Companies 'may be forced to appoint women to boards'

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right, so your solution to the sins of the past, is more sins in the future? Personally I'm not motivated by spite or vengence, so I'd rather learn from the mistakes of the past, and not push to replicate them in the future.

How do you suggest gender balance be achieved?

I could have been if I was born, but I wasn't. (Well only just...)

But would you have? Or would you have been complaining about women's libbers?

What, that she's a moron? A sexist misandrist pig??
You know she thinks women shouldn't go to goal where men should? Right?

Notable lack of actual links I see.

Well at least they can claim their hatred and ignorance is born out of a complete lack of structured education. She can't. What's her excuse?

Lack of links a problem with this too. Where is your proof of this alledged hatred?

Your point incorrectly supposes men cant represent women; only women can represent women. This is a false & sexist idea.

It is a false idea, which is why I never made any such statement. I have voted for and campaigned on behalf of male and female candidates in the 30 years I have been voting.

Nothing would have ever made me vote for Margaret Thatcher.

Of course they can, and have been doing so. We simply need more to step up to the plate.

Indeed. Preferably ones who were/are not related to the previous representative - and that goes for male candidates too.

Bannasidhe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We have PR so no first past the post problems

oddly enough the % of women candidates is the same as the % elected
http://www.nwci.ie/blog/2011/03/

But :eek:



so again why aren't companies leveaging the synergy to proactively boost shareholder returns ?

How about figures for number of female candidates in all the previous elections?
One small flock of female TDs does not equality make.

As for companies - how the hell would I know what they do with their synergy. You said 'supposedly' - I merely pointed out that the pay gap is recognized as a fact.

Three Seasons

Madam_X wrote: »

Is Ivana Bacik really as hate-filled towards men as the Taliban is towards women...?
And using a nazi analogy re feminism...

Ok, point taken - "Equality when it suits" is applicable to some feminists for sure. However... another point still stands: how does it make sense for some men to complain about areas where men face discrimination (and there's nothing wrong with complaining about same) yet do nothing, but castigate certain women for not doing anything? If they were actually activists while also castigating hypocritical feminists for doing nothing despite repeating the "equality" mantra, then their points might hold more weight.
Someone already said that "society" scoffs at men when they raise concerns about what men can face, and the irony of the fact that society comprises men had to be pointed out to them. Why aren't the men who don't take men's concerns seriously castigated? ("Man up", "Grow a pair", "Nnnnnnnice" etc - it is men who say these things) Why is it only women who identify themselves as feminist that are castigated? The status quo of the currently atrocious status of the single/separated/divorced father... was that created by women?

I certainly don't see it as women's responsibility to campaign for men.

My only gripe and personal annoyance is the " equality when it suits" and the conclusions many come to from spurious reasoning. Ie men are paid more therefore discrimination is taking place. Perhaps there is discrimination regarding pay, I don't know as there isn't any clear evidence that I've seen.

Bannasidhe

Three Seasons wrote: »

I certainly don't see it as women's responsibility to campaign for men.

My only gripe and personal annoyance is the " equality when it suits".

A charge that can be levelled at men too - especially those currently sitting around the cabinet table.

Madam_X

Madam_X wrote: »

Ok, point taken - "Equality when it suits" is applicable to some feminists for sure. However... another point still stands: how does it make sense for some men to complain about areas where men face discrimination (and there's nothing wrong with complaining about same) yet do nothing, but castigate certain women for not doing anything? If they were actually activists while also castigating hypocritical feminists for doing nothing despite repeating the "equality" mantra, then their points might hold more weight.
Someone already said that "society" scoffs at men when they raise concerns about what men can face, and the irony of the fact that society comprises men had to be pointed out to them. Why aren't the men who don't take men's concerns seriously castigated? ("Man up", "Grow a pair", "Nnnnnnnice" etc - it is men who say these things) Why is it only women who identify themselves as feminist that are castigated? The status quo of the currently atrocious status of the single/separated/divorced father... was that created by women?

Can't speak for other lads but personally I see most feminism (and most isms) as being the result of groupthink, some duping and some dishonesty from those involved.
Earlier in the thread someone said "should farmer's (sic) also campaign on behalf of Fishermen?" See there how people (mostly men) are being grouped by something other than gender?
When the UK decided to invade Iraq and a million people protested were they all either soldiers or living in Iraq? No? Then by the same logic, why should they have protested?
I would have said that Irish women have more in common with Irish men than with many Afghan women, so why would Irish women concern themselves with how Afghan women are treated?
And so on and on.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't speak for other lads but personally I see most feminism (and most isms) as being the result of groupthink, some duping and some dishonesty from those involved.
Earlier in the thread someone said "should farmer's (sic) also campaign on behalf of Fishermen?" See there how people (mostly men) are being grouped by something other than gender?
When the UK decided to invade Iraq and a million people protested were they all either soldiers or living in Iraq? No? Then by the same logic, why should they have protested?
I would have said that Irish women have more in common with Irish men than with many Afghan women, so why would Irish women concern themselves with how Afghan women are treated?
And so on and on.

I honestly think you have missed the whole point of feminism and perhaps should some do reading about it.

Who said all farmers are men? I know several women farmers (none of whom give a flying about fish stocks or catch quotas). I did say 'fishermen'- you got me there.

If we both went to Saudi Arabia you could drive and I could not - why? Because of gender, so yes, sometimes I do have more in common with women of other countries then I have with Irish men. Can you name me one country where men are denied equality simple because they are men?

Lastly, in certain areas Irishmen would have more in common with men of other countries than with Irish women - tendency to enjoy formula One and participate in Movember spring to mind - Is that sexist or just a recognition of a shared masculinity?

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Is Ivana Bacik really as hate-filled towards men as the Taliban is towards women...?

Are all Taliban as hate filled as Ivana Bacik? At least they can cry ignorance born out of a lack of education. She can't.

And using a nazi analogy re feminism...

I did? I don't recall, kindly point out where I did so i can address it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do you suggest gender balance be achieved?

By granting every single citizen the exact same rights and privileges, and treating every person equal. EQUAL.

But would you have? Or would you have been complaining about women's libbers?

Considering I'm an egalitarian now, I can only suppose I'd be an egalitarian then. However, that's purely speculation. What's the point of this exercise? Are you trying to suggest that I would have been complaining about women's lib? Are you attempting to build a straw-man perhaps?

Notable lack of actual links I see.

You want me to link opinion? :rolleyes: Sigh.

Lack of links a problem with this too. Where is your proof of this alledged hatred?

I note you ignore my point re. gaol time for women (or lack there of). Do you or do you not accept that point?

She was also involved in organising a meeting quite recently in the Dail, a meeting which BANNED male politicians from attending. Politicians who are the democratically elected officials representing both men and women. Why would she support the banning of men?

It is a false idea, which is why I never made any such statement.

No, but you did suggest that only men were responsible for political decisions because politicians were male. You conveniently ignore that these politicians were elected by both men AND women, that they represent both men AND women, so, women are equally responsible.

Nothing would have ever made me vote for Margaret Thatcher.

Good for you. Relavence? (I can only take it this is aimed at someone elses comment)

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Are all Taliban as hate filled as Ivana Bacik? At least they can cry ignorance born out of a lack of education. She can't.
I did? I don't recall, kindly point out where I did so i can address it.

By granting every single citizen the exact same rights and privileges, and treating every person equal. EQUAL.

Considering I'm an egalitarian now, I can only suppose I'd be an egalitarian then. However, that's purely speculation. What's the point of this exercise? Are you trying to suggest that I would have been complaining about women's lib? Are you attempting to build a straw-man perhaps?

You want me to link opinion? :rolleyes: Sigh.

I note you ignore my point re. gaol time for women (or lack there of). Do you or do you not accept that point?

She was also involved in organising a meeting quite recently in the Dail, a meeting which BANNED male politicians from attending. Politicians who are the democratically elected officials representing both men and women. Why would she support the banning of men?

No, but you did suggest that only men were responsible for political decisions because politicians were male. You conveniently ignore that these politicians were elected by both men AND women, that they represent both men AND women, so, women are equally responsible.

Good for you. Relavence? (I can only take it this is aimed at someone elses comment)

You keep claiming she did these things/said those things but fail to provide links.

Why is that? I am starting to suspect you may be engaging in a spot of spin...

You seem to believe I only vote for women and would refuse to vote for a man. Not true. I voted several times for my mother's first cousin and he was a man.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly think you have missed the whole point of feminism and perhaps should some do reading about it.

Good of you to be honest.

Who said all farmers are men?

You tell me, you seem to have decided someone has.:rolleyes:

I know several women farmers (none of whom give a flying about fish stocks or catch quotas).

What if there was a woman fisher? Should/would they suddenly care?

I did say 'fishermen'- you got me there.

I see the -men and -man suffixes as gender-neutral.

If we both went to Saudi Arabia you could drive and I could not - why? Because of gender, so yes, sometimes I do have more in common with women of other countries then I have with Irish men. Can you name me one country where men are denied equality simple because they are men?

Are you planning to go to Saudi Arabia any time soon? In real life you have more in common with Irish men, the only thing you have in common with Saudi Arabian women is what's between your legs and a bit above.

Lastly, in certain areas Irishmen would have more in common with men of other countries than with Irish women - tendency to enjoy formula One and participate in Movember spring to mind - Is that sexist or just a recognition of a shared masculinity?

Your idea of having things in common seems to be completely different to most. You can't say "I have more in common with person x", name 2 things and ignore the few hundred you have in common with the guy who lives down the street.
As for Movember, I find it pretty stupid as it happens. It's not a gender-related exclusionary thing as far as I know, though admittedly women generally aren't as good at it until a later age.

Carlos Orange

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How about figures for number of female candidates in all the previous elections?
One small flock of female TDs does not equality make.

The only thing the result of an election should reflect is the intent of the electorate or the subset of it that bothers to vote. The idea that the results should be tweaked or biased to reflect some correct result is repulsive.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You keep claiming she did these things/said those things but fail to provide links.

Why is that? I am starting to suspect you may be engaging in a spot of spin...

Yeah I'm making it all up, she's a real egalitarian.

..but ignore everything else eh

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah I'm making it all up, she's a real egalitarian.

..but ignore everything else eh

Since you have again failed to provide a link for all I know you are making it up.

tritium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Since you have again failed to provide a link for all I know you are making it up.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Wasn't too hard to find......

humbert

tritium wrote: »

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Wasn't too hard to find......

That's some pretty mad stuff there, Ted. No prisons for women.

Bannasidhe

tritium wrote: »

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Wasn't too hard to find......

I know, read that ages ago. But it irks me when people make statements and are asked for links but instead time and time again repeat their assertions but fail to supply any links. It also makes me suspicious...

Steve O

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I know, read that ages ago. But it irks me when people make statements and are asking for links but instead time and time again repeat their assertions but fail to supply any links. It also makes me suspicious...

You just quoted one. A link. Here's another one.

blatantrereg

The most effective groups are mixtures of men and women. So if you have a mainly male group, hiring a woman is actually the logical thing to do (and vice-versa).
It's a very silly law though.

Bannasidhe

Steve O wrote: »

You just quoted one. A link. Here's another one.

Is is wrong of me to ask the person who made the claims to provide supporting links? Is that not done in AH? Is that why the person who made the claims never posted any links?

Three Seasons

blatantrereg wrote: »

The most effective groups are mixtures of men and women. So if you have a mainly male group, hiring a woman is actually the logical thing to do (and vice-versa).
It's a very silly law though.

Talk about a vague generalisation.

Depends on the task, objectives and individuals involved.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I know, read that ages ago. But it irks me when people make statements and are asked for links but instead time and time again repeat their assertions but fail to supply any links. It also makes me suspicious...

And it irks everyone else when people deny common knowledge or seek to attempt to deny the same.

Conversation is hard to progress when one demands "links" to everything. Clearly this is understandable for some "off the wall" claim, but you seek links to opinion and common knowledge public fact.

"It's raining outside."
"Where's your evidence?"
"Link."
"I know yeah."

Zulu

humbert wrote: »

That's some pretty mad stuff there, Ted. No prisons for women.

Of course, women only commit crimes when forced to by evil men, or when temporarily insane. Men on the other hand are animals to be locked up; they can barely control their aggression.

Remember, this from the Professor at law at Trinity who isn't a moron.

otto_26

Why are people in power who make decisions so slow??

One of the main reasons more men are in higher qualified positions than women is maternity leave. So lets solve the problem.. Parents both men and women have to share maternity leave 4 and a half months each.

Now when a employer is interviewing people everyone is equal.. Problem solved no sexism required.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

And it irks everyone else when people deny common knowledge or seek to attempt to deny the same.

Conversation is hard to progress when one demands "links" to everything. Clearly this is understandable for some "off the wall" claim, but you seek links to opinion and common knowledge public fact.

Or when the person who fails to provide the link leaves the reader with no option but to do a bit of research.

Well, since Ivana is Supreme Commander of WHAM obviously she speaks for all Feminists in the same was as Ming Flanaghan speaks for all Irish men with facial hair.

Zulu

otto_26 wrote: »

Why are people in power who make decisions so slow??

One of the main reasons more men are in higher qualified positions than women is maternity leave. So lets solve the problem.. Parents both men and women have to share maternity leave 4 and a half months each.

Now when a employer is interviewing people everyone is equal.. Problem solved no sexism required.

The beauty is in the simplicity! I too struggle to see why this can't be implemented.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Of course, women only commit crimes when forced to by evil men, or when temporarily insane. Men on the other hand are animals to be locked up; they can barely control their aggression.

Remember, this from the Professor at law at Trinity who isn't a moron.

How many law degrees do you have?

Mary Robinson was also a Law Professor at Trinity and is a committed feminist - is she a moron too?

What about the old Radical Michael D? Is he a moron?

As far as this feminist is concerned - if one is found guilty of a crime one should serve time be you male, female or Sean Quinn. But what exactly does all of this have to do with quotas?

Bannasidhe

otto_26 wrote: »

Why are people in power who make decisions so slow??

One of the main reasons more men are in higher qualified positions than women is maternity leave. So lets solve the problem.. Parents both men and women have to share maternity leave 4 and a half months each.

Now when a employer is interviewing people everyone is equal.. Problem solved no sexism required.

I think that is an excellent idea and look forward to supporting men's advocacy groups in a joint campaign to lobby for this.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or when the person who fails to provide the link leaves the reader with no option but to do a bit of research.

Well, since Ivana is Supreme Commander of WHAM obviously she speaks for all Feminists in the same was as Ming Flanaghan speaks for all Irish men with facial hair.

Sigh, I never said she did. If you are going to do some research perhaps research what was said in this thread.
To recap, I said she was a moron. You wanted links to prove she was a moron. I pointed out her position on preferential treatment towards female criminals and the woman only Dail meeting. You wanted more links. Links came.

...and now you're dismissing the whole thing with farce.
Sad really.

GalwayGuy2

How many law degrees do you have?

Mary Robinson was also a Law Professor at Trinity and is a committed feminist - is she a moron too?

What about the old Radical Michael D? Is he a moron?

As far as this feminist is concerned - if one is found guilty of a crime one should serve time be you male, female or Sean Quinn. But what exactly does all of this have to do with quotas?

Not entirely sure what the argument is about, but you can be an incredibly intelligent, well educated person, and still be a bit of an idiot:P

humbert

Or we could just abolish maternity leave altogether and put everyone on equal footing. Then if a man or woman wants to take an extended period of time off work they can negotiate with their employer or move to a new employer.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many law degrees do you have?

Mary Robinson was also a Law Professor at Trinity and is a committed feminist - is she a moron too

It would appear you think I was suggesting that feminists were morons. I wasn't. I said Ivana was a moron. Either that or you are attempting to deliberately misrepresent me.

Please reread the thread for clarification.

otto_26

humbert wrote: »

Or we could just abolish maternity leave altogether and put everyone on equal footing. They if a man or woman wants to take an extended period of time off work they can negotiate with their employer or move to a new employer.

Also we could abolish pay at work and just give people food rations that way companies can make even more money...

humbert

otto_26 wrote: »

Also we could abolish pay at work and just give people food rations that way companies can make even more money...

Sounds like a winning plan, just abolish free-market competition and you're in business.

blackwhite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is is wrong of me to ask the person who made the claims to provide supporting links? Is that not done in AH? Is that why the person who made the claims never posted any links?

If you already know a statement to be true then it's pretty disingenuous to go asking for links.

Makes it seem like the agenda is petty point-scoring instead of actual debate.

Madam_X

Zulu wrote: »

Are all Taliban as hate filled as Ivana Bacik? At least they can cry ignorance born out of a lack of education. She can't.

It's a big stretch to say Ivana Bacik's views, misandric veering as they may be, are on a par with Taliban beliefs, regardless of them being uneducated and ignorant people. And pretty tasteless to minimise their views/actions, considering the unimaginable horrors they have perpetrated upon women/girls - and on men/boys.
However extreme Ivana Bacik may be, I would need evidence that she'd want the same atrocities visited on men that the Taliban want (and enact) on women. Something as mental as that would have to be a fact rather than an opinion/speculation.

I did? I don't recall, kindly point out where I did so i can address it.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief did - I should have quoted.

Annasopra

awec wrote: »

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

What gender quotas are in place for employment in Ireland? I'm not aware of any

VinLieger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many law degrees do you have?

Mary Robinson was also a Law Professor at Trinity and is a committed feminist - is she a moron too?

What about the old Radical Michael D? Is he a moron?

As far as this feminist is concerned - if one is found guilty of a crime one should serve time be you male, female or Sean Quinn. But what exactly does all of this have to do with quotas?

Guessing it might be to do with lobbying by SOME feminists to have female sentences reduced in comparison to males due to them apparently not being as violent

Annasopra

DamoKen wrote: »

Haven't time to finish the thread but this reminded me of something I read a while back. Not a conspiracy as such, but a quick Google starting "female teachers mark" resulted in auto complete suggestions of "boys lower" , "boys harder", "boys down".

The article I read was a test carried out in various primary schools in the states I think where the names on test papers were swapped around. When the exact same paper had a boys name overall the paper was marked down by enough to cause a significant statistical anomaly, the very reason the test was carried out in the first place.

When you take into account that the majority of primary school teachers are female this is cause for concern, in the states at least. Not sure if any research like it has been carried out in Ireland.

Anyway first result was the below, there's plenty more if you want to read further. Just Google female teachers mark boys lower etc

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/female-teachers-accused-of-giving-boys-lower-marks-6943928.html

It's interesting because leaving cert papers in Ireland used to be colour coded pink and blue -

lightspeed

In another thread i spoke of sexism in car insurance. The below is regarding the ruling

"In delivering this ruling the ECJ agreed with the Advocate-General's opinion that different insurance premiums for men and women constitute sex discrimination and this is not compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter)".


"1.Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

Given that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter)" says that discrimination based on the ground of sex is prohibited, how can they introduce such quotas?

How are any sex based quotas compatible with EU law?

mango salsa

mango salsa wrote: »

It's interesting because leaving cert papers in Ireland used to be colour coded pink and blue -

How does that suit colour-blind people?

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

Madam_X wrote: »

The Barefoot Pizza Thief did - I should have quoted.

I did indeed.

To make the point that some groups / movements have been so tainted by those within their ranks who held radical opinions and took part in destructive behavior, that any current association with that group, no matter how noble and good intentioned, is unfortunately futile as the stain of those that have gone before is indelible.

Madam_X wrote: »

Why aren't the men who don't take men's concerns seriously castigated? ("Man up", "Grow a pair", "Nnnnnnnice" etc

They are, regularly.

Madam_X

And you use a malignant organisation like the nazis to make that analogy? As if there is anywhere near the same level of abhorrence within feminism?

Feminists are simply not one homogenous group singing from the same hymn sheet. There are anti porn feminists, there are feminists extremely in favour of it, to give one example. To refuse to acknowledge this is just pigheadedness.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

Madam_X wrote: »

And you use a malignant organisation like the nazis to make that analogy? As if there is anywhere near the same level of abhorrence within feminism?

It's in your head that I was implying there was "the same level of abhorrence" in both groups.

You're nitpicking.

My point is that Feminism has been tainted by the disgusting people who held disgusting opinions and who did disgusting things over many decades. To align oneself with that group now today, no matter how genuine and noble that person is in heart, will be irrelevant as the term Feminism has been destroyed and tainted by it's radical fractions who flew the flag for decades.

Also, it is the more radical element of that group to this very day, that is out there in the world lobbying governments attempting to get deeply sexist legislation passed in the name of Women's Rights. So you'll have to excuse those that have disdain for women who say "don't label us all" that way, as we are "modern feminists".

Feminists are simply not one homogenous group singing from the same hymn sheet. There are anti porn feminists, there are feminists extremely in favour of it, to give one example. To refuse to acknowledge this is just pigheadedness.

It's only natural that men (and women) associate Feminism with the feminists that have power and judge them on what those women did, or attempted to do with that power. It's extremely naive to expect them to do anything less.

K-9

To try and give an analogy, many people want a United Ireland, some despicable things have been done to "further" that belief, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with that idea, and extremists shouldn't be given too much credence as representative of that view. There's a whole host of moderate opinion on the issue that should be listened to and a lot of noise that should be ignored, and people should stop giving the extreme opinions oxygen.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

To try and give an analogy, many people want a United Ireland, some despicable things have been done to "further" that belief, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with that idea, and extremists shouldn't be given too much credence....

And to further that analogy, once upon a time the IRA were perceived as a positive force for republicanism. Now though, after years of committing horrible acts, and harbouring criminals, condoning and covering up crimes, the IRA is seen as something very different.

When people try their hardest to defend extremists like Bacik, as opposed to straight out rubbishing them, they are condoning what she says and what she stands for (simply because she flys the feminist flag). It for these reasons that the feminist flag has been sullied from what was once - a positive ideal of egalitarianism, to what it is perceived as now, a divisive and sexist ideal seeking only to better an elite few at any cost to society as a whole.

token101

Hopefully this law is exposed for its ****ing daftness when a 17 year old burlesque dancer is appointed by Silvio Berlusconi to replace Adriano Galliani at AC Milan.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

How does that suit colour-blind people?

They were abolished by Minister Gemma Hussey in the 80s

Annasopra

awec wrote: »

This already happens.

Women can be hired to help boost the gender quota at a company, they may not be the best candidate.

I'm still waiting to here where this happens - it certainly does not happen in Ireland

SeventySix

DamoKen wrote: »

Haven't time to finish the thread but this reminded me of something I read a while back. Not a conspiracy as such, but a quick Google starting "female teachers mark" resulted in auto complete suggestions of "boys lower" , "boys harder", "boys down".

The article I read was a test carried out in various primary schools in the states I think where the names on test papers were swapped around. When the exact same paper had a boys name overall the paper was marked down by enough to cause a significant statistical anomaly, the very reason the test was carried out in the first place.

When you take into account that the majority of primary school teachers are female this is cause for concern, in the states at least. Not sure if any research like it has been carried out in Ireland.

Anyway first result was the below, there's plenty more if you want to read further. Just Google female teachers mark boys lower etc

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/female-teachers-accused-of-giving-boys-lower-marks-6943928.html[/QUOTE]


This was a very interesting study and suggested that testscores are linked with behaviour. The study in the US seemed to find that theteachers took behaviour in to account and marked well behaved children higher,and as girls are generally better behaved they consistently scored higher. Itwould be a very interesting study to do and see if male teachers would alsotake behaviour in to account or would they be more focussed on the academicsonly.

Sleepy

dark crystal wrote: »

Another interesting report here: http://fox13now.com/2013/03/05/gender-pay-gap-appearing-in-female-dominated-professions/

It states more men are entering stereotypically female dominated jobs than ever before - and getting promoted faster and paid more.

Possibly due to the same trends that cause the "pay gap" between the genders:

• Men as a group are more aggressive in their pursuit of promotion / pay raises
• Every study on this I've ever read includes time spent on maternity leave in the number of years experience a woman has. This simply isn't reality: if you have two kids, the odds are that you're about 18 months less experienced than someone without children that started on the same day as you.
• More families choosing the mother to be the main care-giver means men as a group work longer hours, are more flexible, take less absence/sick leave and therefore more productive than women as a group.

The "fix" for this? Women who care about it should only marry men who are prepared to be primary (or at least equal) care-givers, stop taking so many sick days*, work longer hours and pursue promotions more aggressively. And of course, seek for parental leave to be equally split between the parents - why aren't men out campaigning for this? I'd suspect that it's because the status quo suits those men who put career ahead of family (less competition for plum roles), many of us have partners who prefer to be the primary care-giver, most workplaces are far more supportive of women in that role than men and the simple fact that we don't have breasts makes us less suitable for the early days of childcare anyway...

(btw, I'm someone who limits my career prospects in order to maintain a better family life so would have taken every day of paternity leave if I'd been entitled to any - instead I used three quarters of my annual leave in the weeks following my daughter's birth. Not looking for any kudos here, just stating that my personal preferences don't align with what I perceive to be the majority)

(*no evidence for this beyond my personal experience as a data analyst who does a lot of analysis of HR systems)

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do these female teachers teach a different core curriculum to male and female students?

Are they sitting the exams for female students?

How do you account for the fact that the exam corrector has no idea what the gender of the student who authored the script?

What about fact that the vast majority of tenured university senior lecturers and professors are male - what should be done to address this? According to your argument they must be biased in favour of males so male 3rd level students should logically be outperforming female one across the board...except they arn't.

A Female dominated teaching profession means that there are less positive role-models for the male students. It's resulted in a core curriculum and system of learning that's more suited to girls than boys where traits more associated with the male of the species (competition, aggression, physicality) are treated as negative behaviours. Couple a young boys natural instincts being treated in such a way alongside the studies linked above showing that female teachers grade girls more favourably than boys and the marking or "well behaved pupils" exams higher and you create an educational environment that discourages many young boys from even trying to perform.

The vast majority of tenured university senior lecturers and professors are male? What a surprise! I wonder could it have had anything to do with the demographics of men/women that graduated college in the 70's and their subsequent career choices? Something tells me you'd find a majority of female graduates from that era would have pursued careers outside of academia (primary / secondary teaching, healthcare, public sector etc.) and that's before we even consider the numbers that would have left the workplace to be a stay-at-home parent.

Comparing the influences of performance at 3rd level to primary / secondary is compaing apples with oranges with bananas tbh. One isn't "taught" at university, one "reads" and is permitted to attend lectures. Lecturers aren't role-models in the same way teachers are to young children.

The system of primary / secondary education being more favourable to females surely results in third level female students more motivated and capable of learning at 3rd level and, despite the corresponding boom in retail and beauticians, employment opportunities for girls without a Leaving Cert were nowhere near what they were for boys during the 00's due to the reluctance of women to get involved in the construction trade.

Morons? Really?

Good to know a Professor of Law at Trinity is, in your considered opinion, a moron. As is our first female president....actually our current president has some pretty radical views too so no doubt you also think he is a moron.

I think Zulu and others have already answered for me in relation to Bacik but yes, I consider her to be a moron. Never-mind her blatant misandry (O/T it always amuses me that spell-checks don't even recognise that word): her bungling of the amendment to the Civil Registration bill merely opened the door for the Humanist society to cash in on marriage ceremonies rather than actually doing anything to facilitate any other groups who people might wish to be married by.

Asking half of the population to be okay with being discriminated against in order to rectify the mistakes of the past is never going to work. Equality of outcomes will be achieved by equality of opportunity and time.

Or it may never happen at all. The aggregation of personal choices might actually be "unequal" in terms of male/female participation in the workplace. It might well simply be a difference of the genders that women (as a group) prefer to work less demanding jobs for less pay than their male counterparts or that men as a group are more willing to engage in the risk-taking behaviour that leads to higher financial rewards for some and destitution for others.

Were men to achieve equality in the Family Courts, it's still unlikely (IMO) that there'd be an even split in which parent became the primary care-giver in the short to medium term due to

It's interesting to contrast the various campaigners for Fathers Rights against the "feminists" campaigning for these gender quotas. You'll find the various fathers groups are demanding equal access, not that a quota should be enforced to ensure a given percentage of men get to be the primary carers.

Since you are invoking the spirit of Thatcher may I ask did you ever live in Thatcher's Britain? I did - between the effects of her economic policies on Northern England, Scotland and Wales and Section 28- she made an art form of discrimination and created a deeply divided society so as far as I am concerned evoking her when discussing 21st century Ireland is akin to Godwinning.

While I disagree with your implied assertion that Lady Thatcher is on a par with Adolf Hitler, I wasn't invoking anything other than a nice piece of oration she once used.

Madam_X wrote: »

Feminists are simply not one homogenous group singing from the same hymn sheet. There are anti porn feminists, there are feminists extremely in favour of it, to give one example. To refuse to acknowledge this is just pigheadedness.

A genuine question: why use the labels Feminism or Feminist at all?

When Feminism can be pro or anti porn, pro or anti-abortion, egalitarian/misandrist, in favour of a woman's right to choose to be a stay-at-home mother or utterly derisive of it, all for a woman's right to enjoy sex as she sees fit or capable of viewing every act of heterosexual sex as "rape" of a woman by a man, in favour of a gender blind legal system versus one that favours females over males or in short: as variable as women themselves, what's it's purpose as a movement?

The only thing it seems to be in agreement on is that women shouldn't be discriminated against (though even there, a consensus on what constitutes being discriminated against is far from certain). It's an utterly illogical label imo.