Frontline (RTE1, 11/4/2011): "A Man's World?"

iptba

I thought I'd start this thread both to highlight the programme and in case anyone was interested in discussing what was said:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0411/blog-frontlineblog.html

A man's world?

Monday, 11 April 2011

Is it still a man's world? Statistics show that women have better health and do better in school but despite that only around 20% of management positions are held by women and of course women's representation in the Dáil is paltry. Is this because women are making different life choices or because a 'glass ceiling' built by men is still in place?

Are the problems of young male suicide and lower male school performance down to a culture that has become more approving of women than men or is it down to men's own attitudes and expectations of themselves. That's what we'll be debating tonight in the company of John Waters - Irish Times columnist and a well-known advocate of men's rights - and Camille Loftus of the National Women's Council.

Dave!

...John Waters...

Can't watch now!

Galvasean

God, I can't stomach John Waters. He's so unbelievably self-righteoud and hypocritical.

previous user

Some interesting topics mentioned above makes a change from
'the economy' being discussed ad nauseum.

Dave!

Pat stirring the shít like a boss

baldbear

Pats dead right. Men are getting shafted. I vote for a march on the Dáil and we burn our jocks.

Seth Brundle

Bugger all that!
I'm watching TCM. Dirty harry is on and will be followed by Enter the Dragon.
That's proper mans viewing!

baldbear

Joan screeeched her way out of that job.

Dravokivich

I always find the way they use "numbers / stastics" to be a bit trivial.

Equality in the workplace does not mean a 50/50 gender balance in each position, because that would bring a gender based quota which can result in descrmination based on those requirements. Even then, I can say for certain in my office, there's more women envolved in higher level management then men... does that make my workplace more progressive in regards to allowing women to "take control," or just putting the person in the job who seems to be able for it?

I also don't like they way they go on to say "more" men/women, without clearly explaing what "more" actually is. Are they using an actual figure, or a percentage from the total of men / women avail as 2 surveys based on their gender?

IE:

Men Working / Men avail to work = 100% men
Women Working / Women avail to work = 100 % women

and then comparing from that?

but even then, that still goes back to my first point...

Dave!

Philsoc guy = wtf...?

Wibbs

I will agree with John waters* on one point, the level of aggression towards women in private male speak has defo gotten higher in my lifetime. Now before the right on guy pipes up, this isn't all men, and no precious flower it's not you blah blah, but its a lot more than it was. There is a lot more uncertainty, suspicion and antagonism than I recall 20 years ago. There really is. On both sides. I does affect both. We've both been affected by the nuttier elements**. Shít look at the mating/dating game. Large tranche of blokes who feel frustrated they can't meet someone "nice" and another equally large tranche of women who also feel frustrated about the same thing.











*and I very rarely would, nice enough fella but there are medications that would make his clockweights drop. IE I'll listen to you complaining about bitches(tm) J when you stop whining like one.

** I'd tag it to the loss of the extreme leftism after the wall came down, the ****wits more strident of those pie in the sky bourgeoisie looked around for something to bite into

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

Large tranche of blokes who feel frustrated they can't meet someone "nice" and another equally large tranche of women who also feel frustrated about the same thing.

Neither mean nice, they mean "good looking who will sleep with me".

The world is filled with nice people but you gotta be at least pretending that personality is more important than looks in this day and age.

As for the man's world thing, it was never a man's world. At points in the history the rights of a man have been to go to war and die, or if you lived through it go back to the same poverty ridden dust bowl you came from and die.

It's was a few men's world, for a while. Now it's not.

Wibbs

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Neither mean nice, they mean "good looking who will sleep with me".

The world is filled with nice people but you gotta be at least pretending that personality is more important than looks in this day and age.

+a squilion.

As for the man's world thing, it was never a man's world. At points in the history the rights of a man have been to go to war and die, or if you lived through it go back to the same poverty ridden dust bowl you came from and die.

True.

It's was a few men's world, for a while. Now it's not.

I'd argue it still is LF. Not that much has changed at the top or indeed the bottom. The change has been in the middle.

syklops

I work for a software company. In our building there are about 300 employees, of which 7 are women. Does that mean that my company is sexist towards women? No. Does it mean, all us ignorant men favour men when giving out jobs? No.

In fact the opposite is true. They would love more women. I personally would love more women in the office for a number of reasons, one of which being that I think a healthy balance is more healthy. The problem is, few women want to work in the areas of IT and Engineering. For some reason it is not an area that appeals to women. The flip side is, our Facilities department is nearly all women. Our receptionists are all women, again not because we are sexist towards women and only like them in submissive roles, its because only women applied for the jobs of receptionist.

For the most part men and women are different. As a result they have different goals and different instincts.

HellFireClub

How come, when they mentioned that women cannot have a proper run at a Dail seat, apparently because there are these obstacles that are there for women that are not there for men, how come when I saw Luke "Ming" Flanagan canvassing with his father and a few mates through Carrick on Shannon, I'm just wondering what would be stopping a woman getting elected on the same basis???

syklops

HellFireClub wrote: »

How come, when they mentioned that women cannot have a proper run at a Dail seat, apparently because there are these obstacles that are there for women that are not there for men, how come when I saw Luke "Ming" Flanagan canvassing with his father and a few mates through Carrick on Shannon, I'm just wondering what would be stopping a woman getting elected on the same basis???

The excuse would be because Ming has no children to look after, and there is no provision for ministerial hopefuls to receive free child minding.

I dont know of any actual obstacles. I cant see them being any great that an 'ordinary' person running for office.

HellFireClub

syklops wrote: »

The excuse would be because Ming has no children to look after, and there is no provision for ministerial hopefuls to receive free child minding.

I dont know of any actual obstacles. I cant see them being any great that an 'ordinary' person running for office.

And a woman without children, what obstacles would there be in that case???

Also, a TD, whether male or female, earns somewhere in the region of 150K-200K a year between salary and expenses, how come men and women on 35K a year can afford childcare but TD's on 150K a year can't seem to afford it???

RJGMovie

how come you never see women working in the sewers? Its a well paid job

iptba

HellFireClub wrote: »

How come, when they mentioned that women cannot have a proper run at a Dail seat, apparently because there are these obstacles that are there for women that are not there for men, how come when I saw Luke "Ming" Flanagan canvassing with his father and a few mates through Carrick on Shannon, I'm just wondering what would be stopping a woman getting elected on the same basis???

Letter in Irish Times last month

Seeking a seat in the Seanad

Madam, – The current and past elections to the Seanad on the university panels shed some interesting light on the obstacles, if any, to the desire of many that more women should be in politics.

Three seats are now being filled on the NUI panel. Anybody eligible to contest a Dáil election can be a candidate. It is not necessary to be a graduate of one of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland. No fee is payable. Every candidate gets a free mailshot to each of the circa 100,000 voters; they only have to pay for the printing of their piece of election literature. There are no political party hoops to jump and no time-serving as a “ward heeler” is required. In the three elections – in years 2002, 2007, and 2011 – there were 16, 24 and 27 candidates, respectively; of these, there were three, seven and now only four, women seeking election.

This suggests that no amount of proactive, quota or other systems at the pre-nomination stage will bring about the mystical egalitarian objective sought by so many.

Personally, I am not bothered about the gender of my public representatives; I mainly want them moral, competent and not freeloaders. As for this year’s NUI candidates, I am more uncomfortable that so few of them are or were employed in unsheltered areas, and that so many of them are from one profession, whose members enjoy sheltered, public-sector employment. – Yours, etc,

Another thing about the Seanad is that it doesn't involve the long hours over the week that is involved in being a TD (between work in the Dail and then back in the constituency).

Scanlas The 2nd

I'd love to see some research done on the correlation of testosterone levels and IQ independent of gender on people in the top jobs.

James Jones

syklops wrote: »

The excuse would be because Ming has no children to look after.

This is not true. Luke was, until his election, the primary carer of his children and actually proves that children don't get in the way of someone who wants to become a TD.

Raekwon

The gf was watching this when I got home lastnight and I started watching if from when John Waters was waffling on about baldness or something odd like that, so I asked what was the show about and was told rather bluntly; "Pttf, these women really love to moan, they really don't know how good they have it over here, if they grew up in a Communist country they would not even know the meaning of the word equality".

That was my cue to go to bed!

goose2005

HellFireClub wrote: »

How come, when they mentioned that women cannot have a proper run at a Dail seat, apparently because there are these obstacles that are there for women that are not there for men, how come when I saw Luke "Ming" Flanagan canvassing with his father and a few mates through Carrick on Shannon, I'm just wondering what would be stopping a woman getting elected on the same basis???

Among Independent candidates men outnumbered women 8 to 1, which should silence those complaints about candidate selection.

RJGMovie wrote: »

how come you never see women working in the sewers? Its a well paid job

Not to mention fishing, mining, the military, roofing, etc.

HellFireClub

What woman fail to understand is that it is old fashioned Irish cronyism and corruption that is obstructing their career paths, but the amazing thing is, most men are as obstructed by it as women!

I've worked in jobs in this country, in some large organisations, where promotion was based exclusively on who you knew, and for being a pushy little sh*t in the workplace which passed for demonstrating "management potential".

Men are every bit as affected by this Irish culture of nudge nudge and wink wink when it comes to career opportunities in the workplace, as are women and I can personally speak for that.

I can't understand how any rational intelligent person can argue for equality and a quota system for women in the same breath.

What is needed is legislation that provides for a fair, transparent and competency based system of access and promotion for jobs and opportunities, along with a whistle blowers charter so that we can get all this corruption and crap out into the open and expose it and then start dismantling it and doing away with it.

The problem is not some kind of latent and imaginary campaign against women, the problem is a culture of the mod and the wink and the stroke and the bit of pull to get an advantage. Then someone who is hired or promoted along these lines, knows no better way of doing things and so the cronyism and corruption gets to live for another generation and on it continues.

Also, I have to say I was sickened at the attitude displayed by some of the women in the FrontLine audience last night, coming from what were clearly men haters who let their personal issue with some man in the past govern their opinions of all men on national airwaves...

HellFireClub

goose2005 wrote: »

Among Independent candidates men outnumbered women 8 to 1, which should silence those complaints about candidate selection.

What are you talking about, "candidate selection"??? An independent candidate selects themselves, and it is clearly as open to a woman independent candidate to select herself as it is open to a male candidate to put himself forward for election.

How come Lucinda Creighton can do it but others can't??? Where are all these women who want to be elected to the Dail, claiming unequal treatment??? I can't see any of them....

James Jones

HellFireClub wrote: »

What woman fail to understand is that it is old fashioned Irish cronyism and corruption that is obstructing their career paths.

I disagree. The only difference between men and women when it comes to the Dail or the Boardroom is childcare. Women refuse to share this responsibility with their partners or the fathers of their children and, until they do, they will not be treated as equals. When we hear women fighting in the Family Law courts for the fathers of their children to share parenting to enable them to take an equal role in the workplace, we will have some chance of achieving equality, as the mythical "glass ceiling" will dissolve and gender quotas will not be required. Maybe then we will see women stepping up to the mark on fishing boats, in construction and on farms, the 3 most deadly occupations in this country. And maybe we will see a woman on the back of a bin lorry???

Maybe, but remember, "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world".

iptba

HellFireClub wrote: »

goose2005 wrote:

Among Independent candidates men outnumbered women 8 to 1, which should silence those complaints about candidate selection.

What are you talking about, "candidate selection"??? An independent candidate selects themselves, and it is clearly as open to a woman independent candidate to select herself as it is open to a male candidate to put himself forward for election.

That's his/her point - they're agreeing with you.

iptba

If anyone is so inclined, they can put a comment on the RTE site on the programme, etc. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0411/blog-frontlineblog.html . Nobody has posted so far.

Jesus Wept

syklops wrote: »

The excuse would be because Ming has no children to look after, and there is no provision for ministerial hopefuls to receive free child minding.

I dont know of any actual obstacles. I cant see them being any great that an 'ordinary' person running for office.

He's a father of two.

James Jones

iptba wrote: »

If anyone is so inclined, they can put a comment on the RTE site on the programme, etc. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0411/blog-frontlineblog.html . Nobody has posted so far.

I already did last night but it hasn't been posted yet.

The-Rigger wrote: »

syklops wrote: »

The excuse would be because Ming has no children to look after.

He's a father of two.

Not just that he is a father but he was their primary carer (hate that phrase) before the election.

The reason I hate that phrase is because it has no legal validity and was made up by social workers to exclude fathers from their children.

parker kent

syklops wrote: »

I work for a software company. In our building there are about 300 employees, of which 7 are women. Does that mean that my company is sexist towards women? No. Does it mean, all us ignorant men favour men when giving out jobs? No.

In fact the opposite is true. They would love more women. I personally would love more women in the office for a number of reasons, one of which being that I think a healthy balance is more healthy. The problem is, few women want to work in the areas of IT and Engineering. For some reason it is not an area that appeals to women. The flip side is, our Facilities department is nearly all women. Our receptionists are all women, again not because we are sexist towards women and only like them in submissive roles, its because only women applied for the jobs of receptionist.

For the most part men and women are different. As a result they have different goals and different instincts.

You could easily argue that society has created atmospheres where the above happens, not that either sex is hardwired to enter such roles. Plus computer science is seeing a greater number of females studying the area in University. You can't change the world overnight, it will take time for a balanced attitude towards gender roles to occur.

pragmatic1

Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

Poor Craythur

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

I've heard this said a few times - more info please!

iptba

Poor Craythur wrote: »

pragmatic1 wrote:

Primary and secondary education in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

I've heard this said a few times - more info please!

I might leave primary education to others - I've thought more about secondary but I certainly didn't find primary education that stimulating.

Regarding secondary education: one of the big things for me is having to do three languages for the Leaving Cert (nearly half the subjects).

I don't think everyone needs to do an English literature course. Many people have a perfectly good standard of English before the L. Cert syllabus; and it's not clear if the syllabus really improves any problems people might have e.g. with grammar. The material is not the sort of stuff a lot of males would be very inclined to read in the free time either then or later in their lives; while many women might read it/find it of interest.

Note: I don't think either men's (or women's) interests are inherently "better" but I do think there are average differences in what men and women are interested in e.g. men are more interested/get more stimulated by watching sports on average and women are more interested/get more stimulated by watching dance and musicals. On an intellectual level, I can't say that seeing a ball being kicked around is a particularly "good" interest, but it does interest me.

I think females on average find learning languages more stimulating. Over the years, I've come across plenty who learn new languages for fun. They seem to imagine themselves in the countries and this is of interest to them. To me, learning languages (I've learned a few) is a bit like reading "Mary and Pat" books (when not a young child) - the content tends not to be very stimulating.

In general, studies show on average females are a bit better than males at languages.

These are just average statements. I know plenty of guys who liked the English course, etc.

donfers

it was an interesting show with both viewpoints being represented instead of the usual thing where only one side is highlighted.....the lady from the womans council main counter-argument to a lot of points put to her seemed to be "the exceptions prove the rule" which annoyed me a little bit

parker kent

There's far more to English in the LC than just literature. It is expanding teenagers ability to think creatively and their ability to express themselves. It is like Maths, the ability to think and problem solve is the main benefit to doing it in school. English is the same. It is a core skill for anybody in any future job they may have. Learning to express yourself and put words to your thoughts is a key skill.

So lets just say I disagree about the above post on English. The LC has issues, but English and Maths are core skills everybody needs.

I also disagree about the male/female divide. There are just brains better suited to languages and brains better suited to numeracy. Some men and women have these brains. Social trends may have just grouped men and women into such ideas.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

There's far more to English in the LC than just literature. It is expanding teenagers ability to think creatively and their ability to express themselves. It is like Maths, the ability to think and problem solve is the main benefit to doing it in school. English is the same. It is a core skill for anybody in any future job they may have. Learning to express yourself and put words to your thoughts is a key skill.

So lets just say I disagree about the above post on English. The LC has issues, but English and Maths are core skills everybody needs.

Perhaps the syllabus is different now. When I did the L. Cert (early 90s), 90% of class-time would have been on the literature course, in my class anyway (and got the impression it was the same in the rest of my school too).

Many of us had a reasonably good standard of English before doing the syllabus and there wouldn't have been a huge improvement by doing the course, I imagine. And the course took a lot of hours - I would imagine a lot of the population spent more hours on it than most other subjects (i.e. the average amount of time spent on it was more than the average for other subjects combined).

One can test people's ability in English without testing their knowledge of an English literature course e.g. the SATs used for college entry in the US (a bit like DATs=Differential Aptitude Tests some people may have done in school).

Anyway, between that and having to do two other languages, I think the total L. Cert syllabus isn't as stimulating as it could be for some males.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps the syllabus is different now. When I did the L. Cert (early 90s), 90% of class-time would have been on the literature course, in my class anyway (and got the impression it was the same in the rest of my school too).

Many of us had a reasonably good standard of English before doing the syllabus and there wouldn't have been a huge improvement by doing the course, I imagine. And the course took a lot of hours - I would imagine a lot of the population spent more hours on it than most other subjects (i.e. the average amount of time spent on it was more than the average for other subjects combined).

One can test people's ability in English without testing their knowledge of an English literature course e.g. the SATs used for college entry in the US (a bit like DATs=Differential Aptitude Tests some people may have done in school).

Anyway, between that and having to do two other languages, I think the total L. Cert syllabus isn't as stimulating as it could be for some males.

My point had nothing to do with standard of English or grammar. I mean the act of getting a question based on a topic, formulating your opinions and expressing those opinions. You can have the greatest spelling and grammar in the world, but be terrible at comprehending a piece of information and expressing your thoughts on it. The subject is another method of improving how a person thinks and how they respond.

The SATs have nothing to do with my point. To repeat, I am specifically talking about how the subject improves the ability to think and respond.

And yes, the syllabus is different now.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

My point had nothing to do with standard of English or grammar. I mean the act of getting a question based on a topic, formulating your opinions and expressing those opinions. You can have the greatest spelling and grammar in the world, but be terrible at comprehending a piece of information and expressing your thoughts on it. The subject is another method of improving how a person thinks and how they respond.

The SATs have nothing to do with my point. To repeat, I am specifically talking about how the subject improves the ability to think and respond.

Yes, but one may have picked up the skills sufficiently by the end of the Junior Cert cycle.

Or such skills could be tested and developed in other ways e.g. reading and writing about philosophy, psychology, etc.

Also, certainly when I was in school, it was often a test of how well one could fawn over the literature. Whether one really liked the piece or not, one was expected to say how wonderful the piece was, etc. So one wasn't necessarily taught independent thinking, etc.

Anyway, my main issue is with the totality of the L. Cert curriculum where one has to do three languages (nearly 50% of the workload). Make them a smaller percentage of the total and I would have less of an issue.

deirdre_dub

syklops wrote: »

The problem is, few women want to work in the areas of IT and Engineering. For some reason it is not an area that appeals to women.

Well, as a male-to-female transgender person whose career is in IT, I think I have something of a unique perspective on this.

There has definitely been a change in the way I am reacted to now that I've (largely) transitioned. I'm not taken as seriously as I was when I go into a computer shop looking for stuff. The assumption about me has changed from an assumption that, as a male, I probably understand tech, into an assumption that, as a female, I'm probably somewhat ignorant on matters tech. When I display my knowledge, some people display signs of feeling threatened, or maybe they are feeling some sort of guilt because I've just showed up their sexism. It is no wonder that IT and engineering don't "appeal" to women under such circumstances. To be honest, I'm scared of what could happen to me were I to lose my job.

I also reminded of a high-powered businesswoman I knew some years ago. She was very successful, and decided to buy herself a nice new car (a beamer, if I recall correctly). She went into the showroom, by herself, and started talking to the sales guy about the cars that were on sale. Eventually, she picked out the one that she wanted. The sales guy said "great - when will your husband be here so he can sign the papers?".

Sexism exists, and there is quite a bit more of it than I thought there would be when I started treatment for my condition.

Seth Brundle

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Well, as a male-to-female transgender person whose career is in IT, <snip>

KB looks curiously around office at female colleagues


Edit: excuse the accidental pun with <snip>

deirdre_dub

kbannon wrote: »

KB looks curiously around office at female colleagues

OT - but - so you are curious about trans women? Head on over to the LGBT forum - in particular, the trans questions thread, and say "hi".

Edit: excuse the accidental pun with <snip>

Well, they don't actually <snip>

pragmatic1

parker kent wrote: »

I also disagree about the male/female divide. There are just brains better suited to languages and brains better suited to numeracy. Some men and women have these brains. Social trends may have just grouped men and women into such ideas.

Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-women-really-better-with-language

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm

iptba

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-women-really-better-with-language

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm

Although researchers have long agreed that girls have superior language abilities than boys, until now no one has clearly provided a biological basis that may account for their differences.

And one doesn't need to assume that there is any genetic differences between boys and girls to say that if, in a curriculum, 75% of the (effectively) compulsory subjects are languages (nearly 50% of the total syllabus), this puts boys at a disadvantage - the differences could theoretically be due to socialisation and how society treats boys and girls differently and the point would still hold.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

Yes, but one may have picked up the skills sufficiently by the end of the Junior Cert cycle.

Or such skills could be tested and developed in other ways e.g. reading and writing about philosophy, psychology, etc.

Also, certainly when I was in school, it was often a test of how well one could fawn over the literature. Whether one really liked the piece or not, one was expected to say how wonderful the piece was, etc. So one wasn't necessarily taught independent thinking, etc.

Anyway, my main issue is with the totality of the L. Cert curriculum where one has to do three languages (nearly 50% of the workload). Make them a smaller percentage of the total and I would have less of an issue.

That is not true. All the curriculum requires is that you find a stance and use supporting evidence to further that claim. I often received top marks for answers which were critical of the pieces. Perhaps your teacher failed to get this across or perhaps you were not able to do so. But independent thinking is one of the criteria required in the Leaving Certificate English marking scheme.

Merely saying "I don't like this piece" or "This is great" is not what a top English student should say. Fawning over something is not what you are supposed to do in English. You need to critically analyse, which is my point. A good student learns to critically analyse in English. You may never look at literature again in your life, but the skills required in critically analysis will be useful in any field. So whether "one" (really there is no need to use that, you will suffice given this is an informal message board) was taught independent thinking or not, it is part of the current English Leaving Certificate syllabus.

You would not have gained the level of skills I am talking about by the Junior Cert.

Between individuals this may be true but in general females do seem to have an innate advantage over males when it comes to languages.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-with-language

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303120346.htm

The key words in both of those research papers is "may". Girls "may" learn language more completely than their male peers. It is argued by others that the brain can respond to what people learn in their society. Boys are socialised to be numerate and logical as they grow up (playing with lego, board games, playing football etc) and girls are likewise conditioned to be social in their childhood (playing with dolls, reading fluffy princess novels etc). So it becomes natural for brains to respond to what it has been trained to respond to growing up.

I don't think we will understand this until there has been sufficient enough time where males and females have been taught in a society where there are no subjects perceived as male or female. To me, these issues hark back to the Victorian era and the start of secondary schools for girls. All education in the Victorian era was designed to create ideal men and women for the Empire and the subjects taught reflected that. Girls learned the subjects thought to be suitable to the creation of the ideal lady of the Empire. Languages and other so called soft subjects were chosen.

It has only really been in the last 20 years that there has been a truly even playing field in education. And Leaving Cert results are one example of how girls are now outperforming boys in what were previously seen as male subjects. Obviously there are other issues such as different maturity levels, but it is an example of how a large amount of girls now show the abilities associated with the "male brain".

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

It has only really been in the last 20 years that there has been a truly even playing field in education. And Leaving Cert results are one example of how girls are now outperforming boys in what were previously seen as male subjects. Obviously there are other issues such as different maturity levels, but it is an example of how a large amount of girls now show the abilities associated with the "male brain".

I'm not sure if you're thinking of mathematics, but it is not the case despite how it is sometimes presented.

Quite a lot more boys than girls get A1s in Honours Maths (while a lot more (a bigger difference again) girls than boys get A1s in English, Irish & French).

Sometimes one will see it said that a higher percentage of girls than boys got honours in Honours Maths (usually the difference is quite small) but it ignores the fact that a lower percentage of girls take honours maths. A more relevant figure I believe is the percentage of the total who take the subject, which is pretty similar to the raw figures given that mathematics is taken by virtually everyone. Using either of those figures and more boys than girls get honours and quite a lot more get A1s; however as I tried to say above, the gender difference is even bigger in languages with girls doing much better particularly with regard to A1s.

And as I said, it doesn't matter if we don't know where there might be differences in average aptitudes (whether it is a socialised difference or not); the differences exist most people accept and so somebody could make points such as

Primary and secondary education (I picked out the L. Cert curriculum) in Ireland is geared more towards females than males.

A more extreme example, to get the point across, would be if football became a big part of the core syllabus; one* doesn't need to know if football skill is something that is more innate to males than females, one just knows that there is currently a difference.

* I have taken part in Internet discussions for 20 years. I find using "one" decreases the chances a poster feels I am putting words in their mouth (and then responds aggressively) so I will continue to use it.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're thinking of mathematics, but it is not the case despite how it is sometimes presented.

Quite a lot more boys than girls get A1s in Honours Maths (while a lot more (a bigger difference again) girls than boys get A1s in English, Irish & French).

Sometimes one will see it said that a higher percentage of girls than boys got honours in Honours Maths (usually the difference is quite small) but it ignores the fact that a lower percentage of girls take honours maths. A more relevant figure I believe is the percentage of the total who take the subject, which is pretty similar to the raw figures given that mathematics is taken by virtually everyone. Using either of those figures and more boys than girls get honours and quite a lot more get A1s; however as I tried to say above, the gender difference is even bigger in languages with girls doing much better particularly with regard to A1s.

That doesn't really change anything that I said.

iptba

Regarding fawning and English: my view isn't simply based on what my teacher said but the myriad of study guides and the like I looked at at the time. Perhaps more criticism of works is encouraged now.

Anyway, for whatever reason, virtually none of the guys in my maths class in college had got As in English. Many had got As in virtually everything else (except Irish). I don't think it was due to their lack of independent thinking. Nor do I think they had a particularly limited vocabulary.

And, in general, for whatever reason, there is currently a big gender gap in the number of top grades in English.

parker kent

You don't have to get an A for a subject to be useful.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

You don't have to get an A for a subject to be useful.

But if you are competing to get into college courses, it can be frustrating doing subjects like English and Irish where it is hard to get a top mark and may mean one may not get into the course even if having a strong aptitude for those subjects isn't particularly necessary.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

But if you are competing to get into college courses, it can be frustrating doing subjects like English and Irish where it is hard to get a top mark and may mean one may not get into the course even if having a strong aptitude for those subjects isn't particularly necessary.

I'm sure people feel likewise about Maths and Science subjects. Due to my school having an extremely narrow subject selection, I had to do Art and could not do History.

Just because the CAO (mistakenly in my view) promotes results over learning, does not make individual subjects worthless. I feel society as a whole is better if all people learn Maths and English due to the benefits of each subject. Grades are not the be all and end all.