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

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

I said the woman was only joking.

She was/is clearly more than joking. She obviously has issues with men. Same woman would be crying out for a man to rescue her from a burning building though

gizmo555

In today's (14/02/19) Irish Times it's reported that men are significantly more likely to drop out of 3rd level education than women. (On average, 29% of men drop out, whereas 19% of women do.) This report also notes that a higher proportion of women get a 1:1 or 2:1 grade in their final exams.

On RTE radio news this morning there was also a report on the same stats on which the Irish Times report was based. There was no mention at all of this gender gap.

Calhoun

Watch now as its ignored very fast, because you know screw those dirty potential rapists.

Kidchameleon

Id say men gravitate towards harder subjects which would go someway to explaining it. It also explains the "wage gap" but hey

There is also the societal pressure (specifically in disadvantaged areas) for men to earn money. I had so many friends who went to college in their late 20's to early 30's because they were pushed straight into the workplace at 16/18.

I was lucky that my parents were so supportive (and hell did my dad work himself far too much to financially support me) but I was still getting pressure from my peers and older as to why was I not working/earning, who needs college etc. I only ever noticed this directed at the guys.

Anecdotal I know but was fairly widespread in my circles.

Calhoun

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Id say men gravitate towards harder subjects which would go someway to explaining it. It also explains the "wage gap" but hey

That sounds too logical on both accounts, surely the patriarchy is really up to something ?

The Specialist

Calhoun wrote: »

That sounds too logical on both accounts, surely the patriarchy is really up to something ?

Come to the Patriarchy weekly meeting and find out (Friday’s at 11am, we have coffee and cakes)

DEFTLEFTHAND

gizmo555 wrote: »

In today's (14/02/19) Irish Times it's reported that men are significantly more likely to drop out of 3rd level education than women. (On average, 29% of men drop out, whereas 19% of women do.) This report also notes that a higher proportion of women get a 1:1 or 2:1 grade in their final exams.

On RTE radio news this morning there was also a report on the same stats on which the Irish Times report was based. There was no mention at all of this gender gap.

Of course not. This is considered 'a good thing'.

Perifect

How are women at fault for men dropping out of 3rd level education?

Quazzie

Perifect wrote: »

How are women at fault for men dropping out of 3rd level education?

I'd love to know where you got the impression anyone implied that.

Perifect

Quazzie wrote: »

I'd love to know where you got the impression anyone implied that.

Well, who exactly are you blaming? And who is silencing this?

Quazzie

Perifect wrote: »

Well, who exactly are you blaming? And who is silencing this?

No one is blaming anyone. A few people have made suggestions as to why the figures show this. The sexism occurs in the documenting of it in the papers, and some not choosing to document it. It's all about certain paper's agenda to create a story from nothing, and more often than not at the expense of men's rights.

iptba

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Id say men gravitate towards harder subjects which would go someway to explaining it. It also explains the "wage gap" but hey

Yes, I agree. I remember looking at the failure rates in engineering in the University I was in and around two thirds of the students had to sit repeats in 2nd and 3rd year; these were students who had got past first-year. It seemed similar for other technical subjects, though I never counted the figures.
Both male and female students were affected. By contrast, the failure rates for business subjects were much lower and were very low for art subjects.

I also wonder whether both sexes do the same amount of part-time work.
That can affect academic performance.
In a heterosexual relationship, the male would generally be expected to pay for at least 50% of the cost of dates and often more. When you're working full-time, that often not so hard to do but if you're a poor student, it can be more challenging. Similarly maybe more pressure to have a car.

Perifect

Quazzie wrote: »

No one is blaming anyone. A few people have made suggestions as to why the figures show this. The sexism occurs in the documenting of it in the papers, and some not choosing to document it. It's all about certain paper's agenda to create a story from nothing, and more often than not at the expense of men's rights.

It's in the Irish times, who are refusing to document it? Who is ignoring it? Who is considering this a good thing?

gizmo555

Perifect wrote: »

Who is ignoring it?

RTE (and, subsequently, Newstalk)

Perifect

gizmo555 wrote: »

RTE (and, subsequently, Newstalk)

How do you know they've ignored it? Have you been listening all day to see if it got a mention? And who considers it a good thing?

One eyed Jack

gizmo555 wrote: »

RTE (and, subsequently, Newstalk)

Emma O’ Kelly, RTE’s education correspondent has written a piece on it in which she comments that it’s difficult to draw anything concrete from the data -

New data on student completion rates published by the Higher Education Authority gives us the raw facts, but it does not give us the "why".

Source: Raw facts do not explain why students drop out


Tbh I’m struggling to see any sexism angle here. It’s pretty much just offering the data, and some posters here are drawing their own conclusions, which appear to be based more on anecdotal evidence than data.

Kidchameleon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh I’m struggling to see any sexism angle here. It’s pretty much just offering the data, and some posters here are drawing their own conclusions, which appear to be based more on anecdotal evidence than data.

I can guarantee you that if women were getting less 1:1's than men, there would be uproar about it and enforced quota's would follow soon after.

Kidchameleon

The figures are strange when you factor in the fact that men have a higher IQ on average than women but then again if you look at the courses women are taking, its probably quite a bit easier to get a 1:1 in gender studies than it is in engineering regardless of IQ.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Teaching methods play a large part. Males in general have always lagged behind at rote learning.

Crock Rock

Kidchameleon wrote: »

when you factor in the fact that men have a higher IQ on average than women

Any evidence of this?

Perifect

So it looks like there's no sexism at all! It's not being silenced. Looks like it's just a victim complex amongst some posters?

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The figures are strange when you factor in the fact that men have a higher IQ on average than women

What the hell??
Don't be silly

Kidchameleon

Crock Rock wrote: »

Any evidence of this?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b57/05682a13dd538493ec1400e167e752d8c92b.pdf

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

What the hell??
Don't be silly

50 female Nobel prize winners vs over 800 male Nobel prize winners in the last 100 years. Really sorry but figures and scientific data don't care about your feelz.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Emma O’ Kelly, RTE’s education correspondent has written a piece on it in which she comments that it’s difficult to draw anything concrete from the data -



Source: Raw facts do not explain why students drop out


Tbh I’m struggling to see any sexism angle here. It’s pretty much just offering the data, and some posters here are drawing their own conclusions, which appear to be based more on anecdotal evidence than data.

Aye. The article provides some answers. There has been a issue for a long time with college drop out figures (at least going back to 90s). Drop outs are not down to sexism.

This section of the article is key:

This data raises particular questions for the country's institutes of technology. This is the sector that caters most to the kind of student who is particularly at risk of non-completion.

IT students are more likely to have lower attainment in the Leaving Certificate – a key "at risk" indicator. IT students are also more likely to come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

You have people going to college that are most likely not ready for it yet. Sure, there are other factors, but course suitability is high up on the list.

The problem is that college now seems to be mandatory as opposed to optional. Hence you have people picking courses they are not interested in just to be seen to be doing something.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b57/05682a13dd538493ec1400e167e752d8c92b.pdf

One meta analysis from 2004 is all you have? Get me some recent data please




And talking about Nobel's as a guide for intelligence is not very applicable. I mean it's not as if the sciences have been opening to women, until recently.

Perifect

The only sexism I've heard of today is from a male poster on this thread!

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Aye. The article provides some answers. There has been a issue for a long time with college drop out figures (at least going back to 90s). Drop outs are not down to sexism.

This section of the article is key:

You have people going to college that are most likely not ready for it yet. Sure, there are other factors, but course suitability is high up on the list.

The problem is that college now seems to be mandatory as opposed to optional. Hence you have people picking courses they are not interested in just to be seen to be doing something.

When I wan in CIT I was "voluntold" to be the rep in a course lecturer meeting and they were discussing the drop out rate amongst those of us who had lower LC points. I also pointed out that the majority of dropouts were working long hours to cover costs (non-affulent backgrounds) and, I tell no lie, I was told that they were no interested in if students worked outside the college.

We started 1st year with 2 classes of 40 each and finished 4th year with about 20 remaining total.


The other thing that I noticed is that almost all the guys were playing sports (alot) between club and college teams. A handful of the girls played hockey.
Does anyone really think that sports training does not eat into study/assignment time?

Perifect

Perifect wrote: »

The only sexism I've heard of today is from a male poster on this thread!

You must be distraught

Perifect

Deleted User wrote: »

You must be distraught

Well it's true, isn't it? The report and who reported it was in no way sexist. Having realised this, the poster kid something decided to post some sexist remarks.

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

One meta analysis from 2004 is all you have? Get me some recent data please

That is the latest one I can find, its difficult to get new data because in the current climate, any scientist who dares speak the truth risks losing their job



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues

Deleted User wrote: »

And talking about Nobel's as a guide for intelligence is not very applicable. I mean it's not as if the sciences have been opening to women, until recently.

Ah yes, the patriarchy :rolleyes:

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

the poster kid something decided to post some sexist remarks.

How are my remarks sexist? They are backed up with data. Is it sexist to state verifiable facts?


https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How are my remarks sexist? They are backed up with data. Is it sexist to state verifiable facts?


https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Actually, tonnes of data has shown that there is no difference in IQ levels between males and females. Under some methods males have been found to have higher IQ and under others females have been found to have higher IQ. Put that in your pipe.

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Actually, tonnes of data has shown that there is no difference in IQ levels between males and females. Under some methods males have been found to have higher IQ and under others females have been found to have higher IQ. Put that in your pipe.

Links to those studies please.

Kidchameleon

Its funny how those who belittled posters here for crying sexism about the article are very quick to cry sexism when they hear an uncomfortable and undeniable truth.

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Links to those studies please.

http://google.ie

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its funny how those who belittled posters here for crying sexism about the article are very quick to cry sexism when they hear an uncomfortable and undeniable truth.

Just pointing out that the only sexism came from you and not from the article. Don't be arguing with facts.

One eyed Jack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can guarantee you that if women were getting less 1:1's than men, there would be uproar about it and enforced quota's would follow soon after.

You really can’t guarantee an outcome based upon a hypothetical scenario any more than I could, but in looking at the actual analysis that was done, Paul O’ Toole, Chief Executive of the HEA, had this to say -


“This detailed report is a significant contribution to broadening understanding of student performance at higher education. The findings are mostly positive but require further consideration to address some of the challenges that the evidence presents. In particular, we need to look at non-completion rates by males in certain areas, and the higher education system is seeking ways to improve the outcomes for those students.”

Bold emphasis my own. Not quite uproar, but there are measures listed in the analysis that detail how they hope to address these issues and achieve their aims -

An Analysis of Completion in Irish Higher Education: 2007/08 Entrants FEBRUARY 2019


I gave the report a quick skim and honestly if you were to compare the results based solely upon one criteria that is gender, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

From a quick read of the report, it seems to suggest that girls who achieve the higher points required for University courses like education and health, are completing their chosen courses, whereas boys are achieving the required lower points for College courses such as computing. These computing courses generally require a strong ability in mathematics which a lot of these boys don’t have, and so they’re generally dropping out after first year.

What that suggests to me is that girls are generally making good choices for themselves already, whereas boys aren’t making good choices for themselves, effectively biting off more than they can chew. We’ll often argue against the current feminist politics of attempting to shove more girls into STEM, but I wonder is it time we admitted to ourselves that contrary to popular belief among boys in their own abilities, perhaps they’re just not very good at STEM subjects themselves?

Amirani

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The figures are strange when you factor in the fact that men have a higher IQ on average than women but then again if you look at the courses women are taking, its probably quite a bit easier to get a 1:1 in gender studies than it is in engineering regardless of IQ.

1. Men don't have a higher average IQ. Any differences observed in studies have been minimal, within 3% or so. What more studies have suggested is that that male IQs have a higher variance, i.e. a wider normal distribution with fatter tails.

2. If you're looking at undergraduate college courses, IQ has feck all relevance (whether it has any relevance to anything is another thing). And if it does, if anything I'd expect women to perform better based on point 1, given you're getting such a large portion of the population attending.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000346?via%3Dihub

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really can’t guarantee an outcome based upon a hypothetical scenario any more than I could, but in looking at the actual analysis that was done, Paul O’ Toole, Chief Executive of the HEA, had this to say -


“This detailed report is a significant contribution to broadening understanding of student performance at higher education. The findings are mostly positive but require further consideration to address some of the challenges that the evidence presents. In particular, we need to look at non-completion rates by males in certain areas, and the higher education system is seeking ways to improve the outcomes for those students.”

Bold emphasis my own. Not quite uproar, but there are measures listed in the analysis that detail how they hope to address these issues and achieve their aims -

An Analysis of Completion in Irish Higher Education: 2007/08 Entrants FEBRUARY 2019


I gave the report a quick skim and honestly if you were to compare the results based solely upon one criteria that is gender, you might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

From a quick read of the report, it seems to suggest that girls who achieve the higher points required for University courses like education and health, are completing their chosen courses, whereas boys are achieving the required lower points for College courses such as computing. These computing courses generally require a strong ability in mathematics which a lot of these boys don’t have, and so they’re generally dropping out after first year.

What that suggests to me is that girls are generally making good choices for themselves already, whereas boys aren’t making good choices for themselves, effectively biting off more than they can chew. We’ll often argue against the current feminist politics of attempting to shove more girls into STEM, but I wonder is it time we admitted to ourselves that contrary to popular belief among boys in their own abilities, perhaps they’re just not very good at STEM subjects themselves?

Why doesn't that surprise...

Truth is, a person can get by perfectly well without a Third Level Degree...indeed, we could probably cull half of University courses!!

There were plenty of women in Engineering in the old Soviet Republics, who were never described as being better or worse than their male counterparts...funnily enough since the fall of the Berlin Wall, when women could decide what they wanted to do themselves, they chose a different path. There are plenty of women working on building sites in China...do they have a patriarchy over there can anyone tell me?

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Just pointing out that the only sexism came from you and not from the article. Don't be arguing with facts.

In what way has anything I said sexist? Please, I am really trying to understand.

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In what way has anything I said sexist? Please, I am really trying to understand.

If I said men are dumber than women, would that be sexist?

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why doesn't that surprise...

Truth is, a person can get by perfectly well without a Third Level Degree...indeed, we could probably cull half of University courses!!

It should also come as no surprise then that how you quantify “perfectly well” and how I would quantify “perfectly well” are probably worlds apart. Certainly a person can get by without a third level education, but what we’re talking about here are the dropout rates - those that have chosen to pursue third level education, and then for one reason or another fail to complete their third level education. So it’s not a question of trying to convince anyone that they can get by perfectly well without a third level education, they don’t believe that themselves or they wouldn’t be attempting to obtain a third level education in the first place. A person can of course get by perfectly well without a third level education, but they can get by a hell of a lot better with a third level education - it gives them more opportunities and avenues for what they want to do in life for one thing.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It should also come as no surprise then that how you quantify “perfectly well” and how I would quantify “perfectly well” are probably worlds apart. Certainly a person can get by without a third level education, but what we’re talking about here are the dropout rates - those that have chosen to pursue third level education, and then for one reason or another fail to complete their third level education. So it’s not a question of trying to convince anyone that they can get by perfectly well without a third level education, they don’t believe that themselves or they wouldn’t be attempting to obtain a third level education in the first place. A person can of course get by perfectly well without a third level education, but they can get by a hell of a lot better with a third level education - it gives them more opportunities and avenues for what they want to do in life for one thing.

I couldn't disagree more, we have a snobbish attitude to Third Level Education, in other European countries, apprenticeships are way more common, Solicitors, Journalists, Accountants (as for Gender Studies) would benefit from more on site training, they have to be hand held for a few years after they finish anyway so what is the difference.

The free market is a much greater indicator of personal preference, and from what media we consume, what sport and culture we consume and engage in, there are many many differences between the genders all of which shape our journeys through life...and so it should be!

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

If I said men are dumber than women, would that be sexist?

If it was a fact then no, it would not be sexist. It would be an uncomfortable fact. East Asains have a higher average IQ than Europeans, not racist but another fact.

Also please dont try and put words in my mouth. I never said women were "dumber" I said there was an IQ difference between men and women on average to mens advantage. Women are not dumb

Perifect

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If it was a fact then no, it would not be sexist. It would be an uncomfortable fact. East Asains have a higher average IQ than Europeans, not racist but another fact.

Also please dont try and put words in my mouth. I never said women were "dumber" I said there was an IQ difference between men and women on average to mens advantage. Women are not dumb

Well, it's not a fact. This has already been pointed out to you. So saying that women are dumber or have less intelligence than men is sexist.

iptba

Silentcorner wrote: »

The free market is a much greater indicator of personal preference, and from what media we consume, what sport and culture we consume and engage in, there are many many differences between the genders all of which shape our journeys through life...and so it should be!

A bit off topic but is there any readily available data on TV programmes or types of TV programme watched broken down by gender?
Like you, I suspect there there are some gender differences*, but it would be good to have data.

*Though some people watch TV as couples, which would narrow gender gaps

Kidchameleon

Amirani wrote: »

1. Men don't have a higher average IQ. Any differences observed in studies have been minimal, within 3% or so. What more studies have suggested is that that male IQs have a higher variance, i.e. a wider normal distribution with fatter tails.

2. If you're looking at undergraduate college courses, IQ has feck all relevance (whether it has any relevance to anything is another thing). And if it does, if anything I'd expect women to perform better based on point 1, given you're getting such a large portion of the population attending.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000346?via%3Dihub

Your data explains the difference between sexes in Nobel prize winners. Men tend to occupy the highest levels of IQ, meaning more male geniuses than women. Proof that there is no sexist angle to the choice of winners. Again, your data.

Kidchameleon

Perifect wrote: »

Well, it's not a fact. This has already been pointed out to you. So saying that women are dumber or have less intelligence than men is sexist.

It hasnt been pointed out to me. I asked you for proof of your claims and you told me to google it. Can you provide evidence that counters the data I have provided? You said there is "tonnes"