Encouraging girls and women into certain fields

purifol0

khalessi wrote: »

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."

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

Oh FFS a SURVEY is not a STUDY. Don't be ridiculous. A survey would have you believe young teenage boys all have regular sex with many women.




STUDIES measure objective facts. And the facts on what women (and men) ACTUALLY want in their partners are borne out time and time again, with repeatable results.



You are conflating what you want to believe to be true with objective fact.

khalessi

purifol0 wrote: »

Oh FFS a SURVEY is not a STUDY. Don't be ridiculous. A survey would have you believe young teenage boys all have regular sex with many women.




STUDIES measure objective facts. And the facts on what women (and men) ACTUALLY want in their partners are borne out time and time again, with repeatable results.



You are conflating what you want to believe to be true with objective fact.

Picking a study with a narrow focus is not giving the correct viewpoint. It is just short of daddy or chips. Looks or money yeah cos people are that superficial. :rolleyes:

But that is a topic for another thread

purifol0

khalessi wrote: »

Picking a study with a narrow focus is not giving the correct viewpoint. It is just short of daddy or chips. Looks or money yeah cos people are that superficial. :rolleyes:

But that is a topic for another thread

I didnt pick a single study - I noted how ALL of them from the last 45 years have reported the same damn thing:
Women go for men with resources and men go for youth & looks.

To even think this was controversial in this day and age where we've literally got dating app statistics is folly.
What next - are women who write bios that state their preference for tall men just brainwashed by society too?

Edit: It is not necessarily something that should go into a different thread because the jobs people go into are related to their gender and to a lesser extent their sexuality.

khalessi

purifol0 wrote: »

I didnt pick a single study - I noted how ALL of them from the last 45 years have reported the same damn thing.


Women go for men with resources and men go for youth & looks.



To even think this was controversial in this day and age where we've literally got dating app statistics is folly.

I made the point that going back 45 years is 1971, when married women were not allowed work and that the studies quoted acknowledge their narrow focus and that pay equality still ahs to catch up and where it does for women looks outstrip pay.

You also quotes a study saying unemployment is main cause of divorce and in the article it says there are other reasons not regonised by the study

I also said some women do and some dont. NOt rocket science

purifol0

khalessi wrote: »

I made the point that going back 45 years is 1971, when married women were not allowed work and that the studies quoted acknowledge their narrow focus and that pay equality still ahs to catch up and where it does for women looks outstrip pay.

You also quotes a study saying unemployment is main cause of divorce and in the article it says there are other reasons not regonised by the study

I also said some women do and some dont. NOt rocket science

Women have relied on men to put food the table since pre agricultural revolution. Man as hunter provider and protector of woman as the bearer & rearer of children is something of a historical biological fact.


You think women prefering muscly men for short term flings is based on anything but instinct?


The *Some* women you mention are a teeny tiny minority, but I would argue the only reason this happens is because of Irelands modern welfare state and the fact that women in the public sector will often have trouble finding partners in the private sector that earn as much as they do due to the much higher pay,pensions and job security and ever increasing pay rates.


And divorces following husband unemployment are as night follows day. When women marry a man its because of what he can provide, as soon as that goes so does her interest. Sounds harsh huh? Nature is indeed cruel.



Maybe see the suicide gender divide for further confirmation that for men divorce following unemployment is often an unofficial death sentence.

CelticRambler

purifol0 wrote: »

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

Yes. And even if you can find studies showing that it is a common belief, it's still not a biological fact, it's a social construct and can be changed even within a single generation.

purifol0 wrote: »

Women have relied on men to put food the table since pre agricultural revolution. Man as hunter provider and protector of woman as the bearer & rearer of children is something of a historical biological fact.

Thanks for confirming what I said earlier - you're basing your argument on really, really outdated social norms.

My mother, although born and raised in the "stay at home after you're married" era and somewhat dependent on my father's income still found ways to generate a revenue of her own. Probably because of that, both of my sisters are the main earners in their families and there's no strain in either marriage because of it. My brother took advantage of a restructuring within his company to take voluntary redundancy and go back to college, leaving his wife as the sole earner. My best friend since childhood earns half of what his sister (in the same line of work) earns.

Sure, there are still plenty of Neanderthal men around, and presumably an approximately equal number of Neanderthal women, but in the world I live in, people never compare salaries before embarking on a relationship.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

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

Thanks for the link.

How is everyone wrong?

I'm qualified to teach at primary level if I wished, but I wouldn't do so. Why? The risk of allegations relating to sexual/child abuse. Many other men I know would feel the same way... just as many in secondary level, are now looking elsewhere for roles because the same cultural perspective is growing there.

The problem for men in teaching is that socially/culturally, there is a movement to paint men as being sexual predators or rapists in society itself. The pushing of the belief that there is a rape culture, and other "suggestions"of similar ideas. That will feed into the presence of men in teaching roles, regardless of the steps that male teachers engage in to distance themselves from students.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

How is everyone wrong?

Because many of the presentations being made on the topic seem to address the fact that there is stigma that it is 'women's work' and that is a barrier just the way people assume women aren't naturally good at jobs considered to be male professions, that's why schemes and women in stem days are a good idea.

Yes, the link I sent you talks about that stigma. There should be more support in this area the way that promoting women's involvement in stem fields should continue also.

Round and round we go... where we stop nobody knows...

purifol0

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes. And even if you can find studies showing that it is a common belief, it's still not a biological fact, it's a social construct and can be changed even within a single generation.



Thanks for confirming what I said earlier - you're basing your argument on really, really outdated social norms.
but in the world I live in, people never compare salaries before embarking on a relationship.

You are painfully wrong - lets take your last sentence for a spin shall we:



First question on a blind date "So what do you do?"




Just as an aside - have you actually talked to men about this issue???

CelticRambler

purifol0 wrote: »

You are painfully wrong - lets take your last sentence for a spin shall we:

First question on a blind date "So what do you do?"

Seriously? That's your evidence? :rolleyes:

Possible reasons for wanting to know what the other person does:
- can they take holidays in "term time"
- are they and outdoorsy person or stuck in a cubicle?
- do they work away from home a lot?
- do they work nights/shifts/overtime/irregular hours
- is it the kind of job that leaves them wiped out at the end of the day?
- do they work with lots of other potential date material?

And in any case, again it's a social construct, not biological. Here, where I live, the first question is "where do you come from?" Second question is usually "what brings you to this area?"

purifol0

CelticRambler wrote: »

Seriously? That's your evidence? :rolleyes:

Possible reasons for wanting to know what the other person does:
- can they take holidays in "term time"
- are they and outdoorsy person or stuck in a cubicle?
- do they work away from home a lot?
- do they work nights/shifts/overtime/irregular hours
- is it the kind of job that leaves them wiped out at the end of the day?
- do they work with lots of other potential date material?

And in any case, again it's a social construct, not biological. Here, where I live, the first question is "where do you come from?" Second question is usually "what brings you to this area?"

This is hilarious. Watching you wiggle and squirm out of admitting that how much a man earns (and what job he has ie social rank) is crucial for him to be considered relationship material (as opposed to a one nighter).


Same advice as the previous poster - go ask the men in your life about it.


Oh and I think you'll find many men are outdoorsy people - they work in a cubicle because they need the money.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Because many of the presentations being made on the topic seem to address the fact that there is stigma that it is 'women's work'

It's odd, because I've never heard anyone call teaching "women's work". With the exception of nursing, child care, or those roles which traditionally have been linked to motherhood or women's supposed natural advantage in being patient/sympathetic.

But then, both my parents were teachers, as is my sister. As are a lot of my extended family.

and that is a barrier just the way people assume women aren't naturally good at jobs considered to be male professions, that's why schemes and women in stem days are a good idea.

I wonder who pushes these stereotypes, because I rarely hear men suggesting anything like that... Oh, I've heard criticism directed to women who were too "sensitive"or a lack of competition when it came to management roles, but then, we hear so much about how women shouldn't have to behave as men do in such roles.

Schemes that promote the inclusion of women over men are never good. Schemes that promote the need for more people in general are good. Research and laws that seek to remove the real barriers to people based on their gender.. are best.

For the most part, we have an equal opportunity society, whereby women can apply and compete for roles. These schemes seek to go beyond that equality, by providing incentives for companies or other organisations to hire women... based on their gender, rather than choosing the best person for the position. If that best person is female, great. Just as great, if that person is male.

Yes, the link I sent you talks about that stigma. There should be more support in this area the way that promoting women's involvement in stem fields should continue also.

Round and round we go... where we stop nobody knows...

You missed the point. The issue isn't about teaching itself. Even the income is secondary, since most teachers approach their jobs as being something that they love to do, as opposed to the aim of making money. I stopped working in Finance to become a teacher, taking a massive drop in income as a result.. because I wanted to be a teacher... However, even though I could teach primary, and I do like teaching kids, I won't because of the perception of society towards male teachers, along with all the risks that go along with it. Not an unreasonable fear.

cloudatlas

purifol0 wrote: »

This is hilarious. Watching you wiggle and squirm out of admitting that how much a man earns (and what job he has ie social rank) is crucial for him to be considered relationship material (as opposed to a one nighter).

The wealth of women is increasing By 2030 there will be more female millionaires in the world than men. Change is coming. https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast/episode/127-by-2030-there-will-be-more-female-millionaires-in-the-world-than-men-change-is-coming-83184488

I don't have any female friends who aren't able to look after themselves and their finances, point being they don't need a partner to support them financially, they surprise surprise value other characteristics when looking for a partner.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

It's odd, because I've never heard anyone call teaching "women's work". With the exception of nursing, child care, or those roles which traditionally have been linked to motherhood or women's supposed natural advantage in being patient/sympathetic.

But then, both my parents were teachers, as is my sister. As are a lot of my extended family.



I wonder who pushes these stereotypes, because I rarely hear men suggesting anything like that... Oh, I've heard criticism directed to women who were too "sensitive"or a lack of competition when it came to management roles, but then, we hear so much about how women shouldn't have to behave as men do in such roles.

Schemes that promote the inclusion of women over men are never good. Schemes that promote the need for more people in general are good. Research and laws that seek to remove the real barriers to people based on their gender.. are best.

For the most part, we have an equal opportunity society, whereby women can apply and compete for roles. These schemes seek to go beyond that equality, by providing incentives for companies or other organisations to hire women... based on their gender, rather than choosing the best person for the position. If that best person is female, great. Just as great, if that person is male.



You missed the point. The issue isn't about teaching itself. Even the income is secondary, since most teachers approach their jobs as being something that they love to do, as opposed to the aim of making money. I stopped working in Finance to become a teacher, taking a massive drop in income as a result.. because I wanted to be a teacher... However, even though I could teach primary, and I do like teaching kids, I won't because of the perception of society towards male teachers, along with all the risks that go along with it. Not an unreasonable fear.

I have a family member who was a teacher and their salary was very healthy, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you crave. I don't know why all the reports talk about that stigma if it doesn't exist, very strange.

I don't see any harm in these schemes in the short term to address historic problems. The women in STEM campaign hasn't been in existence for a long time and it has made a very small impact.

purifol0

cloudatlas wrote: »

point being they don't need a partner to support them financially.

Exactly, they don't need one, and yet they don't "date down".



You only need to watch an episode of First Dates to see how that plays out when the bill arrives.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

I have a family member who was a teacher and their salary was very healthy, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you crave. I don't know why all the reports talk about that stigma if it doesn't exist, very strange.

The salary was very healthy. However in comparison to other roles, it tends to lag behind... especially when approaching the midway point of your career development. There's isn't a lot of scope to majorly increase the salary beyond getting another Masters or PHD.

I don't see any harm in these schemes in the short term to address historic problems. The women in STEM campaign hasn't been in existence for a long time and it has made a very small impact.

We are equal but we'll improve your chances in employment based on your gender. That's discrimination. Placing one gender over another. Which is what happens when you create incentives for employers, and scholarships that are not available to everyone. (Do a search for Women in Stem scholarships)

The only barriers to women in STEM are social.. and society has been changing for decades in it's perception of women in the workplace. Promotion to girls to choose STEM, sure... that would be perfectly fine.. but that's not what's been happening.

cloudatlas

purifol0 wrote: »

Exactly, they don't need one, and yet they don't "date down".



You only need to watch an episode of First Dates to see how that plays out when the bill arrives.

That's right! I mean the 'first dates' production team don't pay for the meal or anything, what happens on camera is true.

They don't need one. What are you complaining about exactly, because normally when I hear this argument from men they are single and looking for something or someone to blame.

purifol0

cloudatlas wrote: »

That's right! I mean the 'first dates' production team don't pay for the meal or anything, what happens on camera is true.

They don't need one. What are you complaining about exactly, because normally when I hear this argument from men they are single and looking for something or someone to blame.

Sorry m8 but I know several people who went on that show and you don't get a free meal (unless your date pays). The date itself lasts almost two hours, but the moment of truth when the bill arrives is always shown. Why do you think that is???

cloudatlas

purifol0 wrote: »

Sorry m8 but I know several people who went on that show and you don't get a free meal (unless your date pays). The date itself lasts almost two hours, but the moment of truth when the bill arrives is always shown. Why do you think that is???

Please don't make me watch that show. I would be genuinely surprised if a dating show didn't reimburse people after the show was over as the guardian website does a weekly column and they pay for the dates, I would find it very strange if that incentive was removed or if there was no payment of the participants of the show whatsoever.

osarusan

purifol0 wrote: »

You only need to watch an episode of First Dates to see how that plays out when the bill arrives.

Jaysus pal, using 'first dates' or any other kind of reality tv show to make any kind of argument on normal behavioural patterns is ridiculous.


They are all selected so it won't be normal.

purifol0

cloudatlas wrote: »

Please don't make me watch that show. I would be genuinely surprised if a dating show didn't reimburse people after the show was over as the guardian website does a weekly column and they pay for the dates, I would find it very strange if that incentive was removed or if there was no payment of the participants of the show whatsoever.

Talking about the Irish one, they get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost. Oh and the real incentive is TV exposure never mind a possible relationship or free grub.

purifol0

osarusan wrote: »

Jaysus pal, using 'first dates' or any other kind of reality tv show to make any kind of argument on normal behavioural patterns is ridiculous.


They are all selected so it won't be normal.

Not true, people change their behavior when thy know they're being watched yes, but paying for the date (or not) has consequences, it also gets the anonymous boardsies talking and they shoot from the hip. The stance on who should pay from women is very....traditional.

ax530

Hospital medical staff Drs, nurses ect vast majority are female would it not be useful to promote this area for men/ boys cannot understand why such a STEM push for girls having a B SC myself (over 20 years ago) no one thought it was unusual girls doing science subjects in school and college. How has it changed so much that women in every STEM type organisation are encouraged to volunteer promotion of STEM to girls.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

The salary was very healthy. However in comparison to other roles, it tends to lag behind... especially when approaching the midway point of your career development. There's isn't a lot of scope to majorly increase the salary beyond getting another Masters or PHD.



We are equal but we'll improve your chances in employment based on your gender. That's discrimination. Placing one gender over another. Which is what happens when you create incentives for employers, and scholarships that are not available to everyone. (Do a search for Women in Stem scholarships)

The only barriers to women in STEM are social.. and society has been changing for decades in it's perception of women in the workplace. Promotion to girls to choose STEM, sure... that would be perfectly fine.. but that's not what's been happening.

Yes salaries for the arts etc., are undervalued.

What the OP was talking about is the Women in STEM campaign. Women in STEM campaigns encourage women to apply to science degrees, they still have to get the same grades as the men and win a place. The campaigns impact social perception.

Sorry but I still feel that affirmative action is a good way of righting historic wrongs in the short term and that's my stance.

The provision of scholarships is so low and the involvement of women in these fields so small that to complain about it just sounds really petty given the historic precedent for the provision of these scholarships. Earlier the complaint was what about men in teaching and there were points about what was being done and now it's back to no schemes allowed at all for anybody so...

jackboy

cloudatlas wrote: »

The provision of scholarships is so low and the involvement of women in these fields so small ..

Not sure about this. I would say most labs in the country have more women than men working in them.

py2006

The only reason middle class feminists are trying to suggest there is some sort of sexist barrier to women getting into STEM is because of the pay and scalable opportunities.

If, for the most part, STEM jobs were minimum wage and outdoors were you get dirty there would be FAR less of a interest from these types.

You have to be of a certain mindset to qualify and succeed in this area and for whatever reason more men than women are or certainly more men are interested in this area.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Sorry but I still feel that affirmative action is a good way of righting historic wrongs in the short term and that's my stance.

And you're entitled to that opinion. Whereas I feel it simply encourages double standards and discrimination to be applied just so that people with no interest in doing STEM themselves can say "now there's a reasonable number of women in STEM".

You keep saying in the short term, but these initiatives don't stop at 50%. There won't be enough women in <insert role>... and if they are, then there will continue to be reasons to complain that they're not being valued, aren't getting enough promotions, enough... whatever.

I don't like it because it pushes society further away from gender equality.

The provision of scholarships is so low and the involvement of women in these fields so small that to complain about it just sounds really petty given the historic precedent for the provision of these scholarships. Earlier the complaint was what about men in teaching and there were points about what was being done and now it's back to no schemes allowed at all for anybody so...

The point again, being that they're scholarships/incentives based entirely on the gender of someone. That goes against the whole idea of gender equality. We, as a society, should be diminishing the importance of gender in employment, since women can do the job as good as any man, and vice versa (not taking into account individual skills and talents).

I just don't get the willingness to apply the attitude that women can do anything men can do, they have the choice to do any job a man can do, but let's make it easier for women to get that job.. because there's not enough women doing that job. It's a middle finger to any man who applies for the same position, because it's not his lack of skills/experience/qualifications that's causing him to be passed over, it's that his competition is female. That's it. It comes down to her gender.

As for teaching, I've said my piece, and there's little point repeating it.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

And you're entitled to that opinion. Whereas I feel it simply encourages double standards and discrimination to be applied just so that people with no interest in doing STEM themselves can say "now there's a reasonable number of women in STEM".

You keep saying in the short term, but these initiatives don't stop at 50%. There won't be enough women in <insert role>... and if they are, then there will continue to be reasons to complain that they're not being valued, aren't getting enough promotions, enough... whatever.

I don't like it because it pushes society further away from gender equality.



The point again, being that they're scholarships/incentives based entirely on the gender of someone. That goes against the whole idea of gender equality. We, as a society, should be diminishing the importance of gender in employment, since women can do the job as good as any man, and vice versa (not taking into account individual skills and talents).

I just don't get the willingness to apply the attitude that women can do anything men can do, they have the choice to do any job a man can do, but let's make it easier for women to get that job.. because there's not enough women doing that job. It's a middle finger to any man who applies for the same position, because it's not his lack of skills/experience/qualifications that's causing him to be passed over, it's that his competition is female. That's it. It comes down to her gender.

As for teaching, I've said my piece, and there's little point repeating it.

Yes the department of education want statistics that state the numbers have increased in STEM no doubt.

I still don't understand the whole not going into teaching due to an imagined threat of being accused of abuse. The numbers of men in teaching has always been small and when there were men they tended to be in the principal positions and this was before the sex abuse scandals came to the surface. I just don't think that's the reason and if they think that's the case why go to the trouble of doing the course in the first place if they are paranoid. Doesn't make any sense I think it's more to do with their own and societal perceptions about caring roles being more feminine.

cloudatlas

purifol0 wrote: »

Talking about the Irish one, they get a voucher that doesn't cover the cost. Oh and the real incentive is TV exposure never mind a possible relationship or free grub.

'Splitting the bill has divided the nation over the course of the 14 series of First Dates. Should he pay? Should she? Should they go halves? And this isn’t just done for TV – you do have to pay on First Dates, but everyone gets £25 towards their meal.'

the_syco

cloudatlas wrote: »

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

Yup. Agree with the link

The Fear of Being Accused
The other reason why men avoid child care is that of social stigmatism. June O'Sullivan, writing in LEYF, highlighted “the fear of being accused of abuse” as a major barrier to entry. She also mentioned the lack of promotion and discomfort of working in a highly female-dominated environment.

The bias against male child care workers is a widespread phenomenon, especially from parents. There have been instances of parents requesting male child care workers to be removed from the nursery or to not look after their children.

Have known lads whose goal was to become a teacher, and teach, having been inspired by a male teacher that helped them immensely. They did so, and then left the education field completely as the bias against them was so bad.

=-=

I agree with getting everyone into STEM, but getting men into certain professions that are female dominated won't happen, as the risk/reward ratio lies too heavily to risk and loss for men.