Are foreign women more approachable than Irish girls?

tylercheribini

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When you say cloistered, do you mean educated in an all boys boarding school or something? The average child spends only 20% of the time in a calendar year in the school environment, and 80% outside of the school environment, and study after study shows that parents are their children’s primary influencers, not their school environment, so whatever social skills people think they have as a hangover from their school days, it’s not their education is responsible for that, but other factors outside of their educational environment in childhood.

I also lived in a rural area,creating further isolation from females. Anecdotally any of my friends that went to mixed gender schools were far more outgoing/confident with women. I acknowledge your citation of studies but I can only speak of my own experiences. To quote a 20% figure for school attendance is quite reductive, it is in this environment where friendships are forged which leads to extra curricular socialising.

Wibbs

If people could stop referring to women as "females" that might help. It's like a frigging nature programme. The female of the species is...

Wibbs

I'm not so sure about the whole single sex school thing. I went to one as did most of my mates. For the leaving cert I went to a mixed school and what I noticed(as did my single sex schooled mates) was that the in general the single sex school guys were more into engaging. Maybe because of the novelty? TO be fair these were all single sex rugger bugger schools, so maybe a sort of confidence, even arrogance was at play too.

One eyed Jack

tylercheribini wrote: »

I also lived in a rural area,creating further isolation from females. Anecdotally any of my friends that went to mixed gender schools were far more outgoing/confident with women. I acknowledge your citation of studies but I can only speak of my own experiences. To quote a 20% figure for school attendance is quite reductive, it is in this environment where friendships are forged which leads to extra curricular socialising.

I did say the average child, on the understanding that of course individuals experiences are going to vary wildly, such as children who are actually cloistered in single sex boarding schools, and even then they have interactions with the opposite sex in terms of extracurricular socialising. It’s very much a swings and roundabouts thing the whole idea of whether single sex or mixed schools are better for children’s personal and social development - in some ways single sex schools are better, in some ways mixed schools are better. For example my own anecdotal experience of children in mixed sex schools is that while they tend to mix with each other better in early life, they tend to be about as interested in academic achievement as each other (that is to say - not a whole lot), and so they tend to end up in lower paid employment - they still mix well with the opposite sex of course (at their own level), but they fall way down in terms of their own personal and social development in other areas as adults, so there is a trade-off there that I wouldn’t feel too bad about.

tylercheribini

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did say the average child, on the understanding that of course individuals experiences are going to vary wildly, such as children who are actually cloistered in single sex boarding schools, and even then they have interactions with the opposite sex in terms of extracurricular socialising. It’s very much a swings and roundabouts thing the whole idea of whether single sex or mixed schools are better for children’s personal and social development - in some ways single sex schools are better, in some ways mixed schools are better. For example my own anecdotal experience of children in mixed sex schools is that while they tend to mix with each other better in early life, they tend to be about as interested in academic achievement as each other (that is to say - not a whole lot), and so they tend to end up in lower paid employment - they still mix well with the opposite sex of course (at their own level), but they fall way down in terms of their own personal and development in other areas as adults, so there is a trade-off there that I wouldn’t feel too bad about.

I attended a mixed gender primary school, I am speaking of my secondary school life which is obviously a completely different time of life in many ways. Personally I wouldnt have said my primary schooling would have affected me in later life one way or the other if I attended with FEMALES or not.

Wibbs

tylercheribini wrote: »

if I attended with FEMALES or not.

.

I get the T, but jaysus, this "females" stuff is straight from the insane, fcuked up American identity politics shite that at best is divisive, at worst is beyond retarded in the way too many sub, or over educated beyond their capacities some 'Mericans can be. Sucked up thirdhand by Irish people like "mooom" and "stooore" and all the other mid Atlantic guff. Seriously T, have an oul search on this very website for the term in this context even five years ago. Feck all to none. Though to be fair the Boards search is not exactly fit for purpose, so...

professore

One eyed Jack wrote: »

study after study shows that parents are their children’s primary influencers, not their school environment.

Study after study shows pretty much the exact opposite. Those earlier studies were flawed. It's hereditary influence that make kids somewhat like their parents (or uncle Billy the black sheep) rather than their parents teachings. Their peer group has a much larger influence. Anyone who has more than one kid or has siblings will be aware how different they can be from each other, even though they have been raised by the same parents.

https://www.truity.com/blog/do-children-inherit-their-parents%E2%80%99-personalities

tylercheribini

Wibbs wrote: »

.

I get the T, but jaysus, this "females" stuff is straight from the insane, fcuked up American identity politics shite that at best is divisive, at worst is beyond retarded in the way too many sub, or over educated beyond their capacities some 'Mericans can be. Sucked up thirdhand by Irish people like "mooom" and "stooore" and all the other mid Atlantic guff. Seriously T, have an oul search on this very website for the term in this context even five years ago. Feck all to none. Though to be fair the Boards search is not exactly fit for purpose, so...

God if "female" is now a trigger I give up, to think all the times I used the word I was unwittingly under the trance of insidious Americana. I think you are attributing far more linguistic baggage to the adjective than is there.(from an "over-educated" Masters Degree holder) I take it you're a disciple of Jordan Peterson?

Pug160

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When you say cloistered, do you mean educated in an all boys boarding school or something? The average child spends only 20% of the time in a calendar year in the school environment, and 80% outside of the school environment, and study after study shows that parents are their children’s primary influencers, not their school environment, so whatever social skills people think they have as a hangover from their school days, it’s not their education is responsible for that, but other factors outside of their educational environment in childhood.

The long summer holiday would of course bring any overall figure down, but I don't think it would necessarily lessen the importance of the great deal of time that is spent in school. I had a quick look at the requirements - and it's apparently set at 167 days for secondary pupils in Ireland. There seems to be a fair bit of variation between countries. But the statistics themselves are broken down in lots of ways and are probably too complex to be used as sound bites. I'm sure you know as well as anybody else that statistics can be misleading as well as helpful. All of that being said, I do agree - as I have in the other threads where we have discussed this - that this subject is complicated, and that it is probably foolish to think that there is any kind of one-size-fits-all silver bullet that will benefit everybody.

I think the most sensible approach would probably be to weigh the situation up when the time comes to make the decision. Observational parents might elect to make a choice based what they think the individual child needs, rather than stick to some rigid philosophy. People who feel they missed out by not going to a mixed sex school will probably be more inclined to send their own child there of course, and understandably so. For me personally, I'd probably do it if I felt he had inherited certain traits, and that the consequences of those traits may be lessened to some degree by being in a more balanced environment. It would be a decision made with the best intentions - whether right or wrong. Choices are also limited by location and other factors, so a good mixed school could well be better than a below average same sex school. It's not going to be a decision I'll be making for a very long time (if ever).

tylercheribini

I had this conversation with a friend of mine who attended a well known South Eastern MALE boarding school and from our own experiences we both concurred we would never send our kids to a single sex school.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

I think single sex schooling here has a lot to answer for, being cloistered in an all boys school during my formative years has done irreparable damage to my social skills with the opposite gender anyway.

Woman here who went to mixed gender schools for all her schooling. It didn’t really help me at all with the opposite sex. Firstly, the lads I went to primary school with seemed like brothers of mine because we knew each other from junior infants. And I was a horribly awkward teenager so interacted really badly with boys in my secondary school because of that. And we were all sick of the sight of each other by the time the end of school rolled around. Hell, by the Junior Cert even. I only really learned how to properly talk to lads in college, same as many who had single sex schooling. A lot of my friends who went to school with me would agree. IMO, the single sex education thing is overstated. It comes down to personality more than anything else, I think.

JupiterKid

Single sex schools have been instrumental in the difficulties young Irish men and women have in communicating with each other and the group mentality. The sooner they are ditched the better.

Fourier

professore wrote: »

Study after study shows pretty much the exact opposite. Those earlier studies were flawed. It's hereditary influence that make kids somewhat like their parents (or uncle Billy the black sheep) rather than their parents teachings. Their peer group has a much larger influence. Anyone who has more than one kid or has siblings will be aware how different they can be from each other, even though they have been raised by the same parents.

https://www.truity.com/blog/do-children-inherit-their-parents%E2%80%99-personalities

I'm not aware of study after study showing the opposite of what One Eyed Jack says. Most studies seem to be calling for more of an analysis of the effect of peers, e.g. see this 2014 review:
https://www.aging.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Reitz,%20Zimmerman,%20Hutteman,%20Specht,%20Neyer_in%20press.pdf

Hence currently it is not known one way or the other. One researcher Judy Harris is known for claiming peers have more of an influence, but that's her personal claim, not the consensus of the field.

Zorya

Surely the single sexed or otherwise of the school environment is completely overshadowed by whether or not you had sisters (if a boy) or brothers (if a girl). There is not exactly much mystery left about the opposite sex if you grow up with siblings of the opposite sex. Although girls will be more secretive and can hide more from their brothers. The brothers however are open books Corner a brother, squint your eyes enough and he will cough up the info.

I went to a boys and girls secondary school for the last few years as due to financial problems the nun' s convent school had to combine with the Christian Brothers. The poor nuns spent the next few years run ragged trying to prevent miraculous inseminations from across the basketball court.

Bigbagofcans

Mister Vain wrote: »

But but... if you don't dance then you're as dry as an African footpath. Actually some people would argue that if you don't dance then you may as well be sitting at home. I just never enjoyed it. I can still have a good night without dancing.

My observations at my work Christmas party: A lot of the people who constantly dance at it are a bit dry. They dance cos they don't want to drink & chat so dancing is their way of opting out of that craic.

Zorya

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

My observations at my work Christmas party: A lot of the people who constantly dance at it are a bit dry. They dance cos they don't want to drink & chat so dancing is their way of opting out of that craic.

Orrrrrr maybe it's because they are The. Greatest. Dancers. EVER?

tylercheribini

Zorya wrote: »

Surely the single sexed or otherwise of the school environment is completely overshadowed by whether or not you had sisters (if a boy) or brothers (if a girl). There is not exactly much mystery left about the opposite sex if you grow up with siblings of the opposite sex. Although girls will be more secretive and can hide more from their brothers. The brothers however are open books Corner a brother, squint your eyes enough and he will cough up the info.

I went to a boys and girls secondary school for the last few years as due to financial problems the nun' s convent school had to combine with the Christian Brothers. The poor nuns spent the next few years run ragged trying to prevent miraculous inseminations from across the basketball court.

I have an older sister and even a mother but living with FEMALE relatives is not the same as navigating the rules of attraction with the opposite sex, unless you are a redneck of course