Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Women Only Professorships
Options
Comments
-
lainey_d_123 wrote: »And I'd never want to work for anyone with a bigoted mindset like yours which is also totally devoid of logic.
Unconscious bias training is pretty standard in lots of workplaces and is not about 'gender wars'. It also applies to race, class, pretty much anything. It literally is just about people being conscious of the fact that people often hire people like themselves without realising...the clue is in the name.
My company have run these before - both men and women have run them. I'm doing this one, and obviously never mentioned anything like this when I was doing interviews (why would I have? What weird and twisted logic).
But thanks for unmasking yourself as a bigot. Feel free to PM me the name of this company so I make sure to avoid you and let others know what sort of person you are. I'm sure you'll have no problem standing by your views.
Where's the bigotry and lack of logic in my post? I'd expect better critical thinking from a developer TBH. Hiring someone with more interest in feminism than tech for a developer role is the very definition of illogical. It's hiring a female supremacist to work in an environment where a majority of her interactions is likely to be with people she feels superior to on the basis of her gender.
Unconscious bias training costs money, contributes nothing to the bottom line and is waste of employees' time (which the company is paying for). The only reason I can think of for holding it would be someone in HR throwing a bone to an old college-mate who's selling the training and / or doing so to justify his/her credentials as a "woke" individual to the other simpletons in the HR department.
You can't communicate on boards without aggressively revealing the chip on your shoulder. It seems highly, highly unlikely to me that you'd manage to hide it in an interview.
EDIT: threatening to dox me should I be stupid enough to PM you the name of the company I work for? Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:0 -
Where's the bigotry and lack of logic in my post? I'd expect better critical thinking from a developer TBH. Hiring someone with more interest in feminism than tech for a developer role is the very definition of illogical. It's hiring a female supremacist to work in an environment where a majority of her interactions is likely to be with people she feels superior to on the basis of her gender.
Unconscious bias training costs money, contributes nothing to the bottom line and is waste of employees' time (which the company is paying for). The only reason I can think of for holding it would be someone in HR throwing a bone to an old college-mate who's selling the training and / or doing so to justify his/her credentials as a "woke" individual to the other simpletons in the HR department.
You can't communicate on boards without aggressively revealing the chip on your shoulder. It seems highly, highly unlikely to me that you'd manage to hide it in an interview.
EDIT: threatening to dox me should I be stupid enough to PM you the name of the company I work for? Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
You are trying to say that there is some connection between me running these courses at work and not getting jobs because the interviewers somehow think I'm a 'gender warrior' or a 'feminist' when I mentioned nothing of the sort either in the interview or on my CV? I go to interviews and talk about my skills like anyone else does.
A toddler could spot the total lack of logic to what you said.
If you stand by your views, why would you be afraid of people offline knowing about them? Would you say out loud in your office, with women in it, what you wrote here? Something tells me you wouldn't.
At least the Google memo guy owned his bigoted views.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »My company have run these before - both men and women have run them. I'm doing this one, and obviously never mentioned anything like this when I was doing interviews (why would I have? What weird and twisted logic).
Genuine question, does your job have a safe space on site?0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »Genuine question, does your job have a safe space on site?
No, but there is a mental health sick day policy and enforcement of correct pronouns for anyone who identifies as non-binary and things like that.
I quite like it...filters out a lot of the knob ends who dismiss things like this as ridiculous. Leave them to their macho environments where bullying is dismissed as banter and worn like a badge of honour.
A lot of the stuff you seem to think is a joke is actually just people acting like decent human beings.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »And I'd never want to work for anyone with a bigoted mindset like yours which is also totally devoid of logic.
Unconscious bias training is pretty standard in lots of workplaces and is not about 'gender wars'. It also applies to race, class, pretty much anything. It literally is just about people being conscious of the fact that people often hire people like themselves without realising...the clue is in the name.
My company have run these before - both men and women have run them. I'm doing this one, and obviously never mentioned anything like this when I was doing interviews (why would I have? What weird and twisted logic).
But thanks for unmasking yourself as a bigot. Feel free to PM me the name of this company so I make sure to avoid you and let others know what sort of person you are. I'm sure you'll have no problem standing by your views.
Equally, feel free to post your own employers name. I'm sure your colleagues would be interested in your boards post history.0 -
Advertisement
-
Have a look at this study by Microsoft - called "Why Europe's girls aren't studying STEM" (Ireland was part of the 12 countries included); Quote:Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »Oh, I'd agree with that entirely. And I'm not saying that girls can't do computer science, or anything like that. But I think it's increasingly obvious that natural proclivities toward math, engineering, and technology are not evenly distributed between the genders. Because of this, all things being equal, fewer women than men will choose tech careers.
<< For the first time we can say decisively that most young European women become attracted to science, technology, engineering and maths between the ages of 11 and 12. But that interest then drops of significantly between 15 and 16, with limited recovery. This means that governments, teachers and parents only have four or five years to nurture girls passion before they turn their back on this areas, potentially for good"
PS: Russian girls seem to be getting such interest at a younger age than the rest of the countries.
And then - my favorite for today (cause I need to get back to work) - is on this article found on ieee - Math quiz - why do Men Predominate / Its culture not biology
"When parents are asked to estimate their child’s math talent, they estimate higher numbers for their sons than their daughters despite similar grades in school,” Hyde says. Teachers and guidance counselors share this bias, which is why math has served as a filter to keep young women out of science, technology, and engineering."0 -
Have a look at this study by Microsoft - called "Why Europe's girls aren't studying STEM" (Ireland was part of the 12 countries included); Quote:
<< For the first time we can say decisively that most young European women become attracted to science, technology, engineering and maths between the ages of 11 and 12. But that interest then drops of significantly between 15 and 16, with limited recovery. This means that governments, teachers and parents only have four or five years to nurture girls passion before they turn their back on this areas, potentially for good"
PS: Russian girls seem to be getting such interest at a younger age than the rest of the countries.
And then - my favorite for today (cause I need to get back to work) - is on this article found on ieee - Math quiz - why do Men Predominate / Its culture not biology
"When parents are asked to estimate their child’s math talent, they estimate higher numbers for their sons than their daughters despite similar grades in school,” Hyde says. Teachers and guidance counselors share this bias, which is why math has served as a filter to keep young women out of science, technology, and engineering."
but why is it dropping off, women seem to have no problem with biology and social sciences but the other parts of S and the TEM components seem to put them off, mathmatics is likely the offputting fact but what is causing the dropoff.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »enforcement of correct pronouns for anyone who identifies as non-binary and things like that.
What about people who do not recognise all the different pronouns? If you made me say there are more than two sexes, I may say it but I dont beleive it. Enforcement only fools people like yourself0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »What about people who do not recognise all the different pronouns? If you made me say there are more than two sexes, I may say it but I dont beleive it. Enforcement only fools people like yourself
Because it's not about you!!!
If someone wants to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns, what's it to you? Why would you want to upset them by doing otherwise??
Why are you talking about people being 'fooled'? How am I 'fooled' because I respect how someone wants to be referred to?0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Because it's not about you!!!
If someone wants to be referred to using gender neutral pronouns, what's it to you? Why would you want to upset them by doing otherwise??
Why are you talking about people being 'fooled'? How am I 'fooled' because I respect how someone wants to be referred to?
What about respecting someone not having to say what they dont believe? Why does this respect only go one way?0 -
Advertisement
-
CtevenSrowder wrote: »What about respecting someone not having to say what they dont believe? Why does this respect only go one way?
Because tbh it's a kn0bby thing to do.
You telling someone who identifies as non-binary that you don't recognise it and refuse to address them by their preferred pronoun is rude and disrespectful.
You don't have to agree with someone's choice to treat them with respect and respect how they wish to be addressed. It's just a normal thing which decent human beings do.
I know some of the older relatives in my family would have very conservative views on things like gay relationships, yet they attended my cousin's wedding to another woman, because it was her day, not theirs. They didn't have to agree with her choice to wish her well and be kind and respectful.
How is this any different?0 -
Have a look at this study by Microsoft - called "Why Europe's girls aren't studying STEM" (Ireland was part of the 12 countries included); Quote:
<< For the first time we can say decisively that most young European women become attracted to science, technology, engineering and maths between the ages of 11 and 12. But that interest then drops of significantly between 15 and 16, with limited recovery.
When I think back to my own education, I really enjoyed Science up to Junior Cert level. The curriculum was broad and fairly basic and the practical elements were quite fun. When it came to making my leaving cert choices I took Biology as I generally disliked maths but wanted to keep my CAO options open by doing a science subject so Biology looks like the best of a bad bunch of options compared to Chemistry and Physics. I really struggled with LC biology as the course became very dense with lots of rote learning and quite frankly I just didn’t have much of an interest in this area.
Conversely, I excelled at subjects like English and History because I loved to read and write and I have a genuine interest in Irish and European history and English literature.
Unsurprisingly I got a low C in Biology, dropped higher level maths altogether and got A’s in English, History, Geography etc. Did I like the subjects that I was good at or was I good at the subjects that I liked? I don’t feel like I was pushed or encouraged in one direction or another - I just enjoyed some classes more than others.
As a male, this sequence of events outlined above does not garner any attention. If however, I was female, it would be used as evidence of some kind of systemic bias or conspiracy to keep the girls in the home ec kitchen baking scones while the men get the real education.
While I certainly think we need to make sure that kids are given an open field, I get the impression that certain elements in society have decided on behalf of young girls what the “right” choices are academically. There are ramifications for those people who take on subjects/3rd level courses in which they have little interest or natural aptitude based on social conditioning.
It reminds me of lots of people I knew in college who were shoehorned into law/accounting/medicine by overbearing parents and how miserable they were. They would have been far happier doing something else (possibly even something non-academic) but mummy and daddy knew best what the “right choice” was.
IMO, just leave kids the fcuk alone and let the chips fall where they may.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Because tbh it's a kn0bby thing to do.
You telling someone who identifies as non-binary that you don't recognise it and refuse to address them by their preferred pronoun is rude and disrespectful.
You don't have to agree with someone's choice to treat them with respect and respect how they wish to be addressed. It's just a normal thing which decent human beings do.
I know some of the older relatives in my family would have very conservative views on things like gay relationships, yet they attended my cousin's wedding to another woman, because it was her day, not theirs. They didn't have to agree with her choice to wish her well and be kind and respectful.
How is this any different?
It's a knobby thing to make people state things they don't believe. So I ask again, where is the respect for such people, or does the respect only go one way?0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Unconscious bias training is pretty standard in lots of workplaces and is not about 'gender wars'. It also applies to race, class, pretty much anything. It literally is just about people being conscious of the fact that people often hire people like themselves without realising...the clue is in the name.
Hardly. It's about giving those with an agenda, the excuse to persecute those who don't agree with their perception. An unconscious bias says that the person is unaware of the bias, and unless they agree with others pushing the agenda, then they're being unhelpful and discriminatory. It's worse than thought policing, and should be shut down quickly.
It's only common in companies which have embraced the "woke" culture. Companies with an ounce of sense about equality, and encouraging a relaxed working environment have zero interest in adopting it.My company have run these before - both men and women have run them.
You make the point that both men and women have done the classes/mentoring etc with regards to the topic, but that's hardly an amazing proof of it's validity. There are plenty of males who have become feminists even though their actions seek to marginalise their own gender within many areas of society and the workplace. There's no shortage of fools who think such things will boost their career, or get them other benefits, without facing any consequences later down the line.0 -
Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »Oh, I'd agree with that entirely. And I'm not saying that girls can't do computer science, or anything like that. But I think it's increasingly obvious that natural proclivities toward math, engineering, and technology are not evenly distributed between the genders. Because of this, all things being equal, fewer women than men will choose tech careers.
I'd counter with the idea that there are natural proclivities towards those areas, because of their personality, and the influence of external inputs such as teachers encouragement, awareness of options, or the direction of the schools themselves.
Fewer women will choose tech careers because they have less interest in them. Not that they don't have the ability to learn, and compete with males. There are other careers that they will find more attractive for a life long career. Females tend to pick a career and stick with it long term, whereas males will often jump across different career tracks until they settle on something in particular.The current (ideological) position is that if women comprise less than 50 percent of the workforce in a sector, it's because of discrimination and/or cultural reasons. We need to look at women's actual choices and the reasons why they prefer some careers over others — which may be for multiple reasons, but natural proclivity is one of them.
And I'd agree with that last paragraph completely.
0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »How is this any different?
Because they were not forced to go to the wedding on threat of losing their job, thats why its different0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »Because they were not forced to go to the wedding on threat of losing their job, thats why its different
They also don't have to acknowledge and smile happily at the relationship five days a week, for at least 8 hours a day.0 -
I, for one, refuse to acknowledge the married names of any of my co-workers. They were born with their maiden name and its only self indulgent bullsh1t, political correctness gone mad that forces me to change how i refer to them now. Just because they got married.
Obviously, I'm going to call them their married name publicly in case HR get on my back, but deep down I don't believe it. Sick of this SJW crap.0 -
There's a direct connection between your involvement with such courses and your productivity as an employee: wasting company time and money on feminist agenda pushing is not in the interest of the organisation you work for. I take it by the fact that you didn't bother to mention your interest in such things during the interview or on your CV that you know this yourself?lainey_d_123 wrote: »You are trying to say that there is some connection between me running these courses at work and not getting jobs because the interviewers somehow think I'm a 'gender warrior' or a 'feminist' when I mentioned nothing of the sort either in the interview or on my CV? I go to interviews and talk about my skills like anyone else does.If you stand by your views, why would you be afraid of people offline knowing about them? Would you say out loud in your office, with women in it, what you wrote here? Something tells me you wouldn't.
At least the Google memo guy owned his bigoted views.
My personally held views are not those of the organisation I work for. That said, as we're an SME, we don't waste money on a HR department. We hire the best people we can find / afford and live by the maxim that "culture eats strategy for breakfast". We treat each other with respect and get on with the job at hand without worrying about virtue signalling or pushing our political agendas on one another.
While it hasn't raised it's head internally, we do have some clients who are trans and would only hire those mannerly enough to use their correct pronouns. Should we employ/do business with a non-binary person I'd assume we'd be the same and TBH, for those who have an issue with referring to someone as Ze or Zem (which tbh, have always sounded ridiculous to my ears) it's pretty easily avoided anyway: you can just refer to people by their name.
Incidentally, looking at my colleagues, I'd wager we're more diverse than most SMEs with a good mix of gender, race, nationality, religion, politics and age. I suspect we have a bit of a bias in our recruiting of interns (not something I'm involved in myself) that favours women as we seem to have quite consistently hired a 50:50 gender split over the past few years despite the make up of the courses we recruit from being rather more male dominated. As I said, I'm not involved in this and it's quite possible that the best grads we can attract have naturally been this way (2 interns per year over the last 5 years is a pretty small sample size).
When you operate a business on the basis of hiring the best people you can, diversity happens naturally. When you force it with quotas or recruitment based on the politics of the HR department, you build resentment and develop a culture where the "diversity hires" are on the back foot from their first day in the job.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I'd counter with the idea that there are natural proclivities towards those areas, because of their personality, and the influence of external inputs such as teachers encouragement, awareness of options, or the direction of the schools themselves.
The latest science does point to hardwired sex differences in natural proclivity, which are then reflected culturally, down to the aisles of Smyths toy shop. The "Are the differences natural or are they cultural?" debate is misleading; in truth, it's a bit of both.
Of course, this doesn't mean women can't be attracted to STEM careers, or that all men have a natural proclivity for those fields. Many women are talented at STEM, while many men struggle with basic arithmetic. The differences do mean, though, that the proportions of men and women who end up in STEM careers will inevitably be different.
Feminists have staked their position on the ideological and unscientific insistence that men's and women's brains are 100 percent identical — and therefore, any disparity in outcomes, such as women earning just 18 percent of computer science degrees, must be caused by discrimination or cultural bias. No other explanation will suffice.
In reality, given a free choice, women tend to choose career paths that involve interacting with and helping others, rather than ones that focus on theoretical ideas or abstract objects. The data above suggest that in a gender-equal society, where girls can choose from a wide variety of school subjects and career options, around 20 to 25 percent of STEM degrees will go to women, and those will be clustered in the life sciences.
The more options available to women, the fewer women will go into STEM.0 -
Advertisement
-
Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »The latest science does point to hardwired sex differences in natural proclivity, which are then reflected culturally, down to the aisles of Smyths toy shop. The "Are the differences natural or are they cultural?" debate is misleading; in truth, it's a bit of both.
The latest science points to both theories... I posted links prior to your own contribution discussing this very subject, except that they point to the effect of culture and experience rather than natural hardwiring.Of course, this doesn't mean women can't be attracted to STEM careers, or that all men have a natural proclivity for those fields. Many women are talented at STEM, while many men struggle with basic arithmetic. The differences do mean, though, that the proportions of men and women who end up in STEM careers will inevitably be different.
Feminists have staked their position on the ideological and unscientific insistence that men's and women's brains are 100 percent identical — and therefore, any disparity in outcomes, such as women earning just 18 percent of computer science degrees, must be caused by discrimination or cultural bias. No other explanation will suffice.
In reality, given a free choice, women tend to choose career paths that involve interacting with and helping others, rather than ones that focus on theoretical ideas or abstract objects. The data above suggest that in a gender-equal society, where girls can choose from a wide variety of school subjects and career options, around 20 to 25 percent of STEM degrees will go to women, and those will be clustered in the life sciences.
The more options available to women, the fewer women will go into STEM.
Which I have no issue with. I'm not a supporter of this desire for equal representation in select industries which Feminists tend to want. If women want to enter Psychology (which has become rather female heavy in recent years), as opposed to STEM, then I have no objection. Just as I don't feel there's a need to push males into nursing to bring about parity of the genders. Allow people to choose for themselves where they want to apply their time and talents.
Feminism is full of double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to discrimination and it's stance on gender equality, not that it's actually seeking equality regardless of the claims otherwise. It wants women in positions of authority so that males can be pushed downward in the food chain. Feminism is no longer about gaining equality, but rather to set up women to be in positions to punish males for discrimination that none of them were responsible for.0 -
When you operate a business on the basis of hiring the best people you can, diversity happens naturally. When you force it with quotas or recruitment based on the politics of the HR department, you build resentment and develop a culture where the "diversity hires" are on the back foot from their first day in the job.
The thing I find interesting from a personal pov is that in over 2 decades of working, I have encountered a grand total of two Trans people. Neither cared how they were addressed, and didn't push anyone to change the manner of their speech. They were more interested in the work they were involved in... Respect as an employee (regardless of gender) was the aim. Outside of work, I've encountered perhaps another three Trans people. That's a grand total of five Trans people in 40 years, and I live in Asia, where the numbers of Trans are much higher compared to Europe.
I find that it's people who are not trans (Feminists, SJWs, etc) who are pushing so hard for people to accept and change the manner of their speech.. and it's for the people who want to be gender fluid without committing to a trans procedure... or those who want to persecute those who don't fall into line with their personal crusade.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The thing I find interesting from a personal pov is that in over 2 decades of working, I have encountered a grand total of two Trans people.
I've never encountered a trans person in the workplace.
I've seen estimates that trans people account for 0.3 percent of the US population, or about 3 people in every 1,000. Given this relatively small figure, this issue of preferred pronouns has generated a disproportionate fuss.0 -
The particular client I'm thinking of lives and works in the UK and while presenting as a female, was quite obviously born male (she still has a visible adams apple for example). Being normal people we simply refer to her by the name she gave us and used the appropriate pronouns for her forename. It doesn't require anyone to undergo diversity training or whatever other crap a HR Dept might come up with. It just requires that you realise you're representing your company in your dealings with this person and not being (or hiring) an asshole.Deleted User wrote: »The thing I find interesting from a personal pov is that in over 2 decades of working, I have encountered a grand total of two Trans people. Neither cared how they were addressed, and didn't push anyone to change the manner of their speech. They were more interested in the work they were involved in... Respect as an employee (regardless of gender) was the aim. Outside of work, I've encountered perhaps another three Trans people. That's a grand total of five Trans people in 40 years, and I live in Asia, where the numbers of Trans are much higher compared to Europe.0 -
The particular client I'm thinking of lives and works in the UK and while presenting as a female, was quite obviously born male (she still has a visible adams apple for example). Being normal people we simply refer to her by the name she gave us and used the appropriate pronouns for her forename. It doesn't require anyone to undergo diversity training or whatever other crap a HR Dept might come up with. It just requires that you realise you're representing your company in your dealings with this person and not being (or hiring) an asshole.
I can certainly understand that, and the manner in which you communicate with him/her. I just find that the SJW's want everyone to jump through so many hoops, and almost learn a whole new range of confusing vocabulary in order to be 'polite' to someone. All this CIS, binary, non binary, err... tbh, I've avoided it like the plague because I find it to be ridiculous. I've no issue with calling someone Mr/Mrs/MS, but I know I'm going to make regular mistakes with him/her/it/them etc, and the movement to change the manner in which we address people, isn't particularly tolerant. I've been hearing some horror stories from friends who still work as managers in multinationals... especially in some workplace environments where HR has been let loose to enforce it.
Where the intent is to offend... then, I can certainly understand the outrage. That's the same in any situation where someone is being an asshole. Although I do think people should have a thicker skin with such things. God knows, I've been on the receiving end of nasty remarks because of my shaking disorder, and few (if any) people take any high moral ground on my behalf. Not that I really expect them to, and I would just consider it part of being different... I'm part of a slightly greater minority than trans, but still one that is very obvious to the eye.
However, I know that both myself and others will make slips unintentionally, and that will be taken as an unconscious bias, which in turn, will be used for grounds of discrimination or some other offense. Just as some people unintentionally make remarks about my shakes... it's obvious that it's an oops moment, and should be forgiven as such, rather than expect everyone to re-calibrate themselves entirely for such a small number of people.0 -
Sad that this thread has 10 pages debating gender bias. There is prima facie evidence of gender bias which should be tackled head on with the institutions involved.
This thread should focus on women-only professorships which I believe is an utterly misguided response. It will benefit only a few women insiders and create negative effects for academics and students.0 -
negative effects for academics and students.
This.
Everytime I see a woman in any kind of powerful role, my first thought is weather she was put there or weather she earned her place. I know myself there are no barriers to women. I would be fuming with all this infantalizing of women if I was female.0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »This.
Everytime I see a woman in any kind of powerful role, my first thought is weather she was put there or weather she earned her place. I know myself there are no barriers to women. I would be fuming with all this infantalizing of women if I was female.
Ha! I do this aswell, and I really shouldn't. Chances are the woman is there because she deserves to be. I think most people believe quotas, diversity training and female-only whatever are as much nonsense as I do, and hire based the individuals ability to do the job.
It's unfair to the woman in question.0 -
Sad that this thread has 10 pages debating gender bias. There is prima facie evidence of gender bias which should be tackled head on with the institutions involved.
Except that it's not being tackled, because females are being boosted in almost every aspect of our societies. That's pure gender bias. You don't tackle gender bias by encouraging other biases to become supreme.
Gender bias can only be resolved as society develops over time. We've seen males become less sexist over the last 40 years to the point where most males believe in actual equality in terms of employment and intellectual pursuits.
There is still the belief in a difference in the genders due to biological imperatives, but, to be fair that's reinforced every time women talk about being the only ones who can bear children, and using that to score points.
However, society has moved far from the periods where women were cossetted and kept within the prison of motherhood or marriage. They have equal rights both culturally and legally. It just takes time for the diehards to, well, die, and for newer generations to process the changes... but feminists can't wait for that to happen because they don't want equality. Which is why gender bias only is promoted as a male sin.. rather than a female one. Female gender bias is downplayed as a negative.This thread should focus on women-only professorships which I believe is an utterly misguided response. It will benefit only a few women insiders and create negative effects for academics and students.
Well... it really depends on how it's implemented and how these women are chosen. If they're chosen for their actual skills, then it shouldn't be an issue.
However, this is a political move, so I genuinely doubt that will happen. Instead, the women chosen will be advocates of a particular agenda, have less than useful educational skills, or will have some degree of favors owed to them through family/political connections. To be honest, I'm more worried that this is a move to replicate the situation in the US universities, by establishing a feminist/SJW/Woke core...Kidchameleon wrote: »This.
Everytime I see a woman in any kind of powerful role, my first thought is weather she was put there or weather she earned her place. I know myself there are no barriers to women. I would be fuming with all this infantalizing of women if I was female.
I don't... but then I was raised around women who sought to be the best they could be. My mother was a principal, my aunt a head nurse, my other aunt director of a college department. I have a variety of cousins who created their own successful businesses. They all worked in the 70s/80s and managed to become successful at a time when equality was just being brought in.. and I never hear them complaining about discrimination by men. Whenever it comes up in conversation, they'll talk about how individuals from both genders created obstacles to their advancement, and that they overcame them.
It's generally easy to see if a female worked to achieve her own position of authority. You can see it in the way they do or manage their work. They're also rarely feminists, and more likely to be egalitarian in their views....0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »The thing I find interesting from a personal pov is that in over 2 decades of working, I have encountered a grand total of two Trans people. Neither cared how they were addressed, and didn't push anyone to change the manner of their speech. They were more interested in the work they were involved in... Respect as an employee (regardless of gender) was the aim. Outside of work, I've encountered perhaps another three Trans people. That's a grand total of five Trans people in 40 years, and I live in Asia, where the numbers of Trans are much higher compared to Europe.
I find that it's people who are not trans (Feminists, SJWs, etc) who are pushing so hard for people to accept and change the manner of their speech.. and it's for the people who want to be gender fluid without committing to a trans procedure... or those who want to persecute those who don't fall into line with their personal crusade.
I find the whole announcing pronouns things so weird. If someone asked me my preference, I’d be like “I/me” and “You” I guess? And there’d be an attendant bemused expression. If pressed further and asked what pronouns should used to refer to me in the third person, I’d quite honestly respond “I don’t care”. And that would be the truth. Refer to me however you want when I’m not there She/her/yer wan/that wagon - seriously, whatever. I don’t care.
Trying to get people to inorganically change their speech and language is just getting people’s backs up. Language does evolve but it’s a slow process. And thankfully it’s never happened to me but I’ve heard of people being asked to announce their pronouns, say when introducing themselves. I don’t think anyone should feel obliged to have to do that.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement