Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

It's a very common thing to do in China. Do the proposal in public (tv preferrably) since it far reduces her chance of saying no. :rolleyes:

orubiru

py2006 wrote: »

London-based author Sunny Singh tweeted that the proposal revealed a sense of male entitlement.

:rolleyes:

Has anyone actually asked the people involved?

It was once the case that a couple needed to show they were committed Christians before they could get married in the church. These days the couple needs to get a blessing from the Church of Feminism before they can even get engaged?

It seems odd to me that people are quick to jump on a situation like this and telling the man how he should or should not behave. More than that, they are telling the woman how she should feel about the proposal and telling society how we should think about it.

For all anyone knows he proposed to her there and then because he knows her well enough to know exactly what she would like. Maybe he knew she would be delighted if he proposed in those circumstances.

Most likely nobody knows her better than him, and nobody knows him better than her. Yet, here we have some concerned third party stepping in to tell us all the truth about their relationship.

It's getting to the point where everything needs to be twisted and bent and broken down to find the inherent wrongness at it's core.

mzungu

orubiru wrote: »

It's getting to the point where everything needs to be twisted and bent and broken down to find the inherent wrongness at it's core.

I think it's a sign of drastically falling standards in 'journalism' that this even warrants a mention.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

I think it's a sign of drastically falling standards in 'journalism' that this even warrants a mention.

Journalism is dead. Just change it to sensationalism.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a very common thing to do in China. Do the proposal in public (tv preferrably) since it far reduces her chance of saying no. :rolleyes:

I think it's an obnoxious thing to do, it's quite passive aggressive.

"She can't say no, or everyone will think she's a bitch for humiliating me"

I've seen it happen once, poor girl was cornered. So I think there's something of a point in what the journalist has to say, but she's running with it.

Also, that guy should have let her have her moment of glory without injecting himself into the frame: it was her moment and he made it his - at least in part.

It would have been quite the comeuppance if she'd refused, but she would have been tarred a bitch for life if she had.

eviltwin

Did he propose just after she got her medal? If so it's attention seeking and unfair to the athlete. Let her have her moment in the sun.

Pawwed Rig

No such concerns when the lesbian did it last week I note.

Carlos Orange

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No such concerns when the lesbian did it last week I note.

Pretty sure the ideal of applying equal standards to men and women is old hat these days.

mrkiscool2

eviltwin wrote: »

Did he propose just after she got her medal? If so it's attention seeking and unfair to the athlete. Let her have her moment in the sun.

So was the woman who proposed to her 7s girlfriend after she won a medal also attention seeking and unfair to the player?

mzungu

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So was the woman who proposed to her 7s girlfriend after she won a medal also attention seeking and unfair to the player?

I think both could have been done in private. I don't understand these big grand gestures. It smacks of 'oh look at us' kind of thing. I am fairly sure that both people proposing had a fair idea it would make it into the media, so in that sense there was attention seeking. That said, still an absolutely nothing story on both counts. The agenda behind the article is clear.

mrkiscool2

mzungu wrote: »

I think both could have been done in private. I don't understand these big grand gestures. It smacks of 'oh look at us' kind of thing. I am fairly sure that both people proposing had a fair idea it would make it into the media, so in that sense there was attention seeking. That said, still an absolutely nothing story on both counts. The agenda behind the article is clear.

I'd agree with that. Remember seeing a video of a guy proposing to a girl on a sports pitch (not sure what sport it was) and she felt so bad that she was going to say no she couldn't and just ran off. Not fair on the person, engagements can be done in private places and done well. I was just asking the person who thought that was bad did she also think the woman proposing to her girlfriend was also bad.

silverharp

the beeb never fails to deliver :pac:

py2006

Is there any reputable media outlet these days at all?

steddyeddy

py2006 wrote: »

London-based author Sunny Singh tweeted that the proposal revealed a sense of male entitlement.




:rolleyes:

She actually sounds mentally disturbed.

Carlos Orange

No

py2006 wrote: »

Is there any reputable media outlet these days at all?

I used to like the atlantic but they have had some trash on there recently.

steddyeddy

Here's what gets me. They attack a man proposing to his girlfriend but in Saudia Arabia women can't drive cars......

py2006

steddyeddy wrote: »

Here's what gets me. The attack a man proposing to his girlfriend but in Saudia Arabia women can't drive cars......

Can't drive and not allowed to are two different things! :P

kunst nugget

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No such concerns when the lesbian did it last week I note.

Tbf, while both public proposals are crass, there is some difference to them. The Brazilian girl really wasn't having her thunder stolen as she hadn't won anything whereas the Chinese girl was receiving her silver medal when he proposed. That said, calling it a form of male control is absolutely ridiculous. It was an arsehole move irrespective of gender.

silverharp

the glee is palpable

http://www.thejournal.ie/boys-girls-leaving-cert-2935273-Aug2016/

Streets ahead: Girls are still putting boys in the Leaving Cert ha'penny place

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

the glee is palpable

http://www.thejournal.ie/boys-girls-leaving-cert-2935273-Aug2016/

Interestingly though, "the five subjects in which boys achieved more A1s at Higher Level than girls were all similar in their content. They were: Maths, Applied Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Economics".

Maybe then, it's logical that there are more boys in STEM because these are the ONLY areas where boys outperform girls.

Or does this mean we must redouble our efforts to get more girls into STEM by reducing the number of places available for boys in the only areas where they perform better?

ancapailldorcha

maybe

In fairness though, do you hear of many men going for jobs like cleaning, nursing and caring?

DamoKen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness though, do you hear of many men going for jobs like cleaning, nursing and caring?

In fairness though there is no discriminatory policies to get them into areas where they're underrepresented either.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

DamoKen wrote: »

In fairness though there is no discriminatory policies to get them into areas where they're underrepresented either.

There aren't but nobody has called for any action either. Various groups have been calling for more female MPs and women in STEM for a long time.

steddyeddy

silverharp wrote: »

the glee is palpable

http://www.thejournal.ie/boys-girls-leaving-cert-2935273-Aug2016/

That's fantastic. It's hard to see why they have a harder time in STEM if this is the case.

silverharp

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's fantastic. It's hard to see why they have a harder time in STEM if this is the case.

I see it as a system tweaked against boys. The LC is a generalist memory competition where subjects like Maths and Physics have been dumbed down presumably to make it easier for girls. Its also language heavy, every kid has to take English Irish and a European language, this suits more girls than boys.

deaddonkey15

silverharp wrote: »

I see it as a system tweaked against boys. The LC is a generalist memory competition where subjects like Maths and Physics have been dumbed down presumably to make it easier for girls. Its also language heavy, every kid has to take English Irish and a European language, this suits more girls than boys.

Indeed, although I do think it's important for everyone to learn languages. I've long felt that the leaving cert curriculum should be modernised to include more technical subjects. A proper computer subject which includes coding should be compulsory I think. I think at least two of Physics, Chemistry and Biology should be compulsory also.

LostinBlanch

maybe

orubiru wrote: »

Interestingly though, "the five subjects in which boys achieved more A1s at Higher Level than girls were all similar in their content. They were: Maths, Applied Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Economics".

Maybe then, it's logical that there are more boys in STEM because these are the ONLY areas where boys outperform girls.

Or does this mean we must redouble our efforts to get more girls into STEM by reducing the number of places available for boys in the only areas where they perform better?

Well if the system was tweaked so that examiners could tell the gender of those taking these exams, then girls could be awarded the extra 10% that they obviously deserve and then they would get into STEM courses. You know . . . because of patriarchy or something. :rolleyes:

Carlos Orange

No

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well if the system was tweaked so that examiners could tell the gender of those taking these exams, then girls could be awarded the extra 10% that they obviously deserve and then they would get into STEM courses. You know . . . because of patriarchy or something. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't surprise me really with the amount of entitlement politics you see these days.

py2006

silverharp wrote: »

every kid has to take English Irish and a European language, this suits more girls than boys.

Was that not always the case?

kunst nugget

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Was that not always the case?

European languages were optional when I was doing my leaving cert 20 years ago (yikes!!!). Beyond the three core subjects you could do what you wanted.

kunst nugget

maybe

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Indeed, although I do think it's important for everyone to learn languages. I've long felt that the leaving cert curriculum should be modernised to include more technical subjects. A proper computer subject which includes coding should be compulsory I think. I think at least two of Physics, Chemistry and Biology should be compulsory also.

And if you've no interest or aptitude for those subjects, you're fúcked. Beyond English and Maths, I don't think you should be forced to do any subject you don't want to.

silverharp

py2006 wrote: »

Was that not always the case?

sure its a relative bias that probably always existed but was balanced by grades in Science type subjects but now the harder subjects being dumbed down is a newer bias since the 90's. we aren't talking about a "whitewash" as the Journal put it its the difference between 55/45 and 45/55
if the system was study 4 subjects for LC to more an "A level" level then you might have a more even spread.

deaddonkey15

kunst nugget wrote: »

Any if you've no interest or aptitude for those subjects, you're fúcked. Beyond English and Maths, I don't think you should be forced to do any subject you don't want to.

No more aptitude needed for physics, chemistry or biology than what's needed for maths. In this day and age even a basic computer related subject should be compulsory. Most people will end up spending a great deal of their lives in front of one, may as well have some sort of knowledge of how it works, what it's doing, and how to fix it.

DamoKen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There aren't but nobody has called for any action either. Various groups have been calling for more female MPs and women in STEM for a long time.

Yeah I know, that's the point I was making. Despite the growing discrepancy in school exam results and the consequential impact in college placements by gender the only calls for action (outside of politics and boardrooms) are in the few areas where boys are still performing well in exams. Be that by changing the format, the complexity or just plain ole discriminatory preferences in hiring policies to "equalise" the playing field.

Mark Hamill

kunst nugget wrote: »

Any if you've no interest or aptitude for those subjects, you're fúcked. Beyond English and Maths, I don't think you should be forced to do any subject you don't want to.

I'd get rid of English before I got rid of the rest, useless and a complete waste of time as it is. The other subjects are at least somewhat useful as they are, but should be done from a more general point of view for people who don't have the knack for them - language courses should be for actually learning to speak the language, with no official exams, science subjects should explain the scientific process and peer review and computer courses should explain the ins and outs of computer with simple introduction to coding and common office software use.

English should be replaced with debate and discussion classes (both verbal and written). Get people actually using the language, get people used to speaking publicly by speaking in front of their class and used to writing down their thoughts and argument. You know, prepare people for the world, rather than force them to "appreciate" some poetry or play the vast majority will only grow to hate.

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'd get rid of English before I got rid of the rest, useless and a complete waste of time as it is. The other subjects are at least somewhat useful as they are, but should be done from a more general point of view for people who don't have the knack for them - language courses should be for actually learning to speak the language, with no official exams, science subjects should explain the scientific process and peer review and computer courses should explain the ins and outs of computer with simple introduction to coding and common office software use.

English should be replaced with debate and discussion classes (both verbal and written). Get people actually using the language, get people used to speaking publicly by speaking in front of their class and used to writing down their thoughts and argument. You know, prepare people for the world, rather than force them to "appreciate" some poetry or play the vast majority will only grow to hate.

one issue that cropped up in the UK was a lot of Science people not having great paper writing skills because they didn't take English for their A levels. But a reform would be good for the English course and have a third of it based on some formal logic and the art of argument (boards can only go so far :pac: )

py2006

I agree Mark Hamill,

If people want to study poetry and Shakespeare etc they can do so at 3rd level or in their own time.

Debate, discussion classes is an excellent idea for an English class. More prep for what is expected in terms of writing at 3rd level.

And yes, basic coding and admin skills would be excellent too.

Letree

Mark Hamill wrote: »

English should be replaced with debate and discussion classes (both verbal and written). Get people actually using the language, get people used to speaking publicly by speaking in front of their class and used to writing down their thoughts and argument. You know, prepare people for the world, rather than force them to "appreciate" some poetry or play the vast majority will only grow to hate.

English should teach people a better vocabulary and improve their writing skills and as you say its is a good place to introduce public speaking / presentations etc. All things students will need in their future.

They won't need poetry or Shakespeare.

Cianmcliam

Debate and discussion to replace English? Hope not. Debate and discussion have been shown to involve more closed minded, rationalised thought based on existing beliefs and prejudices. Creative reading and writing is just that, it opens people's perspective and allows them to see the world though the eyes of someone else. Debate and discussion only involve justifying what you already think or want to be true. Novels, poetry and plays are exercises in a very valuable skill, taking different perspectives or expanding the circle of empathy.

We need a lot more creative and open-minded thinking. Society is getting dangerously polarised based on relatively inconsequential differences of opinion. I think people these days are able to segregate themselves into internet group-think and are less able to see another perspective as being valid or even being able to empathise in a basic way.

py2006

May be not replace but they are certainly skills that should be taught in school. Group discussions and problem solving at a basic level too.

But at same time keeping up with grammar, spelling, sentence structuring as the whole text speak is an issue

kunst nugget

maybe

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Debate and discussion to replace English? Hope not. Debate and discussion have been shown to involve more closed minded, rationalised thought based on existing beliefs and prejudices. Creative reading and writing is just that, it opens people's perspective and allows them to see the world though the eyes of someone else. Debate and discussion only involve justifying what you already think or want to be true. Novels, poetry and plays are exercises in this kind of skill.

We need a lot more creative and open-minded thinking. Society is getting dangerously polarised based on relatively inconsequential differences of opinion. I think people these days are able to segregate themselves into internet group-think and are less able to see another perspective as being valid or even being able to empathise in a basic way.

Agree wholeheartedly. The purpose of education at primary and secondary level is not purely to equip you with skills pertinent for your entry into the job market but to round you out as an individual. Poetry and Shakespeare may be hated but its purpose is for you to engage with and understand abstract concepts in language and writing about them is meant to aid you in expressing yourself clearly. Considering we all speak it on this island and it's our primary language for communication, I think it's vital to keep it up to Leaving Cert level. That's not to say it doesn't need a serious overhaul.

kunst nugget

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

May be not replace but they are certainly skills that should be taught in school. Group discussions and problem solving at a basic level too.

But at same time keeping up with grammar, spelling, sentence structuring as the whole text speak is an issue

Would group discussion and debate not be better suited for something like Civics or whatever name they give it these days?

iptba

I think it would be good if English was split into 2 subjects: English language and English literature, with the second one being optional. You would need to pass English language to get into college. In the past and maybe presently there were 2 separate subjects at O level and GCSE level in the UK.

I knew quite a lot of guys who got A's in everything or almost everything except English and Irish.
You seemed to need to write in a certain way to get top marks in English: knowing the material wasn't sufficient by itself.
In Irish, if you don't come from the Gaelthacht or an Irish speaking school, you are at a big disadvantage.

When I did the Leaving if you were going to university, you were generally expected to do English, Irish and a modern language. This put you at a disadvantage if you were not good at languages as you normally only did seven subjects and had to count six for points. And girls on average seem to have more of an aptitude for these than boys.

py2006

kunst nugget wrote: »

Would group discussion and debate not be better suited for something like Civics or whatever name they give it these days?

Perhaps, but when I went to college I found myself lagging behind in terms of group discussion/debate/presentations. Having said that, it would have scared the bejesus out of my at school.

kunst nugget

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Perhaps, but when I went to college I found myself lagging behind in terms of group discussion/debate/presentations. Having said that, it would have scared the bejesus out of my at school.

Do they do group discussions much in schools at all? It would have been an absolute disaster in my school. I can't imagine you were really at much of a disadvantage compared to others in terms of experience in debate - would it have been a confidence issue on your part? When I was in college we had to stand and talk about our work and have it critiqued by others. It was never an issue for me but for some people it was worse than death to them.

py2006

kunst nugget wrote: »

Do they do group discussions much in schools at all? It would have been an absolute disaster in my school. I can't imagine you were really at much of a disadvantage compared to others in terms of experience in debate - would it have been a confidence issue on your part? When I was in college we had to stand and talk about our work and have it critiqued by others. It was never an issue for me but for some people it was worse than death to them.

Ah yea, defo confidence came in to it alright. Research skills, referencing skills , editing skills and target word counts etc is something I knew nothing about leaving school and had to work it out for myself at college. May be more of a reflection of my particular school.

Mark Hamill

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Debate and discussion to replace English? Hope not. Debate and discussion have been shown to involve more closed minded, rationalised thought based on existing beliefs and prejudices. Creative reading and writing is just that, it opens people's perspective and allows them to see the world though the eyes of someone else. Debate and discussion only involve justifying what you already think or want to be true. Novels, poetry and plays are exercises in a very valuable skill, taking different perspectives or expanding the circle of empathy.

What's wrong with rationalised thought? What's wrong with getting people to actually justify what they believe? How can you achieve either without creative thinking and writing? Closemindedness and prejudice comes from people parroting things they learned young without being given the chance to examine opposite sides. Which is how the English course is taught - these plays, poetry and prose are great and you will learn how they are great and will tell us how they are great in the exams (and if you get the chance to be critical, then you will be critical in exactly this way). It's all mindless and preprepared.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

We need a lot more creative and open-minded thinking. Society is getting dangerously polarised based on relatively inconsequential differences of opinion. I think people these days are able to segregate themselves into internet group-think and are less able to see another perspective as being valid or even being able to empathise in a basic way.

And being forced to read through century old plays and endure terrible poetry will make people empathise? How? You are not taught poetry and plays in school to really examine the implications of the story or even how a story can be used to make those implications. You are taught them so that you can either rattle off structural breakdowns in exams or give prepackaged responses to prepackaged opinions presented to you to agree or disagree with.

Mark Hamill

kunst nugget wrote: »

Agree wholeheartedly. The purpose of education at primary and secondary level is not purely to equip you with skills pertinent for your entry into the job market but to round you out as an individual. Poetry and Shakespeare may be hated but its purpose is for you to engage with and understand abstract concepts in language and writing about them is meant to aid you in expressing yourself clearly. Considering we all speak it on this island and it's our primary language for communication, I think it's vital to keep it up to Leaving Cert level. That's not to say it doesn't need a serious overhaul.

Except you are not expressing yourself in these courses, you are regurgitating material drummed into you over the previous years. In almost all instances of poetry, plays and prose, you are expected to write about someone elses opinion, not your own. You do not develop insight, you just repeat a load of information that you have accepted without discussion.

mrkiscool2

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except you are not expressing yourself in these courses, you are regurgitating material drummed into you over the previous years. In almost all instances of poetry, plays and prose, you are expected to write about someone elses opinion, not your own. You do not develop insight, you just repeat a load of information that you have accepted without discussion.

What? I never had that experience, and I got an A1 in English in my LC. I'd take what my teacher told me and see if I could argue it, many times me and him would have discussions over my essays I did for homework. I'd constantly get high B's, low A's vs my low B's, high C's for the actual essays because I could put my point across. Also, for poetry and text they ask a question you really can't prepare for, you need to know the themes and the play/poetry/texts very well to answer the question you get in the LC effectively, but you can still use your opinion and interpretation of things in the answer, as long as you can back it up from the quotes and themes.

Gbear

Mark Hamill wrote: »

language courses should be for actually learning to speak the language, with no official exams

Complete waste of time doing that.

If there's no reason to learn them people won't take them seriously.
Learning for the sake of broadening your horizons or living abroad is far too abstract for a

The end goal should be speaking the language however. Total immersion is the only way this works.

There's absolutely no reason at all why students shouldn't be finishing LC with at least near-fluency in 3 languages.

I don't know if rote-learning vs problem-solving truly breaks down along gender lines in general.
I've heard that perhaps it's to do with girls tending to be a bit more relaxed in the class room environment than boys who tend to bounce off the walls a bit more.
That might explain it without any need to have distinct male and female brain or intelligence aptitudes, and that in turn would explain how the rote learning environment is producing better results for girls than boys.
I'm not sure is that true though.