive discrimination in favour of men, particularly in relation to education.

Having worked for an ivy league university and having seen the files on applicants eligible for affirmative action, absolutely no way. Affirmative action, while emphasising race, neglected class entirely. So while a member of the latin american aristocracy got a leg up, the white lower middle class-poor boy attending a gas pump in Oklahoma got nothing. And I say this, being eligible for it myself and had I ticked the right race box myself on the relevent forms, I would have had a scholarship to Yale.

keane2097

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. I believe that the main problem with 'positive discrimination' is not that it goes against the principle of meritocracy, but that it attempts to solve a social ill without bothering to consider its cause.

As I previously put forward here, I believe the evidence towards the infamous salary gap between genders is not down to sexism in the workplace, but ironically due to effective monopoly in choice that women have where it comes to staying a home, thus resulting in many doing so and losing out on work experience and work hours that would otherwise add to the bottom line. Naturally, imposing 'positive discrimination' here would not solve this problem, but actually make the inequality even worse.

Similarly, if fewer boys are going onto higher education, then it is more important that we understand why, rather than impose some form of ham-fisted solution to the problem. For example and purely hypothetically, what if the reason for this was because men required fewer qualifications than women to advance in their careers (due to sexual discrimination)? Legislating 'positive discrimination' would end up further exacerbating the problem.

I would assume that part of the issue being addressed by aptitude tests the issue that the Leaving Cert, being basically a test of how well you can learn things off by heart, is fundamentally easier for females to do well in no?

The Corinthian

keane2097 wrote: »

I would assume that part of the issue being addressed by aptitude tests the issue that the Leaving Cert, being basically a test of how well you can learn things off by heart, is fundamentally easier for females to do well in no?

To begin with not all school subjects at LC level are so dependant on memory alone - you won't get far with mathematics, for example, if you are simply memorizing things. Additionally, you are assuming that females have better memory, which I'm not sure I've ever heard before, let alone believe.

Peer pressure is actually a far more powerful contribute to academic achievement. If all of your classmates are going to college after the LC, then the chances that you will push yourself to do so will be much greater. Conversely, if all of your classmates are going to simply go straight into work or trades, so will you.

Personally, I don't know why the statistics are as they are. It could be social, it could be genetic. It could be as a result of more resources being pumped into girls education (positive discrimination) in recent years. The statistics may even be deceptive - what courses are both genders doing, for example? A degree in hotel management is not exactly the same as a medical degree, IMHO.

Whatever the truth and the cause, I suspect it's a complex one and not going to be solved with the magic wand of positive discrimination or quotas.

metrovelvet

Out of curiosity have they ever practised positive discrimination for women in this country, in things like engineering for example?

hobochris

metrovelvet wrote: »

Out of curiosity have they ever practised positive discrimination for women in this country, in things like engineering for example?

I remember back in college a few years ago, I was talking to member of the students union, who was given the task by the college of preparing pictures of the department facilities for that years prospectus.

She mentioned that she was asked to try make the pictures of the computing and engineering department more appealing to a female audience. As such an extra effort was made to photograph groups of female students working in the computer labs.

I wasn't too pushed by it at the time, but looking back this was an example of positive discrimination in action.

metrovelvet

hobochris wrote: »

I remember back in college a few years ago, I was talking to member of the students union, who was given the task by the college of preparing pictures of the department facilities for that years prospectus.

She mentioned that she was asked to try make the pictures of the computing and engineering department more appealing to a female audience. As such an extra effort was made to photograph groups of female students working in the computer labs.

I wasn't too pushed by it at the time, but looking back this was an example of positive discrimination in action.

It sort of is. But what I mean is lowering grade point and test score minimums for entry on the basis you are a woman.

amacachi

metrovelvet wrote: »

Out of curiosity have they ever practised positive discrimination for women in this country, in things like engineering for example?

My old economics teacher said half of their in-service training days or whatever they're called were spent talking about how to encourage more girls to take up economics, my sister's old physics teacher said he was sick of those training days because it was the same stuff over and over, and there seems to be a constant effort to get more girls to do higher maths.

PopUp

My sister is an engineer and they are always pushing her to talk at open days and so forth. But there are no official quotas for college courses.

A similar effort exists to get men into primary teaching: MATE.

I don't have a problem with this kind of encouragement where either sex is underrepresented but I do have my doubts about their effectiveness.

keane2097

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with not all school subjects at LC level are so dependant on memory alone - you won't get far with mathematics, for example, if you are simply memorizing things.

There are certainly more than six that are that you could choose to get the perfect score points-wise however.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, you are assuming that females have better memory, which I'm not sure I've ever heard before, let alone believe.

I'm fairly convinced that this is the case, however I will have to see if I can find evidence of it somewhere.

If it is the case, then the leaving cert is certainly skewed in favour of females.

lazygal

I don't get how the LC can be skewed in favour of women.
It is exam based and has been since its inception. When it was introduced, the majority taking it were men. Women fitted into an academic system designed for and by men-remember women didn't have the right to even go to college for many years. Now men think the system is flawed? IT WAS DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED BY MEN! Women managed to adapt to make it through the system, why can't men adapt like we did?

Pherekydes

keane2097 wrote: »

There are certainly more than six that are that you could choose to get the perfect score points-wise however.

No you can't. Mathematics is always one of the six.

If women claimed they were discriminated against in the driving test because it involved mechanical aptitudes, spatial awareness and physical strength, then men would laugh at them.

The LC is quite clearly the same for everyone. There is no discrimination.

keane2097

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get how the LC can be skewed in favour of women.
It is exam based and has been since its inception. When it was introduced, the majority taking it were men. Women fitted into an academic system designed for and by men-remember women didn't have the right to even go to college for many years. Now men think the system is flawed? IT WAS DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED BY MEN! Women managed to adapt to make it through the system, why can't men adapt like we did?

It's simple - the courses are by and large stacked in favour of the effective "learn-by-rote" student.

I'm suggesting that, assuming females are better at this than males genetically (and I haven't actually found any studies that show this, but I will have a look later), then the system favours females.

The fact that men designed and implemented the system in no way proves, or even suggests, that the system favours men by the way...

keane2097

Pherekydes wrote: »

No you can't. Mathematics is always one of the six.

This is incorrect. You can have 100 points in each of six other subjects for a total of 600 points.

You would need, in addition, a C3 in honours maths to be eligible for most courses, but that would still be your seventh subject.

Pherekydes wrote: »

If women claimed they were discriminated against in the driving test because it involved mechanical aptitudes, spatial awareness and physical strength, then men would laugh at them.

Your point, while reasonable, is flawed.

The reason the driving test examines mechanical aptitudes, spatial awareness etc. is because these are the skills necessary to perform the task that you are seeking a license for, i.e. driving.

This is not the same as the scenario with the Leaving Cert, where you are essentially doing a series of "learn-by-rote" exams to obtain a place in a course where, for the most part, learning by rote is actively discouraged. If you learn off an essay and try to use it in a University exam you will land yourself in fairly serious trouble for plagiarism etc.

The key difference is that what's being tested at LC level is very different to the tasks that you will be doing afterwards, this is not the case in the driving test.

Being able to learn off a several essays to get 100 in Geography, for example, will get you nowhere in the Civil Engineering course it gets you into.

The Corinthian

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get how the LC can be skewed in favour of women.
It is exam based and has been since its inception. When it was introduced, the majority taking it were men. Women fitted into an academic system designed for and by men-remember women didn't have the right to even go to college for many years. Now men think the system is flawed? IT WAS DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED BY MEN! Women managed to adapt to make it through the system, why can't men adapt like we did?

I don't buy that the LC is skewed in favour of girls, but neither do I buy this University of Talaban rubbish either.

To begin with, the LC was established in 1924, long after women had the right to go to college (Trinity, for example, admitted women full time from 1904).

Secondly, you are making the same wild assumptions as keane2097. For example, even if the LC was originally was designed by men (which is questionable) it is a serious stretch to assume that it was designed for them, given it would be sat by both genders.

Not terribly likely, in short.

Pherekydes

keane2097 wrote: »

This is incorrect. You can have 100 points in each of six other subjects for a total of 600 points.

You would need, in addition, a C3 in honours maths to be eligible for most courses, but that would still be your seventh subject.



Your point, while reasonable, is flawed.

The reason the driving test examines mechanical aptitudes, spatial awareness etc. is because these are the skills necessary to perform the task that you are seeking a license for, i.e. driving.

This is not the same as the scenario with the Leaving Cert, where you are essentially doing a series of "learn-by-rote" exams to obtain a place in a course where, for the most part, learning by rote is actively discouraged. If you learn off an essay and try to use it in a University exam you will land yourself in fairly serious trouble for plagiarism etc.

The key difference is that what's being tested at LC level is very different to the tasks that you will be doing afterwards, this is not the case in the driving test.

Being able to learn off a several essays to get 100 in Geography, for example, will get you nowhere in the Civil Engineering course it gets you into.

Your entire point is based on the unproven assumption that women have better memories. If your assumption is incorrect, and I believe it is, then my comparison with the driving test stands.

keane2097

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, you are making the same wild assumptions as keane2097. For example, even if the LC was originally was designed by men (which is questionable) it is a serious stretch to assume that it was designed for them, given it would be sat by both genders.

Not terribly likely, in short.

I am aware that my point of view is a complete write-off if I can't substantiate my claim that girls learn by rote more effectively, I think my arguments are fairly reasonable if this claim turns out to be correct.

I'm certainly not saying the system was designed to favour either gender, which you seem to be suggesting...

keane2097

Pherekydes wrote: »

Your entire point is based on the unproven assumption that women have better memories. If your assumption is incorrect, and I believe it is, then my comparison with the driving test stands.

I agree that my point stands or falls on that assumption.

Your comparison is shoddy either way however, as the LC will still give the advantage to people who learn by heart well, when it should be testing skills that will be needed in University and beyond.

The driving test examines driving, which it should do. The LC examines a skill that is much less relevant to the following stages of education that it grants access to.

The Corinthian

keane2097 wrote: »

I am aware that my point of view is a complete write-off if I can't substantiate my claim that girls learn by rote more effectively, I think my arguments are fairly reasonable if this claim turns out to be correct.

If your premise is correct, or more likely there is evidence of it (these things are never black-and-white) then it would be arguable.

I'm certainly not saying the system was designed to favour either gender, which you seem to be suggesting...

lazygal claimed this - if you read my response to her again you'll see I disagreed with her.

keane2097

The Corinthian wrote: »

If your premise is correct, or more likely there is evidence of it (these things are never black-and-white) then it would be arguable.

Agreed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

lazygal claimed this - if you read my response to her again you'll see I disagreed with her.

Yeah I figured, but you said we we're making the same assumptions in the reply as well which confused me somewhat.