Women Only Professorships

sportsfan90

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I would definitely be in favour of more men applying for and getting roles in things like primary education (both actually working as primary teachers and lecturing on university level teaching courses) and would support such measures to encourage men to apply.

Lainey, I notice you stopped short of saying exactly what measures you'd be in favour of in encouraging men into those teaching roles you mentioned.

Would you support legislation which prevented young women graduates from from applying from teaching positions so that the men could be given preferential treatment and things could be evened up?

If so, then that's fair enough. We can disagree with you but at least you'd be consistent.

Huntergonzo

It's outrageous sexism and we would recognize that immediately if there were male only jobs advertised. It flies completely in the face of a meritocracy.

Now will it effect me directly? No because quite honestly I'm not qualified to be a professor.

Will it effect me and other men indirectly? Very possibly yes, it sets a very dangerous precedent and if people don't recognize the danger early then they could be in trouble!

Finally, one way to beat the loony left though is to play them at their own game. In the mad world they wish to create, people can seemingly chose their gender at will (if indeed they even want to have a gender at all).

So if a man wishes to apply for women only jobs, just identify as a woman and apply, they can't discriminate against you if you are a 'woman'.

Their rules, not ours :-)

lainey_d_123

sportsfan90 wrote: »

Lainey, I notice you stopped short of saying exactly what measures you'd be in favour of in encouraging men into those teaching roles you mentioned.

Would you support legislation which prevented young women graduates from from applying from teaching positions so that the men could be given preferential treatment and things could be evened up?

If so, then that's fair enough. We can disagree with you but at least you'd be consistent.

Would I support a tiny fraction of the positions being reserved for men only (like this scheme)? When that would still leave a gender balance far, far off anywhere near being 50/50?

Sure, why wouldn't I?

suicide_circus

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-outperform-boys-in-majority-of-leaving-cert-subjects-1.3598751

we'll probably need to put a handicap on the girl's leaving cert points

Rodin

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

Didn't see this posted on here over the last few days:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/twenty-women-only-professorships-to-be-established-this-year-1.4128975

20 new women only professorships will be created in the coming academic year and 45 new women only professorships over the next 3 years to address gender imbalance in third level education.

This confuses me as firstly I thought equality legislation was brought in with the purpose of stopping discriminatory job allocations based on among other things, gender. The government and universities are now ignoring that legislation and discriminating when hiring for these new positions because only women will be considered.

Secondly, I get that if there's a pay issue it needs to be fixed, if there's issues with hiring they need to be fixed or lack of women going into certain fields. So we have laws discriminatory job hiring and compensation and campaigns to promote different career paths to kids to open up options they might not of otherwise taken. Addressing issues at the root etc.

But is it really an issue that there's more male professors in a college department? Surely their primary role is education in their field and if more males graduate in that field there's going to be more male applicants for positions. Why is there a requirement to have "representation" to the point that equality laws can be broken to fast track people into professorships for the sole purpose of increasing the numbers of that gender in a department?

Sexism.
No other word for it.

Deciding who can apply for a job based on gender is wrong. End of.

But I'm forgetting that sexism is now defined as when a woman gets discriminated against because of her gender. Men's rights don't matter.

Rodin

touts wrote: »

Mary Mitchell O’Connor throws something like this into the public discussion every now and then to keep her name in the public eye. She is an irrelevant politician in an irrelevant role but refuses to accept that so she has to do something controversial every now and then to elbow her way onto page 2 of the national newspapers. This announcement will never be implemented as the people she expects to implement it will be terrified of being sued. They will just sit on their hands until she is booted out in a few weeks at the election.

Is she the one who thought she could drive down steps?

Dravokivich

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There are plenty of initiatives globally for more men to consider primary education, actually.

The thing is that most men aren't clamouring to be able to do the traditionally 'female' jobs like cleaning, childminding, nursing, etc., you know the ones which are generally horrible jobs with awful pay. Funny that.

Most of the cleaners un Heuston station are men. I've usually only seen male cleaners in gyms too.

Caquas

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-outperform-boys-in-majority-of-leaving-cert-subjects-1.3598751

we'll probably need to put a handicap on the girl's leaving cert points

Not to change the subject but the Leaving Cert has become a national disgrace. There is a major industry of grind schools here based on students learning answers off by heart but no-one ever lose marks for plagiarism in the Leaving Cert. The examiners are in on the game - they give top marks to all the students who regurgitate the identical essays. This farce is somewhat less detrimental to young women who tend to be more willing to play the game (but higher maths is less susceptible to plagiarism).

Gender studies is based on the premise that whenever women do better than men, that is due to women’s superiority. Why do women live longer? Why are so few women in jail? Why do women get lower car insurance? When the boot is on the other foot, then we’re victim-blaming.

Dare I suggest that women academics are disadvantaged because they produce less of the peer-reviewed research which should be essential for promotion to the highest academic posts?

http://http://theconversation.com/perish-not-publish-new-study-quantifies-the-lack-of-female-authors-in-scientific-journals-92999

Huntergonzo

Rodin wrote: »

Sexism.
No other word for it.

Deciding who can apply for a job based on gender is wrong. End of.

But I'm forgetting that sexism is now defined as when a woman gets discriminated against because of her gender. Men's rights don't matter.

Also why do the media only seem to focus on 'gender'.

How many black professors are there?

Do we need another 20 black only professor roles to make this fair? Why are women getting preference over people of other races, isn't that racist?

suicide_circus

Caquas wrote: »

Not to change the subject but the Leaving Cert is a national disgrace. There is a major industry of grind schools here based on students learning answers off by heart but no-one ever lose marks for plagiarism in the Leaving Cert.

Probably not unrelated to the fact that Irish universities are plummeting down the international rankings. I have previously helped someone in college by writing an essay for them while we were skulling cans and watching the euros. It was pure waffle, much of it made no sense. It got 75%.

Eric Cartman

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Also why do the media only seem to focus on 'gender'.

How many black professors are there?

Do we need another 20 black only professor roles to make this fair? Why are women getting preference over people of other races, isn't that racist?

Women have been out-graduating men for a decade in college now , theres lots of very highly educated women with academic qualifications out the hole they can pull from.

there is no such pool of minority canidates yet, give it a decade and we'll have them come back around for that PR stunt.

sportsfan90

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So if a man wishes to apply for women only jobs, just identify as a woman and apply, they can't discriminate against you if you are a 'woman'.

Nope, this question was asked this morning on Radio 1 and it was confirmed that the person will only be allowed apply if they have fully transitioned to a woman.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor will personally examine your genitalia to ensure you're not taking the piss and have in fact transitioned to a woman. (I may have made this last part up).

Huntergonzo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Women have been out-graduating men for a decade in college now , theres lots of very highly educated women with academic qualifications out the hole they can pull from.

there is no such pool of minority canidates yet, give it a decade and we'll have them come back around for that PR stunt.

Oh I know, it's intereating how the media is stone cold obsessed with so called 'gender equality' these days. Sexism is a market exclusively corned by women at the minute, it must be big business!!

I think just all this gender stuff is complete bs, we've never lived in a time of greater gender equality and yet we still hear all these myths about how women are kept down.

Thing is though it doesn't add up when take stock. In my office there very much is a gender imbalance.....in favour of women, particularily in the more senior roles. Now they're my friends and colleagues and I don't spite them one bit, they've been part of the organisation for longer than me and worked their way up, so more power to them.

I just hope I get the same opportunity as my female colleagues with the same experience as me to move up. But with the current climate and drive to promote women only, I fear for my future and you should never feel that way in your career.

Huntergonzo

sportsfan90 wrote: »

Nope, this question was asked this morning on Radio 1 and it was confirmed that the person will only be allowed apply if they have fully transitioned to a woman.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor will personally examine your genitalia to ensure you're not taking the piss and have in fact transitioned to a woman. (I may have made this last part up).

Haha maybe you did but I wouldn't be surpised if she was there to inspect!

Well anyway, that's discrimination against trans people so, Mary Mitchell O'Connor's position is no longer tenable if she stands behind it!

CageWager

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Also why do the media only seem to focus on 'gender'.

How many black professors are there?

Do we need another 20 black only professor roles to make this fair? Why are women getting preference over people of other races, isn't that racist?

1.4% of the population are Black (2016 Census) so very small pool of potential candidates. Women making up 50% of the population would expect to be reasonably represented in various positions of power but there seems to be a massive focus on pushing this agenda on high status, high paying roles while not worrying to much about levelling out the playing field for low paid men. Remember, a very tiny proportion of men hold high status, high paid positions. Most men are slogging away in less than fulfilling roles to put food of the table for their families.

Doc07

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-outperform-boys-in-majority-of-leaving-cert-subjects-1.3598751

we'll probably need to put a handicap on the girl's leaving cert points

You’re closer to the truth than you might realise. Checkout the HPAT for entry into medicine...’allegedly’ introduced to help balance up the hammering boys were getting from girls in the LC. It eventually backfired anyway as girls learned how to study and practice for it....and resumed hammering the boys.

Snickers Man

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There are plenty of initiatives globally for more men to consider primary education, actually.

The thing is that most men aren't clamouring to be able to do the traditionally 'female' jobs

I don't know how old you are, Madam/Miss/Ms but when I was in national school (1960s/1970s) in the heart of Dublin City EVERY one of the teachers there and then was a man.

I regularly have to revisit my old school because it is my local polling station for elections/referendums and nowadays it is a lot more gaily (in the original sense of the term) decorated, children's drawings on the walls and doors of the classrooms (it is an all boys school) and the teachers' names inscribed there too. It has a much more feminine atmosphere.

Hardly surprisingly because the names on the doors reveal that ALL the teachers in the same school today are women.

"Traditionally" it was a man's job.

If you go back far enough.

Stheno

CageWager wrote: »

1.4% of the population are Black (2016 Census) so very small pool of potential candidates. Women making up 50% of the population would expect to be reasonably represented in various positions of power but there seems to be a massive focus on pushing this agenda on high status, high paying roles while not worrying to much about levelling out the playing field for low paid men. Remember, a very tiny proportion of men hold high status, high paid positions. Most men are slogging away in less than fulfilling roles to put food of the table for their families.

I think the aim is to increase the amount of women in those high status roles as in some areas those roles are dominated by men. Imo it's a very crude approach to achieve a change in statistics in a short time

There are broader issue in the likes of STEM which need to be addressed to increase the participation of women first off.

When I was in school in the 80s my career guidance teacher encouraged me to study engineering.

I didn't but ended up in IT

Two years ago I contacted my former school and asked if they were interested in my participating in their careers day to talk about working in IT

They never got back

Huntergonzo

CageWager wrote: »

1.4% of the population are Black (2016 Census) so very small pool of potential candidates. Women making up 50% of the population would expect to be reasonably represented in various positions of power but there seems to be a massive focus on pushing this agenda on high status, high paying roles while not worrying to much about levelling out the playing field for low paid men. Remember, a very tiny proportion of men hold high status, high paid positions. Most men are slogging away in less than fulfilling roles to put food of the table for their families.

This is a very important point and one which I often make when people say things like 'oh well most of the world's billionaires are men'.

Yes this may be true, but there are roughly 3,800,000,000 men in the world and around 2000 of them are billionaires.

So basically if you are a man you have 0.0000005263% chance of being fabulously wealthy. But chances are you are slogging away doing your best to feed your family, like most women are to!

Same goes on a smaller scale, I'd imagine more men than women hold 100k+ a year jobs but like most women, most men don't hold those jobs.

When you listen to the radio though, you'd swear all men were partying like Charlie Sheen on a daily basis while women are out begging and heading for soup kitchens.

It's not the reality folks!

cannotlogin

I work in a largely male environment where I am one of very few women. While I would love if there was greater female representation on the team, things like gender quotas or female only positions annoy me. They will only serve to undermine the credibility of the women who get these positions.

If we look at the facts in my sector, approximately only 20% of all applicants are female, therefore it stands to reasons that approximately 80% of the appointments are male.

I wish the focus was turned towards why women don't apply or don't get the roles rather than setting quotas.

Two of the main things that struck me are (1) women usually only apply for roles they know they can do, whereas men will apply for roles with the confidence that they can close out any skills gaps when in the position, (2) men appear far more confident in interviews and appear more comfortable selling themselves whereas women, in the main, tend to be more modest.

The above views are supported by research in the area also so perhaps the focus should be on further encouragement to apply for roles but not any favourism 're the female appointments.

Equality is about equal opportunity not discrimination for either sex. We also must account for the fact that self selection for a number of roles means that 50/50 participation will never be possible.

I genuinely think that if someone has the right skills for a role they will get it, regardless of what the traditional norms for that industry are.

Stheno

cannotlogin wrote: »

I work in a largely male environment where I am one of very few women. While I would love if there was greater female representation on the time, things like gender quotas or female only positions annoy me. They will onl5 serve to undermine the credibility of the women who get these positions.

If we look at the facts in my sector, approximately only 20% of all applicants are female, therefore it stands to reasons that approximately 80% of the appointments are male.

I wish the focus was turned towards why women don't apply or don't get the roles rather than setting quotas.

Two of the main things that struck me are (1) women usually only apply for roles they know they can do, whereas men will apply for roles with the confident that they can close out and skills gaps when in the position, (2) men appear far more confident in interviews and appear more comfortable selling themselves whereas women, in the main, tend to be more modest.

The above views are supported by research in the area also so perhaps the focus should be on further encouragement to apply for roles but not any favourism 're the female appointments.

Equality is above equal opportunity not discrimination for either sex. We also must account for the fact that self selection for a number of roles means that 50/50 participation will never be possible.

I genuinely thing that if someone has the right skills for a role they will get it, regardless of what the traditional norms for that industry are.

I'd agree with this tbh

AlekSmart

Caquas wrote: »

Not to change the subject but the Leaving Cert has become a national disgrace. There is a major industry of grind schools here based on students learning answers off by heart but no-one ever lose marks for plagiarism in the Leaving Cert. The examiners are in on the game - they give top marks to all the students who regurgitate the identical essays. This farce is somewhat less detrimental to young women who tend to be more willing to play the game (but higher maths is less susceptible to plagiarism).

Gender studies is based on the premise that whenever women do better than men, that is due to women’s superiority. Why do women live longer? Why are so few women in jail? Why do women get lower car insurance? When the boot is on the other foot, then we’re victim-blaming.

Dare I suggest that women academics are disadvantaged because they produce less of the peer-reviewed research which should be essential for promotion to the highest academic posts?

http://http://theconversation.com/perish-not-publish-new-study-quantifies-the-lack-of-female-authors-in-scientific-journals-92999

Some female academic was interviewed on RTE's drivetime last Friday (3rd) and gave a masterful performance of on-message waffling.....covered all the bases until the intrepid Phillip Boucher-Hayes enquired as to how many Female Professors there currently were in Irish Academia.....

Just the sort of simple question that has,since the dawn of time,exposed many an Emperor without any robes...and yes Virginia...Santa does exist....our intrepid Academic Emperess had'nt a clue...not a breeze...but she ploughed on regardless.

We need 20% more females in these roles...OK sez PBH...how many are there currently.....?

No matter Bosco...If these female Professors can arrest and reverse the downward spiral of Irish 3rd Level faculties in the Worldwide ratings,then I'm all for it...but going on that Drivetime Lady Professor's contribution,I'd be recommending young folks to head for the oul Tech

highwaymaniac

Dancing on Ice is on the telly as I type. 7 men 5 women - get Mary on the case quick! Oh wait..., no one is complaining. What discriminatory cause trumps the other???

Huntergonzo

cannotlogin wrote: »

I work in a largely male environment where I am one of very few women. While I would love if there was greater female representation on the team, things like gender quotas or female only positions annoy me. They will only serve to undermine the credibility of the women who get these positions.

If we look at the facts in my sector, approximately only 20% of all applicants are female, therefore it stands to reasons that approximately 80% of the appointments are male.

I wish the focus was turned towards why women don't apply or don't get the roles rather than setting quotas.

Two of the main things that struck me are (1) women usually only apply for roles they know they can do, whereas men will apply for roles with the confidence that they can close out any skills gaps when in the position, (2) men appear far more confident in interviews and appear more comfortable selling themselves whereas women, in the main, tend to be more modest.

The above views are supported by research in the area also so perhaps the focus should be on further encouragement to apply for roles but not any favourism 're the female appointments.

Equality is about equal opportunity not discrimination for either sex. We also must account for the fact that self selection for a number of roles means that 50/50 participation will never be possible.

I genuinely thing that if someone has the right skills for a role they will get it, regardless of what the traditional norms for that industry are.

I think it's just down to freedom on choice and the way we are wired generally. I don't think we need to put too much focus on why women don't apply for particular jobs any more than we need to do the same for men.

For example more women are primary teachers than men, whereas more men tend to go for engineering jobs than women. I don't think there's a huge problem with that so long as there's complete freedom of choice and I believe these days freedom of choice is alive and well.

Just on interviews and applying for jobs, with men being more confident and women going only for jobs they know, perhaps this is true generally speaking but I would call it into question.

Where I work (which is probably 70-30 in favour of women), I know plenty of women who basically winged the interview and landed the job.

I mean they're my colleagues and some of them are mates and they're good characters to be honest, I can easily see why an interviewer would fall for their sales person like charm!

Lads get just as nervous heading into job interviews, trust me and I'm one of the more calm ones, but I'm not the Wolf of Wall Street rocking in there to land the role no bother, job interviews are no joke for either gender.

Gynoid

cannotlogin wrote: »

I work in a largely male environment where I am one of very few women. While I would love if there was greater female representation on the team, things like gender quotas or female only positions annoy me. They will only serve to undermine the credibility of the women who get these positions.

If we look at the facts in my sector, approximately only 20% of all applicants are female, therefore it stands to reasons that approximately 80% of the appointments are male.

I wish the focus was turned towards why women don't apply or don't get the roles rather than setting quotas.

Two of the main things that struck me are (1) women usually only apply for roles they know they can do, whereas men will apply for roles with the confidence that they can close out any skills gaps when in the position, (2) men appear far more confident in interviews and appear more comfortable selling themselves whereas women, in the main, tend to be more modest.

The above views are supported by research in the area also so perhaps the focus should be on further encouragement to apply for roles but not any favourism 're the female appointments.

Equality is about equal opportunity not discrimination for either sex. We also must account for the fact that self selection for a number of roles means that 50/50 participation will never be possible.

I genuinely thing that if someone has the right skills for a role they will get it, regardless of what the traditional norms for that industry are.

I agree with the majority of this.
As to why, maybe a fair amount of women dont want some of the roles? Working heavy schedules does not suit everyone, especially if you have pursuits outside of work. Maybe people choose to go to the place where they have the income they want without the horrid stress?

Out of interest I looked at an IMO position paper on women in medicine from 2017. Most medical graduates are women (2/3rds about) in this high status field, even most doctors are now women.
But looking at the specialist areas is very interesting. Many areas are in or around half half, but when it gets to intensively communication centred areas like psychiatry, development, paediatrics, elder care, the balance sways towards quite noticeably female doctors. And when it comes to things like general surgery, neurosurgery, cardio surgery, paediatric surgery, the more mechanical centred and intensively stressful parts of medicine, the percentages if female doctors drops waaaay down, often below 10%.
Even though both came through the same colleges, had similar intellectual capacity and opportunity.
Maybe men and women are different. Maybe that is just fine. Maybe ideologically driven social engineering is not advantageous.

Stheno

Gynoid wrote: »

I agree with the majority of this.
As to why, maybe a fair amount of women dont want some of the roles? Working heavy schedules does not suit everyone, especially if you have pursuits outside of work. Maybe people choose to go to the place where they have the income they want without the horrid stress?

Out of interest I looked at an IMO position paper on women in medicine from 2017. Most medical graduates are women (2/3rds about) in this high status field, even most doctors are now women.
But looking at the specialist areas is very interesting. Many areas are in or around half half, but when it gets to intensively communication centred areas like psychiatry, development, paediatrics, elder care, the balance sways towards quite noticeably female doctors. And when it comes to things like general surgery, neurosurgery, cardio surgery, paediatric surgery, the more mechanical centred and intensively stressful parts of medicine, the percentages if female doctors drops waaaay down, often below 10%.
Even though both came through the same colleges, had similar intellectual capacity and opportunity.
Maybe men and women are different. Maybe that is just fine. Maybe ideologically driven social engineering is not advantageous.

From an IT perspective I'd suggest the same applies. We can have regular situations that involve very long hours, I recently did a stint for 19 hours one day and that doesn't work if you are a primary caregiver

Calhoun

cannotlogin wrote: »

I work in a largely male environment where I am one of very few women. While I would love if there was greater female representation on the team, things like gender quotas or female only positions annoy me. They will only serve to undermine the credibility of the women who get these positions.

If we look at the facts in my sector, approximately only 20% of all applicants are female, therefore it stands to reasons that approximately 80% of the appointments are male.

I wish the focus was turned towards why women don't apply or don't get the roles rather than setting quotas.

Two of the main things that struck me are (1) women usually only apply for roles they know they can do, whereas men will apply for roles with the confidence that they can close out any skills gaps when in the position, (2) men appear far more confident in interviews and appear more comfortable selling themselves whereas women, in the main, tend to be more modest.

The above views are supported by research in the area also so perhaps the focus should be on further encouragement to apply for roles but not any favourism 're the female appointments.

Equality is about equal opportunity not discrimination for either sex. We also must account for the fact that self selection for a number of roles means that 50/50 participation will never be possible.

I genuinely think that if someone has the right skills for a role they will get it, regardless of what the traditional norms for that industry are.

I think mentorship is one of the tools that both men and women need to take the next step forward, it helps give you that confidence you need to take a leap into the unknown even if you feel you aren't qualified.

I work in a business/tech organization and its a mixed bag between men and women who are capable of taking the leap above you describe. The one thing they all have in common though is that they have had a strong and supportive mentor who have taken them under their wing and guided them.

ixoy

Had a chat with some of my female IT colleagues, in their 20s, about this. None of them experienced any sexism in any form in their careers but some of them got grief from other women for trying to pursue an IT career.

None of them want quotas in place because it would undermine their achievements in getting were they are (by being damn good at their jobs). Like others here, they all believe the best way is to encourage women by talking about careers and not blatant bribery. How do you make young women look at these potential careers and make them interesting to them.

mistersifter

This constant 'genderizing' of every single issue is ridiculous politically correct nonsense.

If universities want to address problems with their approach to employment, they would be better off looking at their rampant exploitation of both women and men. Third level institutions are highly dependent on thousands of workers who are without the most basic of employment rights. Meanwhile, a minority at the top ride the gravy train with enormous salaries and many of these do SFA because they know there is little or no accountability.

Permanent contracts are nigh on impossible to come by these days so when they do appear and 50% of the population is prohibited from applying, it's pretty twisted.

What's next ? Posts only for trans people? Make it about race? Travelers? Where does this nonsense stop? Fine if they want to encourage a more diverse range of people to apply and attend interviews but forcing outcomes is plain wrong.

A really serious shake up in Irish universities is needed. Forcing women into a few lecturing posts is distracting from some real issues that need to be addressed.

Ardent

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

There were more women programmers in the 80s than there are today.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. I work in IT and the opposite is the case IMO.

Do you have figures to back up your claim?