Encouraging girls and women into certain fields

LawBoy2018

khalessi wrote: »

Yeah let her do what she enjoys, she isnt you.

I do agree with you but it will be tough for her to end up with a career where she earns v little compared to my brother and I.

khalessi

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I do agree with you but it will be tough for her to end up with a career where she earns v little compared to my brother and I.

Not if she is happy, they are not exactly poverty careers, more to life then money. How would you feel if people interferred with your life choices and not just CAO? I went back to college as a mature student because I wanted to but the amount of mature students I came across who were back to do what they wanted to do rather then what they were forced to do first time round was a lot.

jam_mac_jam

cloudatlas wrote: »

The o.p alluded to the fact that society views women as naturally not as good at science as men ( the horse riding analogy) so that is a bias and a barrier. Such attitudes reduce confidence which creates a barrier.

So affirmative action is set up to right past wrongs where there is historical unfairness or where it has been decided that encouraging wider participation would be beneficial, therefore such schemes are in place until it is otherwise proven that the disadvantage/ barriers have been removed and then there will be no need. Simple as. Such schemes are about building confidence, they aren't about identifying as a victim. According the recent UCAS data provided by HESA, 35% of STEM students in higher education in the UK are women. 35% is very low. Why are you play acting the victim?

The disadvantages and barriers have been removed. There is absolutely no barrier to a woman going into any field she wants to.

Affirmative action is not needed and its kind of insulting and patronising to imply women need it. Because they don't have confidence? Poor little women?

35% is not very low. It's likely to continue to improve and maybe more women have other interests or talents. Why must everything be forced.

I would much rather the efforts went to education or mentoring less educated or underprivileged women to upskill or train if they wish then giving advantage to those who don't need it.

Leg End Reject

cloudatlas wrote: »

The o.p alluded to the fact that society views women as naturally not as good at science as men ( the horse riding analogy) so that is a bias and a barrier. Such attitudes reduce confidence which creates a barrier.

So affirmative action is set up to right past wrongs where there is historical unfairness or where it has been decided that encouraging wider participation would be beneficial, therefore such schemes are in place until it is otherwise proven that the disadvantage/ barriers have been removed and then there will be no need. Simple as. Such schemes are about building confidence, they aren't about identifying as a victim. According the recent UCAS data provided by HESA, 35% of STEM students in higher education in the UK are women. 35% is very low. Why are you play acting the victim?

Devils advocate here. Society views men as being less suited to caring roles, yet there's no equivalent scheme to encourage men into childcare, teaching, care assistant vocations either.

Might it be possible that men and women are different, and most will follow their own interests?

There isn't a barrier to women pursuing STEM careers, nor any other career for that matter. There isn't a barrier to men pursuing traditionally female dominated careers either. It just seems that the interest isn't there.

LawBoy2018

khalessi wrote: »

Not if she is happy, they are not exactly poverty careers, more to life then money. How would you feel if people interferred with your life choices and not just CAO? I went back to college as a mature student because I wanted to but the amount of mature students I came across who were back to do what they wanted to do rather then what they were forced to do first time round was a lot.

I agree in theory, I'm just being practical about the whole situation. Too many people choose idealistic courses without knowing what they want to do afterwards + then they get stuck in a deadend career.

Few people who study science get anywhere without a master's these days AFAIK. I had friends who did general science in NUIG + ended up getting **** modules like microbiology, zoology, etc.

khalessi

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I agree in theory, I'm just being practical about the whole situation. Too many people choose idealistic courses without knowing what they want to do afterwards + then they get stuck in a deadend career.

Few people who study science get anywhere without a master's these days AFAIK. I had friends who did general science in NUIG + ended up getting **** modules like microbiology, zoology, etc.

As far as you know.
Look she is not you. You dont have all the answers so let her be.

cloudatlas

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Devils advocate here. Society views men as being less suited to caring roles, yet there's no equivalent scheme to encourage men into childcare, teaching, care assistant vocations either.

Might it be possible that men and women are different, and most will follow their own interests?

There isn't a barrier to women pursuing STEM careers, nor any other career for that matter. There isn't a barrier to men pursuing traditionally female dominated careers either. It just seems that the interest isn't there.

Stereotypes are a barrier. Since 2016, the number of women working in STEM fields has increased so that would imply that there is an interest since it is growing.

Leg End Reject

cloudatlas wrote: »

Stereotypes are a barrier. Since 2016, the number of women working in STEM fields has increased so that would imply that there is an interest since it is growing.

So why isn't there an equivalent scheme for men who face stereotypes?

If someone is deterred by a stereotype it would indicate a lack of confidence or conviction to me.

cloudatlas

Leg End Reject wrote: »

So why isn't there an equivalent scheme for men who face stereotypes?

If someone is deterred by a stereotype it would indicate a lack of confidence or conviction to me.

There are some schemes in Uk to get more men into teaching for example, I don't know why there aren't equivalent moves in Ireland, perhaps men aren't asking for it the same way that women were clamouring for STEM schemes.

If other men were stereotyping your job and saying you were 'doing women's work', that probably would effect your confidence and conviction.

Leg End Reject

cloudatlas wrote: »

If other men were stereotyping your job and saying you were 'doing women's work', that probably would effect your confidence and conviction.

It wouldn't affect my confidence and conviction at all. I'm a woman btw.

In real life people don't make comments like that. If a plumber comes to my home I wouldn't even think of plumbing being a "man's job" despite never encountering a woman in that trade.

cloudatlas

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It wouldn't affect my confidence and conviction at all. I'm a woman btw.

In real life people don't make comments like that. If a plumber comes to my home I wouldn't even think of plumbing being a "man's job" despite never encountering a woman in that trade.

People may not make comments but they think it and it effects how they act. They would come onto a forum like this and repeat those stereotypes I would wager. There have been inferences on this thread that those professions are naturally for women so that is more or less stating that they think it's 'women's work'.

Leg End Reject

cloudatlas wrote: »

People may not make comments but they think it and it effects how they act. They would come onto a forum like this and repeat those stereotypes I would wager. There have been inferences on this thread that those professions are naturally for women so that is more or less stating that they think it's 'women's work'.

Which posts?

purifol0

Many here do not realise that men will work harder jobs, for longer hours & in far worse jobs than women simply because to GET a woman they need to earn more than she does.

Women don't have that same pressure.

This is never mentioned when feminists wheel out the "gender pay gap" talking points.

purifol0

HOWEVER

Ireland does things very differently to other countries when it comes to economics but sadly a large part of the populace doesn't know it.

I'm talking of the public sector/private sector divide. All those men in construction working 48 hour weeks are making less (and most will have no pension) than nurses, teachers, civil servants and semi states & 3rd level institutes. Most of those jobs are majority female!

Zero chance of unemployment, pay increases year on year (even after increments) and plenty of overtime, additional payments, bonuses and a govt terrified to say boo to any of them in case their unions organize sympathy strikes.

If you want more men to change their career from STEM/construction, tell them to compare salaries and pensions with the majority woman jobs in the PS! Ask them how much overtime their salaried white collar job will pay (its probably zero) whereas in the pubsec you can double and even triple your base pay, while doing the same hours as a normal working week in the private sector.

CelticRambler

purifol0 wrote: »

Many here do not realise that men will work harder jobs, for longer hours & in far worse jobs than women simply because to GET a woman they need to earn more than she does.

Nice bit of out-dated thinking there! At least as far as the second part of the sentence but overall, men will work harder jobs, for longer hours & in far worse jobs than women is still true today.

I work in one of the STEM professions that has seen a complete shift in gender demographics since I qualified. And despite my best efforts to retire, I'm still working in the same area because the demands of the profession are incompatible with what women appear to want out of life, resulting in them rapidly dropping out of the field. This happens either a few years after graduation, when they realise how different (and difficult) the reality is compared to the rosy picture presented in university prospectuses and on TV; or when they start having children.

I have two female friends of my generation in the same business, trudging unhappily towards retirement, who say that "affirmative action" and graduate entry conditions inadvertently but deliberately select the students who are least suited to the physical, emotional and financial rigours of the work.

In practical terms, this means I get calls from desperate employers (mostly female these days) looking for a man to replace a string of women who have let them down. Yes, they have admitted that outright, and it's almost always because of "something to do with children" - getting pregnant, having miscarriages, needing maternity leave at an inconvenient time for the employer, needing holidays to coincide with holidays, needing to work part-time ...

Another effect of this feminisation of the profession, and the increase in younger women who don't want to/aren't prepared to work the longer hours, because of family commitments, is that they're driving down wages overall. From an employer's point of view, why pay good wages to attract "the best" when even "the best" give up after a few years and you have to scrabble to find a substitute, anyone, at short notice.

I raised my children to be argumentative, opinionated little feckers, the girls and the boys. When the time came for each to embark on a career, they were all challenged about the wisdom of their choice and the fought back. My eldest daughter was offered a scholarship to study maths at Oxford and turned it down, because in the end, her creative/artistic streak won out and she went off on a very different tangent.

osarusan

Leg End Reject wrote: »

yet there's no equivalent scheme to encourage men into childcare, teaching, care assistant vocations either.

Regarding teaching at least, the Dept of Education began working on getting more men into teaching at least 15 years ago:

The new campaign, known as MATE, will be rolled out this week, with adverts highlighting the key characteristic of good teachers. According to the advert, these are M for motivation; A for ability; T for teamwork; and E for excellence.
The campaign comes as over 50,000 students fill in their CAO forms before the February 1st deadline.
Speaking about the need to attract more men into primary teaching, Minister for Education Mary Hanafin said: "We have seen a steady decline in the numbers of men teaching in our primary schools over the past 30 years. What I hope this campaign will do is make young men take a look at the valuable contribution they can make through a career as a primary school teacher."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/campaign-to-attract-more-men-into-teaching-1.1005448


And has been well-researched and discussed:
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Males-into-Primary-Teaching-Report-of-the-Primary-Education-Committee-2006-.pdf


But these perceptions of who 'should' be doing what are ingrained and slow to change.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

There are some schemes in Uk to get more men into teaching

Such as?

I did a google search, and while I saw plenty of articles saying that more men were needed, I didn't see any supports directly aimed at men.

If other men were stereotyping your job and saying you were 'doing women's work', that probably would effect your confidence and conviction.

Actually, for the vast majority of men, it wouldn't. Simply because we learn how to dismiss such opinions when we're young. Those kind of observations are commonplace throughout the teenage and early 20s for most men, whether it's about their career or general choices in life. Men, typically, learn to just get on with things..

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is a myth that blue was once the colour baby girls wore and pink was the colour of baby girls.

If you say so. But since I never mentioned babies - I am not sure why you feel it relevant to my post. In response to the point that it is hard to get boys or men interested in horse riding - I pointed out that it is also hard to get boys and men to voluntarily wear pink but this was not always the case. Babies have their clothes chosen for them - boys and men tend to have their own preferences. So babies are literally nothing to do with the point I am making on that basis.

The point being that what we might assume are gender preferences might in fact just be comfort zones parents and/or society lay down in early childhood. And were society and parents to reverse those comfort zones I suspect we would see associated effects in adults. Not because of any supposed biological or objective gender roles. If it is hard to get a gender to do something now - but it was not hard at all to get them to do it at another point in geography or history - then clearly our underlying biology is not what changed in that short span of time.

So when I see campaigns targeting teens or college age kids trying to entice them into career paths outside their gender norms I find myself suspecting they are much too late. If they really want to affect such change then it is parents of very small children - parents to be - or parents of the future they really need to be focusing on.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

people like the idea the powerful notion that gender roles are purely cultural. The colour of baby clothes is pure culture, but biology involved in gender roles as a whole.

For me it is not that I "like" or "dislike" any notion. It is what evidence I see for one idea or another that interests me. And outside the realm of reproduction I see very little evidence for gender roles. The idea of gender roles gets pushed heavily in threads about things like "Same sex parenting" where homophobes and other people generally against SS parents invent this magical need for a "male role model" or a "female role model" but are entirely unable to back up either the requirement for - or even the existence of - any particular "role" to model or worth modeling.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

If you say so. But since I never mentioned babies - I am not sure why you feel it relevant to my post. In response to the point that it is hard to get boys or men interested in horse riding - I pointed out that it is also hard to get boys and men to voluntarily wear pink but this was not always the case. Babies have their clothes chosen for them - boys and men tend to have their own preferences. So babies are literally nothing to do with the point I am making on that basis.

The point being that what we might assume are gender preferences might in fact just be comfort zones parents and/or society lay down in early childhood. And were society and parents to reverse those comfort zones I suspect we would see associated effects in adults. Not because of any supposed biological or objective gender roles. If it is hard to get a gender to do something now - but it was not hard at all to get them to do it at another point in geography or history - then clearly our underlying biology is not what changed in that short span of time.

So when I see campaigns targeting teens or college age kids trying to entice them into career paths outside their gender norms I find myself suspecting they are much too late. If they really want to affect such change then it is parents of very small children - parents to be - or parents of the future they really need to be focusing on.

A lot of people believe this and it would be a reasonable if there was no evidence against it.
Gender roles tend to be pretty universal. In some cultures clothes professions may be associated with men and others they may be associated with women but in every culture you see very clear differences in labour organisation. There is also evidence from monkeys raised in isolation that these differences emerge independe to culture.

Deleted User wrote: »

For me it is not that I "like" or "dislike" any notion. It is what evidence I see for one idea or another that interests me. And outside the realm of reproduction I see very little evidence for gender roles. The idea of gender roles gets pushed heavily in threads about things like "Same sex parenting" where homophobes and other people generally against SS parents invent this magical need for a "male role model" or a "female role model" but are entirely unable to back up either the requirement for - or even the existence of - any particular "role" to model or worth modeling.

In biology everything is about reproduction and reproduction plays a huge role in what lads put down on their CAO

purifol0

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nice bit of out-dated thinking there!

Imagine conflating biological facts with "out dated thinking"


Tell you what how about you tell women that their preference for tall men is out dated and see if they change their ways.


Folks IMO if you want women that really have the brains (as opposed to using quotas) to go into & stay in STEM fields you'll need to give them more time off. Maternity leave is a huge reason women stay in employment after they have kids, it wouldn't have happened without legislation. Women are massively over represented in the public sector because of its generous amounts of paid leave, sick pay and more holidays and fewer working hours than the private sector.



Similarily if you want men to go into childcare you'll have to increase pay.

CelticRambler

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Gender roles tend to be pretty universal. In some cultures clothes professions may be associated with men and others they may be associated with women but in every culture you see very clear differences in labour organisation.

Which rather proved the point that taxAHcruel was making: it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with society.

In that context, "society" is more or less synonymous with "parenting" - parents raise their children to "fit in" with whatever their parents and peers think is "right". Unless, of course, you're an outlier like me, who believes his children should be able and prepared to do whatever needs to be done. So my sons know how to sew (by hand and using a machine), my daughters know how to fell trees; the two eldest learnt to ride at the same time; all four of them learnt to cook a complete meal;

Eldest son regularly wore pink and red at weekends, dressing up in costumes to dance in public; now he spends his weekends dressed in camouflage, making life miserable for the PDF in the Glen of Imaal. Daughter No1's "best ever" birthday present was a trolley-load of timber off-cuts from the local hardware; but she was known in secondary school for being the only girl to choose to wear a skirt. The one lad who decided to try his luck lifting it got an almighty wallop across the head; no hash-tags needed to warn the rest that she was not a girl to be messed with.

In the end, the vast majority of parents don't really think about how they raise their children. They go with the flow, and that flow is dictated by others with their own agenda. A century ago, in Ireland, it was the Church; these days, it's American-style marketing; in another hundred years, it'll be something else.

CelticRambler

purifol0 wrote: »

Imagine conflating biological facts with "out dated thinking"

purifol0 wrote: »

to GET a woman they need to earn more than she does.

Earning money is not a biological fact. It's not biological in any way - it's a societal construct.

purifol0

CelticRambler wrote: »

Earning money is not a biological fact. It's not biological in any way - it's a societal construct.

Women expect men to be the provider/bread winner. Do you dispute this?

khalessi

purifol0 wrote: »

Women expect men to be the provider/bread winner. Do you dispute this?

I would totally dispute this.

purifol0

khalessi wrote: »

I would totally dispute this.

Cool, can you point to literally any evidence that this is the case?


"In study after study, in country after country, psychologists consistently find that men strongly prefer looks over resources, whereas women value resources over looks"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201907/do-women-really-prefer-men-money-over-looks


Of course if women were not expecting men to be the primary bread winner then how come so many of them file for divorce as soon as their man becomes unemployed?


https://thebigsmoke.com/2016/12/29/harvard-study-finds-job-loss-number-one-reason-divorce/

Yellow_Fern

khalessi wrote: »

I would totally dispute this.

Not all women expect men to be bread winners but they tend to find success as highly attractive and more than males. It is true even in wild chimps where success in hunting allows males to claim the social hierarchy.

khalessi

khalessi wrote: »

I would totally dispute this.

There is still the expectation, and desire by many women that their partner be equally or more successful financially than they are. While there will be some women who won't care, studies in the US, and others, have shown that many women won't date someone who has less education, or is making less money than them. "Dating down" is definitely a concern for many women who are career/wealth minded (at least until they decide to have children).

joseywhales

All this talk of what genders should or shouldn't do and invented rules on how people choose their dates. Like maybe these rules are the default for those with such a lack of imagination that they are sleepwalking through life, doing what "they should". What ever happened to riding someone because they are great craic and you like the shape of them? What about doing a job because it gives you the maximum pay for the least effort? Now those are principles to live by, regardless of your gender.

khalessi

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not all women expect men to be bread winners but tend to find success as highly attractive. Its true even in wild chimps where success in hunting allows males to claim the social hierarchy.

Oh I dont dispute that some women want this but not all, same way as some men want to date a super model and some dont. It is a narrowminded approach and the two studies quoted even acknowledge their narrow focus.

The first study goes back as far as 1971 when a lot of married women were not allowed to work and acknowledges that workplaces still have to catch up in equality of pay and when it does looks outstrip resources. However narrowing the focus to just those two elements does not give a proper picture of what people want out of a relationship, and when a wider focus is allowed it shows that women want more then money,

The second study on divorce states that "Killewald’s study does not take into account the more modern concept of marriage where the husband is the stay-at-home dad, nor does it include same-sex marriages as the available data is so new. As a caveat, there are many factors that contribute to divorce that this study does not seem to take into account. This however, does not mean they do not exist." There are other issiues that lead to divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism drugs, could also lead to loss of job and divorce.


This study carried out by online survey of 100 women showed what was attractive in men for them. "The surveys revealed that most women want the man in their life to be faithful, dependable, a good listener, and have a sense of humor and style."

They list 20 attributes and under practical attributes, earning potentialis last listed.

https://www.maxim.com/news/top-20-qualities-of-a-good-man-2019-6

Maybe I just dispute it because that is not what I have seen in my life, in the couples I know they either earn the same or the female is the higher earner.

I think it is a traditional idea that is changing and the studies above dont take that into account

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

Such as?

I did a google search, and while I saw plenty of articles saying that more men were needed, I didn't see any supports directly aimed at men.



Actually, for the vast majority of men, it wouldn't. Simply because we learn how to dismiss such opinions when we're young. Those kind of observations are commonplace throughout the teenage and early 20s for most men, whether it's about their career or general choices in life. Men, typically, learn to just get on with things..

Grant and a recruitment drive mate. https://www.tes.com/news/recruitment-drive-more-men-early-years

Everyone else is wrong mate. https://www.thelearningstation.co.uk/blog/male-child-care-why-men-avoid-working-in-child-care