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

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

I'm sure people feel likewise about Maths and Science subjects.

But no science subjects are compulsory (in most schools anyway) and only one maths subject, compared to three* languages.

parker kent wrote:

Just because the CAO (mistakenly in my view) promotes results over learning, does not make individual subjects worthless.

My point was more the percentage of the total curriculum that they are.

* effectively

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

But no science subjects are compulsory (in most schools anyway) and only one maths student, compared to three* languages.

* effectively

It is a lie to say three languages are compulsory in school. The fact that you say effectively shows that three languages are not compulsory. English and Irish are compulsory, although Irish can be dropped in certain situations. Anyway, most students study English, Irish, Maths and a science subject due to the way classes are arranged.

Also, LC English is not studying a language in the way people study French, German etc.

I feel your views are outdated as they don't reflect the current practice in schools.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

It is a lie to say three languages are compulsory in school. The fact that you say effectively shows that three languages are not compulsory. English and Irish are compulsory, although Irish can be dropped in certain situations. Anyway, most students study English, Irish, Maths and a science subject due to the way classes are arranged.

Also, LC English is not studying a language in the way people study French, German etc.

I feel your views are outdated as they don't reflect the current practice in schools.

The viewpoint is relevant in that there is a big gender gap in the results. It doesn't particularly matter whether one sees English as a language like Irish or a foreign language, once there is a gender gap in the results.

Given the choice there is with science subjects (biology is quite a lot different from physics), whether it is compulsory I think is less relevant in a discussion on gender. Also in a lot of schools a science subject is not compulsory while, particularly with the higher streams, a foreign language is (or is much closer to being compulsory e.g. if one has dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties, one may be excused).

Knasher

pragmatic1 wrote: »

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

I'd absolutely agree with this.

Over the years I've heard of a number of initiatives centred around getting females more involved in the science subjects. Generally speaking these initiatives take two forms, either women in science grants (at a college level) or restructuring coursework to increase the parts that women are interested in (which of course will also increase the marks females get). In general I think these initiatives are a good thing, there is definitely too few young females getting involved in science and I'm happy to see something done to address that. Especially because I'd consider the problem more rooted in stereotypes than an inherit lack of female interest in science.

However there is approximately an even number of boys and girls in education so it stands to reason that if there are subjects that are mostly boys then there must also be subjects that are mostly girls (excluding the very polarizing ones like home ec or metalwork). I have never once heard of an initiative to get boys evolved in these other subjects. Additionally I've also heard that in general girls score higher on the LC than boys, yet I've also never heard of an initiative aimed at getting boys more involved in the subjects where they score lower in order to redress the imbalance. That girls seem to do better is just seen as being part of the difference between girls and boys.

pragmatic1

parker kent wrote: »

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".

So up until 20 years ago boys had an advantage. Are lads just dumber than girls now that we have an even playing field. I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.

iptba

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.

The media have been saying that girls have been doing better than boys in honours maths for a few years, however when one looks at the figures, it's not true. For example, last year's results are at:
http://examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/gender_ard_2010_excluding_less_than_10.pdf

I explain a bit what I think happens in this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71702957&postcount=46
If it was the other way around, I'm not sure the media would keep repeating the error.

parker kent

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So up until 20 years ago boys had an advantage. Are lads just dumber than girls now that we have an even playing field. I know girls outperformed boys last year in math and engineering, but it was a very slim margin and as far as I'm aware, the first time its ever happened. I think you're underestimating the influence of our biology.

Did I say boys were dumber? The fact that there is even a debate about who is doing better in maths and engineering, means that there is not that big of a difference between boys and girls. If there were tremendous differences between the genders, that wouldn't happen. I am just saying that education has levelled out a little in the past few decades and the girls' results emphasize that change.

I stated that there are numerous reasons for the difference between genders results including different maturity levels. That shows I am aware of biological differences. My point is simple though, there are not the dramatic differences between the genders that are often changed. Differences between the genders comes down to biology AND sociology. Upbringing plays a big role and that is seen in the changing demographics in college courses. I believe there will be a trend towards increasing numbers of males in what were considered female courses in years to come.

TL/DR: The differences between genders is a little bit of column A (biology) and a little bit of column B (societal norms).

irishh_bob

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.

feminists and various other PC do - gooders despise tradition so in thier eyes , a female dominated reception or secretarial area or an I.T or factory floor male dominate area is a crisis which needs reform , theese troublemakers are an answer to a question no one asked

deirdre_dub

irishh_bob wrote: »

feminists and various other PC do - gooders despise tradition so in thier eyes , a female dominated reception or secretarial area or an I.T or factory floor male dominate area is a crisis which needs reform , theese troublemakers are an answer to a question no one asked

Tsk - people! :rolleyes: What can you do?

Then there are those people who say "I don't have a problem, so how could you possibly have one?", or "I don't see any problem, so how could one possibly exist?" Or, "your problem doesn't visibly affect me in my life, so why should I even acknowledge that it exists?"

:rolleyes:

jgr12

deirdre_dub wrote: »

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.

Doesn't this seem like a bit of a vicious circle though? There are not as many women going into these areas so its presumed they have no interest which leads to examples of the above, where it's presumed that you don't know what you're talking about, which leads to women feeling unwelcome in those areas.

deirdre_dub

jgr12 wrote: »

Doesn't this seem like a bit of a vicious circle though? There are not as many women going into these areas so its presumed they have no interest which leads to examples of the above, where it's presumed that you don't know what you're talking about, which leads to women feeling unwelcome in those areas.

There are so many viscious circles it would make your head spin.

In the example you gave above, it seems to me that the best place to break that particular circle is in the place where there is a presumption of disinterest.

SugarHigh

deirdre_dub wrote: »

There are so many viscious circles it would make your head spin.

In the example you gave above, it seems to me that the best place to break that particular circle is in the place where there is a presumption of disinterest.

But maybe it's a fair presumption? If every woman who came in to buy a car and then had her husband pay for it I don't really blame the guy in the garage for presuming it would it be the same again. I also don't view this as a "viscous circle" it's pretty harmless.

The same can be applied to the computer shop but I think most employees of computer shops just assume everyone is clueless until they prove otherwise because that's probably true of most of their customers. If a woman was put of entering the industry because of something as mundane as this then I can't imagine she's a great loss.

Even as an intern of either gender you would be talked down to so it's really not something to worry about. IME men are just far more interested in technology and the fact some women buck the trend doesn't change this. It's about as serious as someone assuming I like football because I'm a guy, it takes 2 seconds to correct them and then there really isn't any reason to dwell on it.

deirdre_dub

SugarHigh wrote: »

But maybe it's a fair presumption?

No - it is exceedingly unfair that I am no longer treated the same way by IT sales staff because of my gender.

If every woman who came in to buy a car and then had her husband pay for it I don't really blame the guy in the garage for presuming it would it be the same again. I also don't view this as a "viscous circle" it's pretty harmless.

Pretty harmless?! There were at least two items of harm caused - first of all, the sale was dropped because of this guy's attitude and second of all, and most important of all, my friend was hurt.

The same can be applied to the computer shop but I think most employees of computer shops just assume everyone is clueless until they prove otherwise because that's probably true of most of their customers.

Then how do you explain my lived experience of now being treated distinctly differently?

If a woman was put of entering the industry because of something as mundane as this then I can't imagine she's a great loss.

It's not mundane when it is a day in, day out, constant negative message.

Even as an intern of either gender

Excuse me?! You are calling my gender an "internship"?! :mad:

you would be talked down to

I wasn't talked down to as a male. I am talked down to as a female.

IME men are just far more interested in technology and the fact some women buck the trend doesn't change this.

I believe the question at hand is one of why fewer women take up technology.

It's about as serious as someone assuming I like football because I'm a guy, it takes 2 seconds to correct them and then there really isn't any reason to dwell on it.

No it's not. It's about as serious as someone assuming you are not competant at a job that pays well because you are male.

SugarHigh

deirdre_dub wrote: »

No - it is exceedingly unfair that I am no longer treated the same way by IT sales staff because of my gender.

Just you perceive that you are now being teated differently doesn't make it so. It's entierly possible you had a preconceived notion you would be treated differently and then looked for things to back it up. Even if it did happen I just don't view it as a big deal. If every 90% of women who go into the shop is clueless can you really blame him for making presumption you might be too. It's not really going to affect your life unless you make a big deal about it.

Pretty harmless?! There were at least two items of harm caused - first of all, the sale was dropped because of this guy's attitude and second of all, and most important of all, my friend was hurt.

Well it's a pity she was hurt but I think she needs thicker skin.

Then how do you explain my lived experience of now being treated distinctly differently?

Biased perception of looking for things that might not even be there. But I agree that you probably were treated differently I just don't agree that this is a big deal. Like I said if almost every woman that goes into the shop is clueless it's going to make an impression.

It's not mundane when it is a day in, day out, constant negative message.

You can make as big of a deal out of it as you want to. Personally I wouldn't. People will assume things about you for all kinds of reasons. Who cares everyone just deals with as a normal part of life, not really something to get upset about. If a man was to be waiting around a playground I'm sure assumptions would be made.

Excuse me?! You are calling my gender an "internship"?! :mad:

No, I'm not even sure what that would mean:D

I was talking about an intern at a company whose superiors might not take seriously until they prove themselves.

I wasn't talked down to as a male. I am talked down to as a female.

There are many subjects a male would talked to about, say for example childcare. Prove that your not clueless and there isn't a problem.

I believe the question at hand is one of why fewer women take up technology.

Maybe because they're simply not as interested. It really doesn't need to be analysed.

No it's not. It's about as serious as someone assuming you are not competant at a job that pays well because you are male.

I don't find that serious because you can simply prove them otherwise. If you can't well then they were probably right.

cooperguy

deirdre_dub wrote: »

There are so many viscious circles it would make your head spin.

In the example you gave above, it seems to me that the best place to break that particular circle is in the place where there is a presumption of disinterest.

Iv given up doing that because I end up consistently being told by woman they dont understand/arent interested when it comes to tech. In my experience they just dont have an interest in the majority of cases.

irishh_bob

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Tsk - people! :rolleyes: What can you do?

Then there are those people who say "I don't have a problem, so how could you possibly have one?", or "I don't see any problem, so how could one possibly exist?" Or, "your problem doesn't visibly affect me in my life, so why should I even acknowledge that it exists?"

:rolleyes:

woody allen couldnt write dialogue that neurotic

deirdre_dub

SugarHigh wrote: »

Just you perceive that you are now being teated differently doesn't make it so. It's entierly possible you had a preconceived notion you would be treated differently and then looked for things to back it up.

Is it not also entirely possible that my perceptions are correct? Or are my perceptions so outrageous that you conclude that the problem couldn't possibly lie with the IT sales staff, and hence the problem must lie with my ability to perceive the world around me?

Even if it did happen I just don't view it as a big deal.

It isn't a big deal when someone treats you as being dumb? Cool! I intend on having some fun with you with that one!

If every 90% of women who go into the shop is clueless can you really blame him for making presumption you might be too.

So 90% of women are clueless?

It's not really going to affect your life unless you make a big deal about it.

And why on earth would I make a big deal out of the perception that 90% of women are clueless?

Well it's a pity she was hurt but I think she needs thicker skin.

Actually, one of the first lessons in sales school is don't piss off you customer, and if you do, it's your fault for pissing them off, not their fault for not having a thicker skin. Having a thick skin isn't a pre-requisite for buying something off someone.

Biased perception of looking for things that might not even be there. But I agree that you probably were treated differently I just don't agree that this is a big deal.

As I said earlier on "it doesn't affect me, so how could it possibly be a problem, and why should I possibly care about it". Again, I intend to have some fun with the fact that you don't seem to care about getting poor treatment.

Oh - and glad to see that you are actually (grudgingly) acknowledging that I just might have the capacity to correctly perceive the world around me.

Like I said if almost every woman that goes into the shop is clueless it's going to make an impression.

And if every black person - oh, wait, we can't go there, because that would be racist. But saying the same thing about women couldn't possibly be sexist.

The key to not being X-ist is that you treat every individual as an individual, and you do not allow previous experience of people in category X to colour how you approach this person.

You can make as big of a deal out of it as you want to. Personally I wouldn't.

I have to wonder just how much it affects you.

People will assume things about you for all kinds of reasons.

What do you think people assume about you? I know you are male - what do people assume that means? Is there nothing about what people assume about you because you are male that pisses you off? If so, good for you, because it seems to me that this forum is full of men who are pissed off about many aspects of how men are perceived and treated as a group. It is the same for women.

Who cares everyone just deals with as a normal part of life, not really something to get upset about.

Can I quote you on that the next time a man comes on here complaining about the latest anti-male advertisment?

If a man was to be waiting around a playground I'm sure assumptions would be made.

OK - so that's not one that pisses you off. Can you not accept that it would piss off a man who is there to pick up his kids?

There are many subjects a male would talked to about, say for example childcare. Prove that your not clueless and there isn't a problem.

There is if you don't get a fair chance at proving you aren't clueless because of preconcieved notions of what men interested in children is actually about.

deirdre_dub

irishh_bob wrote: »

woody allen couldnt write dialogue that neurotic

I'm neurotic?! A 10-year-old child could write a stupider comeback than that.

SugarHigh

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'm neurotic?! A 10-year-old child could write a stupider comeback than that.

That sentence doesn't mean what you think it does.:D

irishh_bob

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'm neurotic?! A 10-year-old child could write a stupider comeback than that.

you just percieve it to be stupid

deirdre_dub

SugarHigh wrote: »

That sentence doesn't mean what you think it does.:D

OT - but I'll bite - what do you think I think it means?

When you are ready - read the correct answer here. Of course a 10 year old could write a stupider comeback - 10 year olds aren't at good at writing comebacks! In other words, my comeback was an example of the kind of stupid comeback that some people engage in on this site. I still think that irishh_bob's comeback was stupider than mine, though.

Otis Driftwood

Need I remind you that if you have an issue with a post,use the report button.No more of this childish sniping please.

CDfm

How come this stuff always comes down to stereotypes as opposed to facts ? Probably cos Frontline has the same guests with the same agenda's that we hear all the time.

Did these guys contribute

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Irish Examiner - Tuesday, March 08, 2011 - 10:41 AM [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Men's help group opens outreach clinic in Navan[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

Efforts to help male victims of domestic abuse are being stepped up.
AMEN is opening its first outreach clinic for men who need support but who cannot travel to the group's office in Navan, Co Meath.
AMEN offers a confidential helpline and information service for men who have suffered physical, emotional and psychological abuse - as well as for their children.
The outreach service will be held every Tuesday in Dolphin House, Family Law District Court Office, Dublin 2 from 1.30pm until 4pm.

Or were the court service asked why the service is available now at the Court House.

Or did anyone ask why that in primary teaching the prediction is that male primary teachers will have died out and reached Zero by 2040

http://www.into.ie/ROI/Publications/GenderImbalancePrimaryTeaching.pdf

(My mother is a retired remedial teacher & principal reckons it is not a gender intelligence thing but that guys and girls mature differently and it evens out by 21 or so -so she is for differential entry requirements.)

Did anyone discuss the impact of service delivery in our health service with the increase in women doctors or parental leave. As a career option for women , it allows career breaks and flexible work practices but does not for their male partners -which would be sensible.

( I once heard ex TD Dr Jim McDaid say he did not want to discuss the issue of the impact of women doctors on the health service as it is verbotem)

Was there any discussion on the impact of divorce on farms and rural life ?


Was there discussion on male homelessness post seperation or divorce ?

Was there any discussion on the numbers of lesbian families with children & their lack of support? Did anyone question the gender & orientation allocation of resourses.

I am not having a pop at women here -but it seems to me that the debates are being "framed" (the agenda's set) by the interest groups and usual panelists as opposed to discussing real issues. John Waters is a nice guy but his repetoire is a bit limited & his co-parent status gives him celebrity.

I switch off these type of TV debates as they are soundbite central and a waste of my time.

Jesus Wept

I don't buy into this girls mature faster than boys stuff.

CDfm

The-Rigger wrote: »

I don't buy into this girls mature faster than boys stuff.

She is not an education professor but she says that in her day when the preparatory school system operated was there for primary teaching ( basically dedicated schools preparing kids for the training colleges) that at entry level at ages of around 18 or 19 you had a difference in results just like you see now along gender lines from schools taught the same way & that at exit between 21 or 22 on exit from teacher training college those differences had disappeared.

Somehow the guys caught up etc and she cannot explain it any other way than age and maturity and the onset and completion of puberty.

Everything else was the same and constant except the ages of the students. Its an observation and not a theory but that it somehow ironed itself out. She does not know why and she does believe that the teaching system is efficient.

I dont know if she is right or wrong but its an observation she made and there may not be anything in it .

It may be that women believe they cant break in to and suceeed in politics for the same reasons they believe that about big league accountancy.

ttps://www.charteredaccountants.ie/General/News-and-Events/News1/2009/September/Thought-provoking-Book-about-Women-in-Accountancy-Launched-by-Joan-Burton-TD/

I dont really buy that about running for political office I think some of the brighter ones choose their route to the top of gender politics -but if enough people believe the glass ceiling as per the Minority Report -it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

There was a thread on Quotas in politics

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056199332&page=12

metrovelvet

I havent read the whole thread sorry.

This issue gets confused in Ireland. Because there are so many cul de sacs and glass ceilings for so many people in the nepotistic, feudal and classist country run by gombeen men, its hard to point to it being exclusively gender related, though I dont think being a woman helps, not just professionally but reporting a rape or getting taken seriously.

James Jones

CDfm wrote: »

How come this stuff always comes down to stereotypes as opposed to facts ? Probably cos Frontline has the same guests with the same agenda's that we hear all the time.

Not always the same guests with the same agenda. For example, there were two blokes on from the Mens Support Groups of Ireland who I hadn't seen on the Frontline before. Also, a straw poll conducted during the break indicated that only 7 of the audience agreed with gender quotas, so it's not always the same faces with the same agendas.
I was asked myself following a letter I wrote in the Irish Times but I declined. Haven't been asked before.

iptba

I read something before that by 29, the difference in maturity between the genders disappeared.

CDfm

James Jones wrote: »

Not always the same guests with the same agenda. For example, there were two blokes on from the Mens Support Groups of Ireland who I hadn't seen on the Frontline before.

Whaaa Willie O'Dea didn't show up.:D

What I meant was a non debate like gender quota's occurs that goes nowhere and there are real tamgible issues there that do not need legislating for but need acknowledging.

Its good to see new blood getting airtime.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

What I meant was a non debate like gender quota's occurs that goes nowhere and there are real tamgible issues there that do not need legislating for but need acknowledging.

I can understand why you might like to see other issues highlighted.

However, I wouldn't consider "gender quotas" a non-issue - it is not unlikely that some sort of penalities for having male candidates will be introduced in the lifetime of this government.

CDfm

They cant just legislate can they -this stuff would need a constitutional amendment -would it not ?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

They cant just legislate can they -this stuff would need a constitutional amendment -would it not ?

I think the way they are planning on doing it is that the money parties get from the State will be dependent on the percentages. It probably "should" (in a fair society) need a constitutional ammendment but that doesn't mean it will. One might think that imposing liabilities on individuals for living with people should, in a "fair" society, require a vote but that isn't what happened.

I wonder if there was a law that parties had to have a certain number of people of particular races or a party got less money if it had more people of a similar race, would that be seen as acceptable.

CDfm

They have had severalideas that on the advice of the Attorney General they scrapped

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

They have had severalideas that on the advice of the Attorney General they scrapped

I'm guessing you mean in general rather than on gender quotas specifically.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

I'm guessing you mean in general rather than on gender quotas specifically.

The state boards for a start & when was there gender equality in worker director appointments by the Unions.

It is just another form of political patronage in disguise.

I always wondered what Deirdre Purcell the writer & broadcaster was doing on the board of the Central Bank ?

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

The state boards for a start & when was there gender equality in worker director appointments by the Unions.

It is just another form of political patronage in disguise.

I always wondered what Deirdre Purcell the writer & broadcaster was doing on the board of the Central Bank ?

They actually have gender targets for State boards.

And the Programme for Government suggests they may get more strict on the issue:

We will take steps to ensure that all State boards have at least 40% of each gender.

goose2005

iptba wrote: »

I think the way they are planning on doing it is that the money parties get from the State will be dependent on the percentages. It probably "should" (in a fair society) need a constitutional ammendment but that doesn't mean it will. One might think that imposing liabilities on individuals for living with people should, in a "fair" society, require a vote but that isn't what happened.

I wonder if there was a law that parties had to have a certain number of people of particular races or a party got less money if it had more people of a similar race, would that be seen as acceptable.

Not to mention age - half of Irish citizens are under 35, but only a handful of TDs are. And there are no black, traveller, Hindu or Muslim TDs. There are many overrepresented groups (lawyers, farmers, publicans, teachers, children of previous TDs) and underrepresented (scientists, working-class). If we want a parliament that's genuinely representative of the population, why can't we go beyond gender quotas?

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

They actually have gender targets for State boards.

And the Programme for Government suggests they may get more strict on the issue:

That should happen and no more namby pamby state boards is good but a making up the numbers game is bad.

I can think of a number of gifted women without political connections that would dynamically shake up a number of areas.

Nolanger

Does anyone else think that because they want a quota for getting women into the TOP jobs and don't care about quotas for the middle-earning professions that the next generation of young men will be ruined from having no male teachers in their schools?

iptba

Nolanger wrote: »

Does anyone else think that because they want a quota for getting women into the TOP jobs and don't care about quotas for the middle-earning professions that the next generation of young men will be ruined from having no male teachers in their schools?

I think it is far from ideal that there is a reducing amount of male teachers in schools (the problem is particularly acute in primary schools) particularly at this time with so many single parents esp. where the father is not involved in the child's life - some children may have relatively little exposure to adult men. But even beside the loan parents issue, it is probably good to have a reasonable amount of men in schools. I've heard some mothers complain about the lack of male teachers.

James Jones

It took a while but the Comments are now open.

CDfm

Thanks for the links on that.

We seem to be discussing a 1970's style debate.

Was Childcare costs discussed ?

Was equality in co-parenting discussed.

Did you have a lesbian mother's represented .

The Irish Times - Tuesday, January 18, 2011The forgotten parents

• Orla Howard, Daire Courtney, Grainne Courtney and Clare OConnell: Grainne is Clare and Daire's biological mother and 'came out' as a gay woman after she split up with their father. Orla moved in eight years ago.Photograph: Brenda Fitzsimons
• 

In this section »

• When will we accept that boys will be boys?
• Big sister is mean to the younger one

Although the civil partnership legislation that came into force on January 1st recognises same-sex couples for matters such as tax, pensions and inheritance, it does not acknowledge they might have children, writes SHEILA WAYMAN
PAULA FAGAN’S partner was working abroad when their eldest, asthmatic son became ill. She brought him to the GP who advised her to take him to the emergency department straight away.
“All the way in I was so worried that I was not going to be able to sign a form for his treatment,” says Paula, who as the partner of his biological mother is the boy’s other parent, though she has no legal recognition of her relationship with him.
“In the end I just didn’t tell them. He was calling me ‘Mummy’ so they didn’t pass any heed, but it was very stressful for me, which was ridiculous because I am his other primary carer.” At the hospital X-rays showed the boy had pneumonia.
Day-to-day parenting for same-sex couples is no different from that of most other families – until questions such as parental consent arise. Generally people are very positive, says Paula, who lives in Dalkey, Co Dublin, with her partner, Denise Charlton, and their two boys, aged four and one.
“Once people get to know you, they realise you are a parent but you have that underlying anxiety,” says Paula, who is the biological mother of the younger boy. For instance, in the older boy’s Montessori school, where parents have to sign forms, “it is at their discretion whether they let me sign”.
Paula and Denise were in their thirties when they moved in together eight years ago and both were keen to have children. As Denise was the eldest, she went first. One child was conceived with sperm from a known donor – he and his partner are both “friendly uncles” to the two boys – and an anonymous sperm donor was used for the other.
But Paula is frustrated that under law she and Denise are not treated the same as heterosexual parents in a similar situation. “We planned the pregnancies together; we went through the treatment together. It is like any other opposite sex couple who may use donor sperm if there are fertility issues but then the male partner is recognised as the parent.”

Were stay at home Dads represented. Were homeless Dads represented.

Were domestic violence victims of both genders represented irrespective of age, relationship or orientation.

Were wider issues discussed

You didn't have LGBT represented either & they are in the news.

Transgender worker “absolutely delighted” with €35,000 award

1 hour ago 187 Views 2 Comments
Share2 Tweet5
Louise Hannon (third from left) with Dr Lydia Foy and David Norris at the launch of Dublin Pride 2010.

Image: Photo by Neil Ward on Flickr

TRANSGENDER WORKER Louise Hannon who was awarded €35,000 by the Equality Tribunal yesterday over the gender and disability discrimination she was subjected to in her workplace has told TheJournal.ie she was “absolutely delighted” with the award.
However she said that she didn’t regard herself as disabled – although she accepted that that is the classification of gender identity disorder under Irish law.
The Tribunal found that she was forced to revert to her male identity, to dress as a man when meeting clients and to use the male toilets by her employer, First Direct Logistics – despite the company having been supportive when she first told management in October 2006 that she was transgender and intended to leave.
The company encouraged her to stay, and in December 2006, she met officials to discuss a plan for the transition to her new identity.
But when she arrived back in the office in March 2007, having changed her name by deed poll, the discrimination began. Eventually, she was moved out of the office, made to work from home because her presence caused “a bad atmosphere”, and effectively dismissed, the Tribunal found.
Hannon said she hoped the award - the first of its kind – would send a signal to other employers:

The thought crossed my mind on this that both the companies clients and Miss Hannon's co-workers and the clients employees.

It seems to me that rights are very selectively applied and selectively discussed and very selectively resoursed.

Society is far more diverse than Frontlline's programming skills are is. The Late Late Show when Gay Byrne was presenting it in the 1960's was more topical.

One of the laziest programmes on gender relations in Ireland I have seen for many years. John Waters v National Women's Council: yawn. This was so 1990s. Waters' rabidly anti-feminist views are archaic. It's a pity because there is a real issue which needs to be addressed - the alienation of large number of young men within Irish society isn't good for anyone of any age or gender. But it's not women's fault.

Oh , and a mother of a young male suicide would probably not have gone amiss.

James Jones

It’s not clear from your post so can you say who these questions are directed to?

CDfm wrote: »

Did you have a lesbian mother's represented.

and

CDfm wrote: »

You didn't have LGBT represented either & they are in the news.

CDfm

Really, it was in reponse to the comment link that you posted.It seems to me that RTE have cherrypicked their panelists and is almost as scripted and edited as "Dont feed the Gondolas".

Frontline implies that it is cutting edge stuff - it probably should be renamed "the Usual Suspects". :rolleyes:

And if you are talking about it being a man's world or a womans world the terms of reference need to be widened.There are plenty of places where the hetero-normative & gender stereotyping models dont fit.

CDfm

I have just come accross this group on Lesbian & Gay Marriage -which is an issue I have considerable sympathy with.

What is Marriage Equality

Ailbhe Smyth, MarriagEquality Committee, addresses Dail rally for LGBT rightsWhat is Marriage Equality?
Marriage Equality is a new initiative working for civil marriage for gay and lesbian people.


Marriage Equality grew out of an initiative introduced to support the case of Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland. Marriage Equality argues that lesbians and gay men should have the right to marry, in a civil registry office, and gain the same legal rights associated with marriage for themselves and their families.


Board Members

Denise Charlton

Co-Chair, Marriage Equality; CEO Immigrant Council of Ireland.
Previously Director of Women's Aid and was appointed to the Task Force on Violence Against Women, the Women's Health Council, the Advisory Research Committee of the Crime Council and the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism.

Paula Fagan

Paula qualified as an accountant in 1998 and has worked as the Finance Manager with Women's Aid for the past 8 years. Through her work in Women's Aid, Paula has participated on a number of voluntary organisation boards including Sonas Housing Association which provides transitional housing to women homeless due to Domestic Violence and the newly established Women at Work Skillnet which provides training to women in low skilled employment.
Paula has worked on LGBT issues for many years, having volunteered with the Dublin Lesbian Line to help maintain and develop their service before becoming involved with Marriage Equality. Paula also holds a Master's degree in Women's Studies from WERRC, UCD, with a specific focus on the issues affecting migrant women experiencing domestic violence.


http://www.marriagequality.ie/about/

While I support equal rights accross the board - it does sadden me that people like them who are working for lesbian rights do nothing about lesbian domestic violence

Myth: DV and SA does not occur within lesbian relationships.

Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html

I do wonder given the background of some of the board members that the rights they are arguing for will not be allocated along gender lines too.

These are 2 of the team behind Womens Aid's DV campaigns and violence in lesbian relationships never featured in the campaigns.

Buceph

CDfm wrote: »

And if you are talking about it being a man's world or a womans world the terms of reference need to be widened.There are plenty of places where the hetero-normative & gender stereotyping models dont fit.

I agree with this the most. And I think that's the fundamental area of inequality that needs to be addressed that will have far reaching impacts, rather than addressing the symptomatic issues with gender quotas that will at best piss people off and at worst further entrench the current divide.

With misandry the biggest problem for men is other men, and with misogyny woman's biggest problem is other women. (I don't mean that precisely, but it'll do for the argument.) People define themselves in relation to their peers, and for most people their largest peer group is their gender. When men have a set definition of what men do and what is and isn't appropriate for them it hurts anyone deviating from the norm and the same goes for women.

It goes from simple stuff like women sneering at other women when they act like "one of the lads" because they like soccer. To horrific stuff like condemning women because they don't want kids, or if they do have kids condemning them because they concentrate on their careers rather than spend all day at home with their children.

With men, the same stuff happens. Laughing at another lad because they don't like sports. Or sneering at a father for wanting to be a parent. A case with my father was he worked from home so could schedule his free time to suit what he wanted, so he used this to pick me up from school every day of my school life. Other fathers (not his friends) would question why he was doing a women's job.

When men are calling other men pussies because they get beaten by their abusive wives, and women are dismissing women as heartless because they concentrate on their careers, then each gender has to take responsibility for what it's inflicting on themselves and stop blaming the patriarchy or political correctness gone mad.

Women wanting equal opportunities at their careers and men wanting rights as a parent aren't separate issues. They stem from the same thing. A backwards notion of what is and isn't appropriate for each gender. What's men's work and what's women's work, different sides of the same coin.

If women want to be seen as as strong as men, then they have to admit that they can abuse that strength just as much by beating their spouse and raping a boyfriend. If men want their health issues addressed, like prostate cancer and male suicide, then they need to admit that they're just as vulnerable as women.