Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked for the reference, and thereafter, you kept saying that you'd already provided them, when others raised the same query.

And yet some responded to and even quoted from my posts confirming that they did and do exist.

Did you actually look for them?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

So, which do you think is more likely, or are they each as likely to exist as the other.

A: That bias's within STEM fields exist and negatively impact on womens opportunities and experiences within those fields.
B: That bias's within social sciences exist and negatively impact on mens opportunities and experiences within those fields.

I would expect that in countries where women are 'less free' that they are more likely to select traditional male fields as much to prove their capability as anything else. Or that outside of education, the opportunities for employment in social science type industries do not exist than they do such as in the West.

I think both are as unlikely as eachother.

Tell me how

Zinchenko wrote: »

Do you deny the below points?

1. Female outperformance in University is not seen as evidence that something is wrong with the system.

2. Male outperformance in the business world is seen as evidence that something is wrong with the system.

I would find it fascinating if you can deny the above points with a straight face.

First of all, your final sentence would indicate you feel that both statements are fact. Can you give us some of your evidence that leads you to think that this is the case.

As for my own views on each point.
1 - I'm not aware of what exactly you mean by 'outperformance in university' is it in terms of roles held? Grades achieved? I don't believe it is the case if you were referring to the former and if it is the latter, I haven't seen evidence to suggest that it is. I do understand that in leaving cert results that there has been a trend towards females outperforming males in many core subjects and given the anonymity of grading at that level I don't think that there is something wrong with the system and then you would have to wonder that if they are performing higher at that level, just before entering 3rd level, are they not likely to perform higher in university. *See Note below.

2 - The potential for anonymity simply does not exist here, it is clear from names, appearance obviously as to whether there are males or females in roles and given the inherent bias that has existed from all of us living our lives and growing up nearly 'expecting' to see people in particular roles and understandably then gravitating towards them. This was ingrained in education syllabus until very recently. So, I think there still is room for improvement in achieving a true and natural assignment of people in specific roles. *See Note below.

Note.
In both cases, I think discrepancies should be explored in order to understand them better. If, for example, in the 1st point, performance at university is evidence of performance at leaving cert level and there is a disparity there then that should be explored to understand why it is happening and if possible steps taken to overcome it.
Similarly, in the case of the professional environment, disparities should be at least discussed to understand why they exist. It's not enough for either gender to be excluded as a consequence of something outside their control.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

So, which do you think is more likely, or are they each as likely to exist as the other.

A: That bias's within STEM fields exist and negatively impact on womens opportunities and experiences within those fields.
B: That bias's within social sciences exist and negatively impact on mens opportunities and experiences within those fields.

I would expect that in countries where women are 'less free' that they are more likely to select traditional male fields as much to prove their capability as anything else. Or that outside of education, the opportunities for employment in social science type industries do not exist than they do such as in the West.

if anything its one of the few things that those countries have going for them. When not given a choice women excel at a lot of really important STEM, medicine, law etc.. courses.

When given the easy option though many choose to be part of the social sciences complaining about the problem rather than the solution. A woman studying 'equality studies' and giving out about a lack of women in STEM when she could have chosen that just cries 'can't someone else do it'

I think one big inequality left is the inequality of expectation . Young men are expected to get a high paying career, trying to pick a soft science degree would often be met with ridicule from the family 'do something that'll get you a job' etc (which I agree with) , but so many families expect so little from women 'sure go do your equality studies degree, get a husband have some kids , he'll pay the bills' .

There needs to be a big push on encouraging women to use the free choice they have, the equality of opportunity and for them to choose STEM, medicine, law etc.. a bit of a push is always good for young people, don't just let them have a cop out 'I can't do it because of muhsogony , time to do a course that cradles me and tells me I'm right about it'

...Ghost...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The task was to see if it was possible to bump them. Sometimes it was, sometimes it just wasn't. This is why the failed by 1% due to one lecturer claim I find hard to believe, it just seems to me there is more to the story.

I have said a number of times it was 3%. I clarified that the lecturer unofficially bumped it up 2% to match what she gave the female student, which was really just a cynical and vindictive thing to do. It was 1 module of a dozen in that year. I passed all the other modules comfortably enough through hard work and perseverance. Can't be that hard to believe...it happens sometimes. Never known someone to fail a test by 1%?

As an aside, the CA part of the module which was worth 50%, I got about 90% of the marks. But the exam was a must pass to get by the module. Missing the information given in the class I couldn't attend was akin to not having a calculator in an advanced maths exam.

silverharp

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if anything its one of the few things that those countries have going for them. When not given a choice women excel at a lot of really important STEM, medicine, law etc.. courses.

When given the easy option though many choose to be part of the social sciences complaining about the problem rather than the solution. A woman studying 'equality studies' and giving out about a lack of women in STEM when she could have chosen that just cries 'can't someone else do it'

I think one big inequality left is the inequality of expectation . Young men are expected to get a high paying career, trying to pick a soft science degree would often be met with ridicule from the family 'do something that'll get you a job' etc (which I agree with) , but so many families expect so little from women 'sure go do your equality studies degree, get a husband have some kids , he'll pay the bills' .

There needs to be a big push on encouraging women to use the free choice they have, the equality of opportunity and for them to choose STEM, medicine, law etc.. a bit of a push is always good for young people, don't just let them have a cop out 'I can't do it because of muhsogony , time to do a course that cradles me and tells me I'm right about it'

most people are limited to some extent by their IQ, how many girls with an A in Maths and Physics do English or some nonsense media studies course in college? Ill go with zero. Its certainly fun to make the argument against these fierce :pac: individuals though who think everything is a blank slate and a social construction

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would have agreed with you absolutely if I hadn't done stints as both an internal and an external examiner.
As an intern, in cold war like secrecy in a locked room where lunch was literally brought into us, I was given the scripts corrected by 3 unidentified colleagues to check. They did not know I was the intern, and I did not know which colleague was responsible for which - it was all anonymised. Fairly quickly it became evident that there were some 'dodgy' marks, students getting far lower marks than the work deserved. After a few of these I was obliged to call it to the attention of the senior supervisor, I made notes for the extern and every single mark given by the person (whose identity I still do not know) was checked across all courses and years.

You missed the point where I specified work outside of examinations which can fall within the lecturers/professors ability to decide the grades, without having any oversight from anyone else.

I'm a lecturer, and my examinations are checked by two different departments for errors or bias. The project work and presentations which, due to my institutions interests, comes under a continuous assessment grade, which is added on top of the examination marks. That isn't checked by anyone. In all honesty, I could break any student who got a bare pass on the examination, by being nasty on the continuous assessment mark. It matters.

Btw, I loved the romantic feel to how you described it.

Sometimes it was, sometimes it just wasn't. This is why the failed by 1% due to one lecturer claim I find hard to believe, it just seems to me there is more to the story.

Which is why there's an appeal process. I assume the poster didn't avail of it.

Anyhoo - all off topic, I only engaged as a poster claimed a bias towards female students across the entire university sector and I was interested in his evidence for such a claim.
His evidence, such as it was, did not support his contention.

Which I agree with you.

This is not to say he didn't, personally, get an absolute dragon. Or that all lecturers are wonderful (there certainly are many who shouldn't be allowed any where near students), or that people don't play favourites, or that the system is perfect. It isn't. In parts it's awful.
There's a reason I no longer work in it and I miss teaching but not the rest of it. Couldn't pay me enough to want to do the rest of it.

Do lecturing abroad. Depending on the country, you can avoid all the politics, and inter-departmental crap that seems so common in the west. I assume it happens in my university too, but since I'm a foreign lecturer, I'm allowed to give it all a pass.

But widespread bumping up of women's marks/endless extensions due to feminism? Nope.

Agreed.

Psychology... don't get me started, with the exception of geology anything with an 'olgy' starts me twitching as I have an allergy to rampant theorising and I know lots of feminist ologists. :P

joe40

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Psychology... don't get me started, with the exception of geology anything with an 'olgy' starts me twitching as I have an allergy to rampant theorising and I know lots of feminist ologists. :P

The "Biology" people might not agree with you there....

robodonkey

Noticed on Home School Hub yesterday, my two little ones hanging on the presenters every word, and the Teacher was giving a spiel about Gender Pay Gap, women not getting paid the same as men and how everyone has to continue doing "the work" to right this wrong.

As a parent to two youngsters, do I address this? Let it seep into their minds?

The controlled pay gap is close to zero (when all variables are accounted for - childless couples, and childless single women....zero gap) but this was not the message coming out of the TV. Just wondering if anyone else has come across ideological stuff creeping into schooling at this young age.

I want my kids to both know they have an equal opportunity, and their choices will affect their outcome in life.

I'm sure the presenter was offering the insight in good faith, and the programming is excellent, offering some great distraction and eductaion through the Covid lockdowns - I'm just really uneasy about *little things* creeping in without any counter measure where opinion is presented but the facts are quite different.

To tie this back to the subject (and why I didn't make this a new thread) - is this kind of education going to be good for our kids. Will it build resilient boys and girls without chips on their shoulders or a misplaced sense of guilt.

Sleepy

I'd be shocked if it's anything new to them at this stage robodonkey, you're just seeing it because it's in front of you on tv rather than in the confines of a classroom. We have a huge gender disparity in the education system and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

JimmyVik

robodonkey wrote: »

Noticed on Home School Hub yesterday, my two little ones hanging on the presenters every word, and the Teacher was giving a spiel about Gender Pay Gap, women not getting paid the same as men and how everyone has to continue doing "the work" to right this wrong.

As a parent to two youngsters, do I address this? Let it seep into their minds?

The controlled pay gap is close to zero (when all variables are accounted for - childless couples, and childless single women....zero gap) but this was not the message coming out of the TV. Just wondering if anyone else has come across ideological stuff creeping into schooling at this young age.

I want my kids to both know they have an equal opportunity, and their choices will affect their outcome in life.

I'm sure the presenter was offering the insight in good faith, and the programming is excellent, offering some great distraction and eductaion through the Covid lockdowns - I'm just really uneasy about *little things* creeping in without any counter measure where opinion is presented but the facts are quite different.

To tie this back to the subject (and why I didn't make this a new thread) - is this kind of education going to be good for our kids. Will it build resilient boys and girls without chips on their shoulders or a misplaced sense of guilt.

Minbe came home and cried when we ate meat for a week.
Eventually she forgot about it, but again 2 months later, same thing. 5 years old. Told us about what we were doing to the animals. Asked her where she heard this. Off the teacher, who is a Vegan, as she keeps telling the kids.

Eric Cartman

JimmyVik wrote: »

Minbe came home and cried when we ate meat for a week.
Eventually she forgot about it, but again 2 months later, same thing. 5 years old. Told us about what we were doing to the animals. Asked her where she heard this. Off the teacher, who is a Vegan, as she keeps telling the kids.

bias in primary education really needs to be checked up on.

Bannasidhe

...Ghost... wrote: »

I have said a number of times it was 3%. I clarified that the lecturer unofficially bumped it up 2% to match what she gave the female student, which was really just a cynical and vindictive thing to do. It was 1 module of a dozen in that year. I passed all the other modules comfortably enough through hard work and perseverance. Can't be that hard to believe...it happens sometimes. Never known someone to fail a test by 1%?

As an aside, the CA part of the module which was worth 50%, I got about 90% of the marks. But the exam was a must pass to get by the module. Missing the information given in the class I couldn't attend was akin to not having a calculator in an advanced maths exam.

Did you appeal?

Either way, what you say happened to you- if it happened they way you say, may have been unjust but it in no way proves that women routinely get marks increased across the board in Irish universities as was the claim I questioned.
It does prove there are biased lecturers - and they come in male as well by the way.

Silentcorner

robodonkey wrote: »

To tie this back to the subject (and why I didn't make this a new thread) - is this kind of education going to be good for our kids. Will it build resilient boys and girls without chips on their shoulders or a misplaced sense of guilt.

It's going to have a hugely negative impact on both boys and girls....you could argue that it already has.

I know grown men, who to this day hate the Catholic Church for the ideology that was rammed down their throats as kids....

Boys would tend to be more rebellious in nature and feminism won't change that, instead, feminism will be/already is the ideology a boy or young man will rebel against...when you take a gander at the culture young men/boys partake in, sport, computer games, comic books, music and indeed work.and what has happened/is happening in many of those industries, how long will it be before feminism becomes even more hated than the Church?

What girls are getting out of this wave is anyone's guess, it doesn't seem to make anyone more content in the long run, certainly no evidence of it....apart from the sugar rush of empowerment.

Feminism is now everywhere in a boys life, he is well entitled to hold his own opinion on the glaring logical inconsistencies the sooner he learns to rely on his own faculties and not rely on teachers or the media the better!!!

Bannasidhe

joe40 wrote: »

The "Biology" people might not agree with you there....

Oops.
Yes.
My bad.

robodonkey

robodonkey wrote: »

...a spiel about Gender Pay Gap, women not getting paid the same as men and how everyone has to continue doing "the work" to right this wrong.

I'm just really uneasy about *little things* creeping in without any counter measure where opinion is presented but the facts are quite different.

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

JimmyVik

true-or-false wrote: »

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

Every woman in my family earns more than me. Definitely a gender pay gap going on in my family.
And I work longer hours. And I dont get maternity leave.

Silentcorner

true-or-false wrote: »

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

The only way you are going to achieve equality in what you have outlined is through mass social engineering through State Intervention at every point of an individuals life.

Mightn't be a bad idea...it might solve the gender spend gap also, 80% of the domestic economy in controlled by women, hardly fair if they don't work the same amount of paid work as men.

You should take a look at the Kibbutz in Israel, where over 100 years ago they tried to do just that and went to extreme lengths to remove societies expectation of women..it took a generation or two but eventually the women no longer wanted to work the manual labour, they wanted to work with the kids....and we are trying to attempt the above in a much larger scale.

TomTomTim

true-or-false wrote: »

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

How can we work on this? It comes down to a matter of choice in most cases, yet only women control the choices they make. There's little wider society can do because these outcomes aren't based on inequality. If there's a solution in your view it would likely be a matter of equity. I've seen some report that said women should get free child care. Why should they though? They chose to have a child and and all that comes with that, the state shouldn't have to pick up the bill. We're wasting enough money as is.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

The only way you are going to achieve equality in what you have outlined is through mass social engineering through State Intervention at every point of an individuals life.

Mightn't be a bad idea...it might solve the gender spend gap also, 80% of the domestic economy in controlled by women, hardly fair if they don't work the same amount of paid work as men.

You should take a look at the Kibbutz in Israel, where over 100 years ago they tried to do just that and went to extreme lengths to remove societies expectation of women..it took a generation or two but eventually the women no longer wanted to work the manual labour, they wanted to work with the kids....and we are trying to attempt the above in a much larger scale.

Or, you know, letting kids know from a very young age that they should not feel that only certain roles and industries are open to them so that they don't spend formative years believing that this is the case. Which I assume is what is going on on RTE hub.

That way they can develop their interest without constraint and select their education path to support them with this.

You know, like it seems the Home School Hub is doing.

I think using an example of where gender equality in the work place of 100 years ago when all roles were very different and when the physical strength of people was a much more influential factor than it is now is misleading.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Or, you know, letting kids know from a very young age that they should not feel that only certain roles and industries are open to them so that they don't spend formative years believing that this is the case. Which I assume is what is going on on RTE hub.

That way they can develop their interest without constraint and select their education path to support them with this.

I think using an example of where gender equality in the work place of 100 years ago when all roles were very different and when the physical strength of people was a much more influential factor than it is now is misleading.

You know, like it seems the Home School Hub is doing.

So like I said, mass social engineering...won't be long before we are taking footballs off boys or taking dolls from girls.

What the RTE hub did was misrepresent the gender pay gap...so those kids may very well believe the misrepresentation on account of their young minds being unable to think critically for themselves.

The kibbutz also have a flourishing tech industry....which the men mainly work in!!!

It was also the women in the kibbutz that wanted to move out of the female accommodation they lived in separate to their children and spouses, to live like a family.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

So like I said, mass social engineering...won't be long before we are taking footballs off boys or taking dolls from girls.

What the RTE hub did was misrepresent the gender pay gap...so those kids may very well believe the misrepresentation on account of their young minds being unable to think critically for themselves.

The kibbutz also have a flourishing tech industry....which the men mainly work in!!!

It was also the women in the kibbutz that wanted to move out of the female accommodation they lived in separate to their children and spouses, to live like a family.

Either you have a problem with the fundamentals of education or you are concerned that kids might be told they can actually do a job which traditionally they might not have been expected to do.

Bizarre position.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Either you have a problem with the fundamentals of education or you are concerned that kids might be told they can actually do a job which traditionally they might not have been expected to do.

Bizarre position.

The education of children should be to teach them how to read, write and do maths.

Let parents decide what ideology they want to expose their children to...unless you don't trust parents of course!

I have a problem indoctrinating kids...we all should!

...Ghost...

robodonkey wrote: »

To tie this back to the subject (and why I didn't make this a new thread) - is this kind of education going to be good for our kids. Will it build resilient boys and girls without chips on their shoulders or a misplaced sense of guilt.

I respect what teachers do. It's a tough job. But when they start to imprint their own ideological views on our children, that's crossing the line. No teacher should be telling our children about gender pay gaps (which have been de-bunked) and making them feel guilty for eating meat.

Teach them to read and write and get give them what they need academically. Offer support and guidance where appropriate, but don't feed your ideology to my children you naughty teachers. Seriously though, I think teachers doing this need to have stern words spoken to them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you appeal?

Either way, what you say happened to you- if it happened they way you say, may have been unjust but it in no way proves that women routinely get marks increased across the board in Irish universities as was the claim I questioned.
It does prove there are biased lecturers - and they come in male as well by the way.

I spoke to the coordinator about it. He said I could appeal and recommended it. But then he said there was a risk that I would have to repeat the year if my appeal failed. If I left it alone, I would go forward and would just have to repeat the exam the following summer with an option to sit in on classes with a newly appointed lecturer.

Whether you believe the marking anomalies I mentioned or not, there is a female bias in our education sector which runs from start to finish. I didn't believe it until I saw it for myself.

true-or-false wrote: »

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

The gender pay gap is utter nonsense and has been de-bunked so many times. The assertions made by proponents of these campaigns never stand up to scrutiny. Men and Women have a choice. They can focus on their career, or they can become primary carers and slip in and out of career mode. Women choose to be the primary carers overwhelmingly more often than men. Any person choosing to slip in and out of their career will find that taking large gaps from your work and being less flexible with hours and working less hours will negatively impact on your career progression.

They've tried this already. It didn't work. Men and women make different choices. Women gravitate toward family friendly work/career choices and men work/careers with less flexibility and more chance of advancement.

If a woman has put in 10 years service as a manager with a perfect work record and her partner works for the same company as a manager of the same team for 11 years, also with a perfect record but out of the 11 years he has worked in the position, he has taken 3 years out as a primary carer for their child, would it be fair for him to be promoted ahead of her? Would it be fair for him to get a pay raise ahead of her? All other things being equal, who should be promoted?

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

The education of children should be to teach them how to read, write and do maths.

Let parents decide what ideology they want to expose their children to...unless you don't trust parents of course!

Absolute nonsense.

Informing children so that they can maximise their potential through being aware of their opportunities is one of the basic fundamentals of education. How else are they going truly understand whether they are likely to enjoy or be suited to maths or other skills.

Calling awareness and ideology really is a jaw dropping admission at a desire that things be kept as they are.
If you have some basic concern that as a consequence of such information, your son might lose out on an opportunity because now a girl is interested in it, consider if that girl was your daughter.

Outside of that direct considerations as to how this might influence your own children, I can't think of any other reason why you would be against this other than a fundamental position against any suggestion of advancement for women.

Do you think a science or geography teacher talking about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment is also exposing them to an ideology. Actually, I suspect you probably do.

robodonkey

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

My counter point to that comment is that it's not a gender pay gap - rather a side effect of having children. If couples choose not to have kids, there is no pay gap observed. Single women without kids, no pay gap observed.
*Choices* being made as part of a couple or as a single woman are directly contributing to gaps in pay. Lets not even start talking about the measurement that is bandied about - what is actually meant by "Gender Pay Gap" - Median pay? Accounting for overtime? Dangerous jobs? Flexible work? Education? To say it is because you are a woman is frankly, in 2021, ridiculous.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

Society to blame, how would you correct this? Mass reeducation?
I mean is it not just the outcome of choices over time?
Where it is an *expectation* then yes I'd agree that is no longer a *choice* and certainly deserves effort. Someone not wanting to take care of kids or do housework but being made to do that is obviously wrong. Just not sure there's that many of these situations still around. Where it IS a choice then that's an incredibly valued (by me anyway) choice but might not be the best paid choice.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

I'm all for equality of opportunity. Everyone makes choices. Nobody gets special treatment or is protected. In this free world, you will find that natural biases and tendencies just happen. Women gravitate towards certain types of work, and men do the same (note: not suggesting "all" men or women, not suggesting more or less value in those choices).

I'm glad I know incredibly successful women in business, and incredibly successful mothers who have no interest in business. Both sets had great opportunities and some chose different paths.

So, taking the wide angle lens to your comment - "is it worth working on"? Not by legislative, quotas or indoctrination, no. Doing so is a fools errand, does not offer all-comers equal opportunity or a level, factual playing field.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Informing children so that they can maximise their potential through being aware of their opportunities is one of the basic fundamentals of education. How else are they going truly understand whether they are likely to enjoy or be suited to maths or other skills.

Calling awareness and ideology really is a jaw dropping admission at a desire that things be kept as they are.


Do you think a science or geography teacher talking about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment is also exposing them to an ideology. Actually, I suspect you probably do.

Ha ha haa...you sound like a Bishop, they thought he was merely saving the souls of the children too!!!!

The Nazis used to indoctrinate their kids too didn't they!!!

Snickers Man

Mad_maxx wrote: »

regular people would support it but the vocal minority of feminists who are so prevelant in the media would oppose , most of those are driven by revenge and a desire to punish men for perceived sins of the past

im thinking of career man haters like " Doctor " Mary McAuliffe

joe40 wrote: »

I never heard of her, but why is the word "doctor" in quotation marks.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

illustrates my contempt for grievance studies doctorates

osarusan wrote: »

McAuliffe has a PhD in history from Trinity. Her thesis was on the tower houses of County Kerry. I just did a search through it and the words 'feminism' and 'gender' appear a combined total of 0 times.

Oh Man!!!

You are so owned!!!

:D:D:D

Sleepy

true-or-false wrote: »

The gender pay gap is a fact, not an opinion. It's not intended to be controlled for all variables.

One variable that it includes, for instance, is that women do the majority of paid and unpaid care work. This is in many cases a choice, sometimes an expectation, heavily driven by society's view of women.

There's nothing wrong with this in most case-by-case examples. But that trend as a whole, combined with the many other factors that result in women being lower earners, having less stable employment, and finding it tougher to progress in their careers, leads to significantly negative trends in women's financial independence, societal power, decision making ability. It results in women's population numbers being hugely disproportionate to the representation they receive. Is this not worth working on?

How exactly do you work on it?

Very few young men are going to consider care-giving roles in a post #metoo world. It's high risk employment for a man and the rewards that lure young men to accept other dangerous roles are never going to be available in those jobs. We can already see this in primary schools: men don't want to, or are too afraid to, pursue jobs as primary school teachers in any great numbers despite relatively high pay and great working hours.

If we look at educational outcomes and early career pay, we've already seen a reversal of the pay gap. Young women out-earn young men until they choose to have children. Where a pay gap exists in older workers, we have to remember that this is the result of the environment in which they chose and pursued their careers and that environment was very different to the one entrants to the employment market face now.

As a group, I'm not sure I can ever see women ever giving up their position as primary care-giver en masse. Whether societal or biological, the majority of women I know (and that's all I can base this on without doing surveys etc.) choose that role. What you could do is to facilitate those who don't want to by lobbying for maternity leave legislation to be changed to be gender neutral: granting all parents an equal right to leave on the birth of a child. From a social engineering perspective, you may want to initially look at mandating this to be taken by fathers but you're into the territory of infringing on personal freedoms in doing so...

EDIT: You'd also require a massive social engineering project to encourage more women to find men who'd prefer to take on the primary caregiver role within the family attractive. From any research I've seen linked to on this topic: the vast majority of women still want a partner who earns more than, or at the least the same as they do.

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

If a woman has put in 10 years service as a manager with a perfect work record and her partner works for the same company as a manager of the same team for 11 years, also with a perfect record but out of the 11 years he has worked in the position, he has taken 3 years out as a primary carer for their child, would it be fair for him to be promoted ahead of her? Would it be fair for him to get a pay raise ahead of her? All other things being equal, who should be promoted?

You still dont understand the concept of the gender pay gap.

No one is saying you should be able to take a huge career break while staying on the same point in your career track as your peers. It's about trying to accommodate the women that want to stay on their career track, that want to find ways to get back to work quicker, like coming back part time or working from home. Or challenging the gender norms that encourage women to take on all the care work and make men feel like they have to prioritise working over taking on caring responsibilities themselves.

Many couples want a child, but unfortunately only the woman can carry it. There are ways to make it easier for these women to stay at work longer and return to work quicker, and it doesn't hurt anybody at all. But the sentiment around here seems to be that if a man and a women decide to have a child, its the woman's career that should pay a price, even if its avoidable.

The UN, EU and Irish government have been working on these issues and we're seeing good results. The gender pay gap is dropping, women with children are being facilitated in many companies, with flexi time, part time or work from home arrangements, and men are getting more support such as paternity leave/benefit for taking on caring roles. Numbers of women in STEM are increasing and womens' sports are becoming more mainstream. We're advancing as a society.

Meanwhile the headline on boards is that talking about it is an ideology not suitable for children and that the women in JimmyViks family very rudely earn more than him. Fantastic stuff.