Women Only Professorships

CageWager

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I was offered multiple positions, accepted the best one and have been promoted since.

So you interviewed for multiple jobs and received multiple offers and subsequently received a promotion but yet you argue that women don’t receive job offers and promotions???

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote:

I understand that men feel hard done by by initiatives which encourage hiring women but honestly...it doesn't even begin to make up for the years of disadvantage women have faced in STEM fields.

I wanted to start with this last point of yours. I'm curious...

First. Why should men today, who are in no way responsible for any discrimination that happened previously, nor were in a position to affect such discrimination, be discriminated against? After all, job placements are limited in many fields due to supply/demand so, why should women be given priority over them?

Secondly, at what time (in the future I assume) will men stop being blamed for past discrimination?

Third, when will women be blamed in equal measure as men for such discrimination, since in many cases where women did achieve positions of authority, they reinforced the established preference of males over females?

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

As I've said all along, this isn't conscious discrimination. I wouldn't work with people like that. It's unconscious bias, and we're working on addressing it.

Subconscious gender bias in hiring is a throwback to less enlightened times, and modern social conditioning over three decades has mostly removed it as a definitive factor, except in industries which are predominately one gender. Along with anti-discrimination laws in the workplace to bracket hiring practices. However, this is brought up time and time again. When will it stop being applied to industries that have a wider range of genders?

Take Business for example. The gender ratio is far more balanced at the lower end of the salary scale. Equal representation exists there, but this unconscious gender bias is constantly brought up to suggest sexism by male managers. It's rarely, if ever, applied to female managers. In fact, generally, it's assumed that all managers are male... and the females are not responsible in the slightest for the hiring or promotions practices of the industry.

Wouldn't you consider this to be rather.... biased? And an inaccurate interpretation of the status of gender in employment?

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. I think it's a shame that men are put off such jobs because of the perception that they aren't the right gender for the role or unconscious bias leading them not to be selected in cases where they were the most qualified candidate for the role.

Men are put off primary school teaching for two main reasons. First, was the salary, and benefits. There were previously many males in primary school education, but the pay cuts encouraged them out of the profession... with the increase in pay, there are more males returning but most have found better incomes doing other work.

The second, and more importantly, was the shift to believe men to be potential sexual predators. The danger of being accused of inappropriate behavior scared away many males from the job. Nothing to do with any gender perception that it was unsuitable work.

And being a teacher, I can say that it's not a unconscious bias, but a very real and open bias by school boards to seek female teachers for primary education. I should know. I applied for primary teaching jobs after I got certified... and was told politely that I should consider secondary education instead. My mother is a primary school principal, and she's said the same thing. The vast majority of parents don't want male teachers in such a role. Just as they don't want men teaching kindergarten, which again, I'm qualified for, but it's near impossible to gain such positions in Ireland.. not an unconscious bias, but a very real hiring practice. Good luck anyone changing it though because too many different parties want it to be that way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Separate to your post.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

As regards third level education, I thought back to my lecturers in University. Slightly more males than females. All the female lecturers taught communications, HRM, advertising, etc. The males taught financial management, Business admin, and accounting was an equal mix. I do wonder at this gender disparity that is supposedly around, and whether it's being considered equally about different disciplines. Or whether it's simply taking all University professors as one lump and determining there's an imbalance.

And is it just about professors? What about those who lecture but aren't professors? I'm a business management lecturer, with an MBA. I don't have a PHD (yet) because there's absolutely no practical use for one in most business fields. There's little real demand from universities for the the lecturer to have one either, with real world business experience being more important... and that's where women tend to lag behind. Few women go from business management in the private sector to lecturing... not because of some bias, or obstacle to them doing so, but because they're either staying as a high paid professional or having a family.

I genuinely do wonder about the logic behind all these gender imbalance claims, and whether there's any consideration to the realities of life. And perhaps more importantly, the choices that people make (or don't actually make) in developing their lives.

Oh, and yes, I do consider this to be institutionalized discrimination, and positive action to be blatant sexism. We have equality laws that provide the opportunity based on skills and education. I don't believe that women need extra benefits beyond that especially when it means blocking men entirely from such positions. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

nkl12xtw5goz70

In a world crying out for skilled IT professionals, many employers don't care if they're interviewing a one-legged trans dwarf. If they have the skills, they'll get a job.

So why are women underrepresented? In the US, for instance, women now earn 58 percent of all college degrees, but just 18 percent of computer science degrees. These stats are mirrored in other Western countries. Feminists would have us believe that this is because of "discrimination," when the reality is that women are voluntarily making different choices in college, earning the vast majority of degrees in nursing, teaching, and psychology, for instance.

In these debates, fields in which the gender imbalance favours men are heavily slated for being unacceptably sexist. Meanwhile, when the gender imbalance favours women, as in primary teaching or nursing, there is no comment around the virtual absence of men.

Around a quarter of primary schools in the UK don't have a single male teacher. If one in four schools didn't have a single female teacher, it would be front-page news, with task forces investigating sexist hiring practices and feminists calling for female role models for girls. When it's the other way around, there is silence.

Day Lewin

Back in the long-ago, when I was doing the Inter Cert (as it was then called) there was a maths syllabus that had an Honours Maths level, like still nowadays I believe, and a Pass Maths course, for girls only.

It was one of the things that made me rage, and made me a back-then feminist when it was neither P nor P, and moreover was almost impossible to get anyone, male or female, interested in.

Professorships "for women only" have a faint whiff of the same. I am reminded. Not impressed.

I'm a post-feminist nowadays.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Day Lewin wrote: »

Back in the long-ago, when I was doing the Inter Cert (as it was then called) there was a maths syllabus that had an Honours Maths level, like still nowadays I believe, and a Pass Maths course, for girls only.

Honours maths and pass maths have always been open to both genders, but the state once ran another Inter Cert course in "elementary maths," aimed at girls who wanted to become primary teachers. Ironically, the aim was to encourage girls into the then–male dominated field of primary teaching.

Girls-only elementary maths was abolished in 1968, so unless you did your Inter Cert more than half a century ago, you're unlikely to have encountered it.

Assetbacked

A lot of female gender-equality types in progressive societies like Ireland tend to not have great relationships with their parents in my experience, which seems to foster a need to rebel even without a cause.

Eric Cartman

Assetbacked wrote: »

A lot of female gender-equality types in progressive societies like Ireland tend to not have great relationships with their parents in my experience, which seems to foster a need to rebel even without a cause.

While not to relevant to this discussion I have to say I agree, I don’t think ive ever met once of these types whose father was present, or if present, sober at the dinner table during their childhood, completely anecdotal but if im not the only one saying it....

Marcos

Arrival wrote: »

There has GOT to be a way we can blame men for this!

Internalised misogyny - there you are job done. It also means of course that nobody can criticise current feminist thought. Men can't obviously because if they do they're all misogynists, so that's no problem. It becomes more difficult when it's women criticising feminism. So now women who disagree with even some aspects of feminism are victims of internalised misogyny i.e. they can't have any thoughts themselves because it's all mens fault.

Of course any similarities with false consciousness in Marxist thought is entirely coincidental. I mean it's not like they just took the catch all term for Socialists who disagreed with whatever form of Socialism / Marxism / Leninism / Stalinism was currently in vogue, or even pointed out difficulties in them; and then applied exactly the same arguments to identity politics and changed the words. :rolleyes:

Ulysses Gaze

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

In a world crying out for skilled IT professionals, many employers don't care if they're interviewing a one-legged trans dwarf. If they have the skills, they'll get a job.

So why are women underrepresented? In the US, for instance, women now earn 58 percent of all college degrees, but just 18 percent of computer science degrees. These stats are mirrored in other Western countries. Feminists would have us believe that this is because of "discrimination," when the reality is that women are voluntarily making different choices in college, earning the vast majority of degrees in nursing, teaching, and psychology, for instance.

In these debates, fields in which the gender imbalance favours men are heavily slated for being unacceptably sexist. Meanwhile, when the gender imbalance favours women, as in primary teaching or nursing, there is no comment around the virtual absence of men.

Around a quarter of primary schools in the UK don't have a single male teacher. If one in four schools didn't have a single female teacher, it would be front-page news, with task forces investigating sexist hiring practices and feminists calling for female role models for girls. When it's the other way around, there is silence.

Because tech is now seen as "sexy" and a number of the world's richest men are young techies. There's money and status in IT too which differs from 25/30 years ago where it was more akin to a Dilbert cartoon. Or at least that was what the perception was.

It's interesting you mention it because not all, but a lot, of the clambering for more women in tech comes from either women who don't work in the field or from women who don't, or have never, worked as programmers but who work in the softer side of Tech (Marketing, Finance, HR etc).

Marcos

highwaymaniac wrote: »

I definitely agree with this, I think we need to forget about the mistakes of previous generations, I would hate to see young men being discriminated against based on the "sins of their fathers"

I would love to think so, but I think things are not going to get better, not if things continue as they are. One example I can give is I know a guy in his early 30's who is a primary school teacher in Dublin. He's well liked and respected by everyone in the school. He was telling me he attended continuing professional development seminar with a number of different primary teachers from different schools. I forget what the training was on, but he disagreed with something and he said so politely. A majority of the female teachers rounded on him accusing him of sexism, misogyny and everything else. It got very heated very quickly and only stopped when female colleagues from his school stepped in to defend him, assuring the room that they worked with him, and that he was exactly the opposite.

highwaymaniac wrote: »

in my opinion significantly less gender and other biases amongst the millennial generation, with the progression of time will the gender equality reach a natural normal equilibrium?

The most vocal of those accusing him were new graduates. So going on that, I'll have to disagree with you there. I can only imagine how they treat male pupils in their care.

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Or could populist decisions like this one by MMoC actually contribute to instilling prejudice where none existed - I certainly think so.

I agree with you there, but my first thought was MMoC doesn't care about that. She only cares about seeming relevant so she can get re-elected. But then I remember that she was a school principal before being voted in. :eek:

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Equality of Opportunity not Equality of Outcome.

That's the way it should be, the best candidates regardless of gender.

Day Lewin

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

Honours maths and pass maths have always been open to both genders, but the state once ran another Inter Cert course in "elementary maths," aimed at girls who wanted to become primary teachers. Ironically, the aim was to encourage girls into the then–male dominated field of primary teaching.

Girls-only elementary maths was abolished in 1968, so unless you did your Inter Cert more than half a century ago, you're unlikely to have encountered it.

Cough, cough...blush...
It's this awesome face cream, I look so much younger than I am, because I'm worth it.

It was described as "Girls only"

No mention of a trade. And I was in a co-ed school.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Because tech is now seen as "sexy" and a number of the world's richest men are young techies. There's money and status in IT too which differs from 25/30 years ago where it was more akin to a Dilbert cartoon. Or at least that was what the perception was.

Women who want money and status seem to be going into law and medicine, so that the majority of young lawyers and doctors are now female. There's nothing to stop women from earning computer science degrees and working in tech, but they're just not making that choice en masse. And I don't buy that it's down to "sexism" or "discrimination."

hatrickpatrick

The fact that women being under-represented in employment in third level education is seen as a discrimination issue for which affirmative action is needed, while women being over-represented in admissions to third level education is seen as a "well girls are just better at school than boys, tough sh!t" says it all. Either both examples of gender imbalance are worthy of affirmative action or neither, it's that simple.

blanch152

Leroy Huge Technologist wrote: »

In a world crying out for skilled IT professionals, many employers don't care if they're interviewing a one-legged trans dwarf. If they have the skills, they'll get a job.

So why are women underrepresented? In the US, for instance, women now earn 58 percent of all college degrees, but just 18 percent of computer science degrees. These stats are mirrored in other Western countries. Feminists would have us believe that this is because of "discrimination," when the reality is that women are voluntarily making different choices in college, earning the vast majority of degrees in nursing, teaching, and psychology, for instance.

In these debates, fields in which the gender imbalance favours men are heavily slated for being unacceptably sexist. Meanwhile, when the gender imbalance favours women, as in primary teaching or nursing, there is no comment around the virtual absence of men.

Around a quarter of primary schools in the UK don't have a single male teacher. If one in four schools didn't have a single female teacher, it would be front-page news, with task forces investigating sexist hiring practices and feminists calling for female role models for girls. When it's the other way around, there is silence.

What is voluntary about taking options pre-determined by cultural pressures? After all, we are told that many women have no problem with FGM and wearing the Sharia. The west is much more enlightened yet some outdated cultural pressures remain intact. They are less visible, can be disguised as voluntary choices, but nevertheless, they are there.

suicide_circus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The fact that women being under-represented in employment in third level education is seen as a discrimination issue for which affirmative action is needed, while women being over-represented in admissions to third level education is seen as a "well girls are just better at school than boys, tough sh!t" says it all. Either both examples of gender imbalance are worthy of affirmative action or neither, it's that simple.

it is an absurdity. i'm embarrassed for anyone who thinks this kind of thing is a good idea.

WrenBoy

blanch152 wrote: »

What is voluntary about taking options pre-determined by cultural pressures? After all, we are told that many women have no problem with FGM and wearing the Sharia. The west is much more enlightened yet some outdated cultural pressures remain intact. They are less visible, can be disguised as voluntary choices, but nevertheless, they are there.

Sharia is the system of law prescribed by Islam not a garment, can I get an example of the pressures being put on women to keep them out of tech for example despite the accounts of posters here who have both found a surplus of opportunity for employment in this sector they are being somehow pushed away from ? I genuinely don't see it.

Edit- I also find the comparison of women who suffer FGM and subjugation under religion ruled societies to women who feel its difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure to be embarassing.

jmayo

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

My experience is the polar opposite. More than half my lecturers were female. I graduated from a class with only 2 female students (to 25 male).Neither of which was fantastic academically but they were both the first picked up by multinationals for engineering roles while better students didn't fair so well. Where I work now most of the female applicants are for BA or tester roles. More women than men get hired for those roles. If a female engineer applies you can guarantee they have the job. There's huge demand for female engineers.

The actual disparity is caused by the lack of women in software development and engineering which is why there's huge demand for female engineers and a lot more men with the experience required for senior roles.

Something tells me if you as an experienced female engineer are struggling and getting feedback of "it's not a good cultural fit" your interviews are absolutely horrendous.

I have found that female engineers were more likely to be hired first.
And lots of men also do not get jobs because "they are not seen as a fit".
What is the excuse for them not getting jobs ?

And there are lots of areas which are male dominated, often because women do not want that type of work or because women are not qualifying in sufficient numbers.

And I have know girls/women in college and starting out in work who specifically decided to go into a career that would allow them time off work to start/rear a family, possibly work from home or return to work later with no repercussions to progression or earning potential.

And maybe a certain poster did not get jobs because some just sense the massive chip on the shoulder and steer clear.

blanch152

WrenBoy wrote: »

Sharia is the system of law prescribed by Islam not a garment, can I get an example of the pressures being put on women to keep them out of tech for example despite the accounts of posters here who have both found a surplus of opportunity for employment in this sector they are being somehow pushed away from ? I genuinely don't see it.

Edit- I also find the comparison of women who suffer FGM and subjugation under religion ruled societies to women who feel its difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure to be embarassing.

I never said it was about women feeling difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure.

The point is that such cultural pressures are often unseen, unnoticed and unconscious, but real nonetheless. I wouldn't underestimate how strong they are.

Yes, Islamic cultural and religious pressures are obvious and clear, and we have our own examples at home with how Traveller cultural pressure results in young girls leaving school before secondary starts and being married off at 16/17, but the other more subtle cultural pressures are still there beneath the surface.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said it was about women feeling difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure.

The point is that such cultural pressures are often unseen, unnoticed and unconscious, but real nonetheless. I wouldn't underestimate how strong they are.

Yes, Islamic cultural and religious pressures are obvious and clear, and we have our own examples at home with how Traveller cultural pressure results in young girls leaving school before secondary starts and being married off at 16/17, but the other more subtle cultural pressures are still there beneath the surface.

Unseen, unnoticed and unconscious cultural pressures are not exclusive to women.

Men in our culture are seen as having no value if they are unable to provide for a family, and the value is really only value in the sense of an employee who gets worked to the bone with little or no thanks and fired when they are no longer useful.

or alternatively are sexually attractive hot bad boy stud types who are valuable to women for a short window of their lives to get knocked up by them.

So yeah no free rides for anyone. Grass is always greener and all that.

WrenBoy

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said it was about women feeling difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure.

The point is that such cultural pressures are often unseen, unnoticed and unconscious, but real nonetheless. I wouldn't underestimate how strong they are.

..the other more subtle cultural pressures are still there beneath the surface.

But no one can seem to point to what these pressures are, from where they stem or how they can be addressed and until they can you are trying to fight ghosts. I suggest these "pressures" come from women themselves, and apply to males and female alike. Low self esteem, lack of interest in certain subjects of study and perceived lack of ambition are not foisted on women by some smokey entity in the ether these are things that effect everyone and people react differently according to their own individual personalities but engaging in social engineering isn't the solution imo.

paleoperson

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said it was about women feeling difficult to be a top level engineer because of a vague idea of societal pressure.

The point is that such cultural pressures are often unseen, unnoticed and unconscious, but real nonetheless. I wouldn't underestimate how strong they are.

Yes, Islamic cultural and religious pressures are obvious and clear, and we have our own examples at home with how Traveller cultural pressure results in young girls leaving school before secondary starts and being married off at 16/17, but the other more subtle cultural pressures are still there beneath the surface.

What about the very real pressures being put on young girls now to go into things like engineering when it might be against their better judgement? What about those? What makes you think there are unconscious and unobserved pressures? The whole point of rational dialogue is to say what your talking about our give reasons for what you believe.

Do you honestly believe females and males are wired the same way on average, and have the same interests, ambitions and abilities? I honestly feel sorry for some women being pushed into careers they wouldn't otherwise pick and will be less happy at to fulfill somebody's misguided ideas of equality.

blanch152

WrenBoy wrote: »

But no one can seem to point to what these pressures are, from where they stem or how they can be addressed and until they can you are trying to fight ghosts. I suggest these "pressures" come from women themselves, and apply to males and female alike. Low self esteem, lack of interest in certain subjects of study and perceived lack of ambition are not foisted on women by some smokey entity in the ether these are things that effect everyone and people react differently according to their own individual personalities but engaging in social engineering isn't the solution imo.

paleoperson wrote: »

What about the very real pressures being put on young girls now to go into things like engineering when it might be against their better judgement? What about those? What makes you think there are unconscious and unobserved pressures? The whole point of rational dialogue is to say what your talking about our give reasons for what you believe.

Do you honestly believe females and males are wired the same way on average, and have the same interests, ambitions and abilities? I honestly feel sorry for some women being pushed into careers they wouldn't otherwise pick and will be less happy at to fulfill somebody's misguided ideas of equality.

Cultural pressure starts from birth, or even before!

I do know that women are underrepresented at professor level, at Assistant Secretary General level in the Civil Service, at County Manager and Assistant County Manager level in the local authority sector, at Board level in the private sector and at CEO level in the private sector. These are not highly specialised areas.

Why are there so few Professors of Education for example? Why do less women get picked for senior management jobs? I would have preferred this initiative to focus on getting women around the table for senior management discussions within higher education than in handing out professor posts, but maybe that will happen later in the process.

mikhail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The fact that women being under-represented in employment in third level education is seen as a discrimination issue for which affirmative action is needed, while women being over-represented in admissions to third level education is seen as a "well girls are just better at school than boys, tough sh!t" says it all. Either both examples of gender imbalance are worthy of affirmative action or neither, it's that simple.

Not to dispute the point, but women are not in a minority in academia. They're slightly in the majority. They're in a minority in senior academic posts. I suspect that's largely because they used to be in a minority in academia, because they used to be in a minority in third level education, but I've yet to see anyone factor that into this kind of hysteria over the perceived imbalance.

Gerry T

Is the answer to have interview panels for state/semi state posts represented with more females than males. That would mean the decision is skewed away from a Male biased decision. If the problem is that the decision makers are giving jobs to men, does this not address the problem, which is not the candidate.

Gynoid

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'm also running some sessions on bias in hiring procedures....

Maybe this explains why you see it so overtly? You get paid to see it, talk about it, teach about it.
If one googles unconscious bias training or implicit bias training there are a lot of articles which point to research saying it does not work. It may even produce a back lash effect where bias arises that did not previously exist. I personally cannot imagine how teaching people that they are unconsciously bad could possibly make them better. Especially if one is teaching them things that do not add up in their real world, real life experience - that is a form of indoctrination.

Marcos

Marcos wrote: »

Internalised misogyny - there you are job done. It also means of course that nobody can criticise current feminist thought. Men can't obviously because if they do they're all misogynists, so that's no problem. It becomes more difficult when it's women criticising feminism. So now women who disagree with even some aspects of feminism are victims of internalised misogyny i.e. they can't have any thoughts themselves because it's all mens fault.

Of course any similarities with false consciousness in Marxist thought is entirely coincidental. I mean it's not like they just took the catch all term for Socialists who disagreed with whatever form of Socialism / Marxism / Leninism / Stalinism was currently in vogue, or even pointed out difficulties in them; and then applied exactly the same arguments to identity politics and changed the words. :rolleyes:

Well, actually they have it covered with another fairly recent addition. Subconscious or unconscious sexism. You, as a male, might not even be aware that you're sexist, and discriminating against women. You might check your behavior aka male privilege, but even with those checks, there "can" be a subconscious desire within you to discriminate. It's not your fault... you can't help it, because it's due to social conditioning as being a male, which is why the whole way that males grow up and interact with each other need to be examined and altered. Oh, and women can also have this subconscious sexism against other women, although I've seen extremely little suggestion of it existing against men... Naturally.

Doesn't matter that there's not one shred of solid evidence to support the idea, but modern psychology is backing the concept... When I studied for my Bachelor in Psychology, virtually all my professors were female. Research in psychology and general practice in many countries is dominated by females, but nobody questions any possible bias being involved regarding all these new concepts they're promoting. Go figure.. :rolleyes:

mvl

jmayo wrote: »

And there are lots of areas which are male dominated, often because women do not want that type of work or because women are not qualifying in sufficient numbers.

And I have know girls/women in college and starting out in work who specifically decided to go into a career that would allow them time off work to start/rear a family, possibly work from home or return to work later with no repercussions to progression or earning potential.

but on this report for 2017, Ireland seem to have almost 50% female scientists and engineers, which is pretty good - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/9451024/Women_in_science_MSs/87daf6ba-33b5-4455-9a2b-dbb979e38dcc?t=1548852611502

should I assume many of these are non-nationals such as myself ?

py2006

It frustrates me (a bit now) that we don't hear a LOT more women (of sound mind) calling out all this new wave of feminist nonsense.

If STEM jobs were largely 20k a year you wouldn't hear any noise from them about women only jobs to bring the figures up.

Where are all these (morally superior to all men) feminists raging about the lack of women down the mines or sweeping the streets and lobbying government for female only positions.

The answer is fairly obvious....

paleoperson

blanch152 wrote: »

Cultural pressure starts from birth, or even before!

I do know that women are underrepresented at professor level, at Assistant Secretary General level in the Civil Service, at County Manager and Assistant County Manager level in the local authority sector, at Board level in the private sector and at CEO level in the private sector. These are not highly specialised areas.

Why are there so few Professors of Education for example? Why do less women get picked for senior management jobs? I would have preferred this initiative to focus on getting women around the table for senior management discussions within higher education than in handing out professor posts, but maybe that will happen later in the process.

Partly because they're not one of the good old boys in the old boys club maybe? Partly because they're not good enough?

I'm not one of the good old boys either, only a tiny percentage of people are, and occasionally women are. Go after them, not the rest of men. Nothing at that level of management makes sense anyway, none of those people are worth their salaries, they're all doing favours for each other and it's all a big scam on the rest of us. Why aren't people from farming backgrounds equally represented at those positions? Why aren't people from the travelling community equally represented at those positions? At the lower levels of honest respectable careers women have equal or better opportunities.

mvl

py2006 wrote: »

It frustrates me (a bit now) that we don't hear a LOT more women (of sound mind) calling out all this new wave of feminist nonsense.

If STEM jobs were largely 20k a year you wouldn't hear any noise from them about women only jobs to bring the figures up.

Where are all these (morally superior to all men) feminists raging about the lack of women down the mines or sweeping the streets and lobbying government for female only positions.

The answer is fairly obvious....

well, the way I read this, at least for my domain, the focus is addressing women’s under-representation in emerging roles : e.g. cloud computing, AI ...