Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Equal right - Losing it's balance in favour of women?

13567…11

Comments

  • #102
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Do you think Thatcher only got to lead the UK because of gender quotas and not on her own skill and grit? People should be put forward on their merit, not because of their gender.

    You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.
    FortySeven wrote: »
    Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel..... I could fill a page.

    And how many pages would we fill with the men? You can name as many women in power as you like, but the numbers are indisputable. Men dominate, and that means our political institutions are not representative of our people.


  • #103
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Do you think Thatcher only got to lead the UK because of gender quotas and not on her own skill and grit? People should be put forward on their merit, not because of their gender.

    lol. One female PM in a several hundreds of years old democracy is surely evidence of a lack of sexism.

    Sure there's no racism in the States either, what with Obama being elected President.


  • #104
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    FortySeven wrote: »
    Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel..... I could fill a page.

    None of these women needed quotas to get elected and to rise to the top. Plenty of them also had children that did not seem to hold them back. They are the very embodiment of contradiction of the feminist argument that women somehow need a bit of help to succeed.

    If we are going to fight for equality then so be it. Let us talk about the allocation of social welfare, let us talk about the standards of gender sentencing of criminals. The distribution of social housing and homelessness. Let us talk about the whole broad spectrum of equality. Equality is not about furnishing women the ability to have their cake and eat it. It is a two way street and feminism seems to have forgotten to take a look over it's shoulder once in a while and mend the glaring holes left behind in the rapid advance forward.

    I'm all for equality, but we passed that marker a few decades ago as far as I am concerned.

    For every woman leader there's a hundred males. Considering there's over 50% of the population woman they should be a bit better represented. :confused:


  • #105
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 872 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Jayop wrote: »
    There's quotas for parties to have a certain amount of female candidates. There's no quota for the electorate so they can still choose not to elect them.

    Well done ladies, here's the chance you simply couldn't get before because of sexism within the parties not putting woman forward.

    While I was mainly irritated about gender quotas because of the way it was implemented (ie making state-funding conditional on meeting the requirements of the government of the day, I'm sure that won't come back to bite us), this logic annoyed me too. It came up an awful lot, and I think it simplified things too much, and made it into a "those parties are holding us back, they're the problem" situation.

    Research has consistently shown there are 5 main aspects affecting women's participation in the political process; cash, childcare, culture, confidence and candidate selection. The government's response was to take the easiest one to shoehorn a solution one, force it upon everyone, then declare job done.


  • #106
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Icemancometh wrote: »
    While I was mainly irritated about gender quotas because of the way it was implemented (ie making state-funding conditional on meeting the requirements of the government of the day, I'm sure that won't come back to bite us), this logic annoyed me too. It came up an awful lot, and I think it simplified things too much, and made it into a "those parties are holding us back, they're the problem" situation.

    Research has consistently shown there are 5 main aspects affecting women's participation in the political process; cash, childcare, culture, confidence and candidate selection. The government's response was to take the easiest one to shoehorn a solution one, force it upon everyone, then declare job done.

    AKA Step 1.


  • #107
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    I think the OP has the beginnings of a point i.e. I've come across an emerging piece of stupidity where some women seem to think that equality means that the boot is simply on the other foot. How widespread this is I don't know and neither does anyone else here. I'm seeing something stupid but whether it continues to turn into something more institutionalized remains to be seen. I think men need to start saying things like this despite the inevitable backlash.


  • #108
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.



    And how many pages would we fill with the men? You can name as many women in power as you like, but the numbers are indisputable. Men dominate, and that means our political institutions are not representative of our people.

    No she didn't. She displayed leadership qualities. Maggie was quite feminine and a motherly figure to her colleagues in office.


  • #109
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.



    And how many pages would we fill with the men? You can name as many women in power as you like, but the numbers are indisputable. Men dominate, and that means our political institutions are not representative of our people.

    Yeah to hell with a person who is right for the job has the right experience. It's like quotas for black people, Being black does not make you good at a job or right for the position. Care to point to the glass celling stopping women being voted in ?


  • #110
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 872 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Here's an abstract on some research about hiring bias in STEM fields. Well done male economists!


  • #111
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    FortySeven wrote: »
    No she didn't. She displayed leadership qualities. Maggie was quite feminine and a motherly figure to her colleagues in office.

    And to her people?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 872 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Jayop wrote: »
    AKA Step 1.

    Why couldn't step one be childcare? How much better off would everyone have been if that was sorted out instead?


  • #113
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    IrishTrajen you've posted a few times your stats about STEM jobs and the fact a woman is 2/3 times more likely to get a job., Surely there's a wealth of evidence to back this up.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/
    Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci think so. As the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, they have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments. In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men.
    Jayop wrote: »
    A lot of the rest of the posts you've agreed that sexism is there and just simply brush it aside with a "ah sure what can we do about that attitude". It's relevant to the post because imo woman still receive a lot of ****e in their daily life simply for being woman and that's very relevant in a discussion about equality among sexes.

    You've stated there's "a ways to go". How exactly do you stop people on being annoying cúnts? I've had women be annoying cúnts, I've seen men be annoying cúnts. There's really no gender divide, it's a "prick vs not-a-prick" divide.

    Your "discrimination" in the work place is anecdotal at best and already illegal, what more do you want?


  • #114
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    FortySeven wrote: »
    No she didn't. She displayed leadership qualities. Maggie was quite feminine and a motherly figure to her colleagues in office.

    lol that's a good one.

    I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page?

    I don't think in all I've read and watched about Thatcher and having been brought up in NI during her reign have I heard her referred to as maternal and feminine.


  • #115
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Jayop wrote: »
    lol that's a good one.

    I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page?

    I don't think in all I've read and watched about Thatcher and having been brought up in NI during her reign have I heard her referred to as maternal and feminine.

    That would be misogynistic. This is problematic.


  • #116
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.

    So, women who have the drive to do something without needing cop-outs and quotas, only got there because they're masculine and not because they were the best person? No True Scotsman is a fallacy.

    If Thatcher got to the top of the pile on her own skill and merit, regardless of whether you think it was masculine or feminine, the fact stands. She got there.

    What do you want, a Nanny State where the Government stands over you and makes sure you're given what you want, even if you don't have the determination to get there?


  • #117
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And to her people?

    That is another thread entirely. Maggie was a brutal demon.


  • #118
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    OK, both of those examples are for posts in colleges in America. Not exactly representative of real world hiring, and certainly not of real world hiring in Ireland.

    Has there been similar studies done for STEM positions in a non Education setting?


  • #119
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    lol that's a good one.

    I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page

    You seem biased to dislike her, you'll just discredit her having got there on her own. There's no point in furthering this debate.


  • #120
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    That would be misogynistic. This is problematic.

    No I feel both men and woman can be CNUTs equally.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    lawlolawl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And to her people?

    Should she have had to be softer on her people just because she was a woman?


  • #122
    liz lemoncello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 247 ✭✭liz lemoncello


    lawlolawl wrote: »
    The generations above the ones who would be the appropriate age for military service.

    It's a bit rich of women to want equality in the workplace and equal opportunities during peacetime and then turn around and say "i now have to stay at home and mind the kids" once war breaks out and there are life and death consequences involved.

    Also, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there isn't a huge rush of women to take "dirty" jobs either. They don't seem to mind at all that the gender representation in undesirable industries is heavily skewed in favor of men.

    Who are these women? Are you certain that they support the draft? What countries where feminism has a stronghold also has both the draft and a group of feminists who refuse to be drafted but insist that men be drafted? I think you've made this scenario up.


  • #123
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Jayop wrote: »
    lol that's a good one.

    I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page?

    I don't think in all I've read and watched about Thatcher and having been brought up in NI during her reign have I heard her referred to as maternal and feminine.

    Not to get off topic but I lived in Barnsley during the miners strike. Not as bad as Belfast but that woman ruined my family.

    She got the last laugh, I had a pact with a good friend that on the day she died we would buy the most expensive bottle of whisky we could afford and celebrate. I stopped drinking a few months prior to her death. I still intend to miturate upon her final resting place before I leave this earth.


  • #124
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    liz lemoncello wrote: »
    Who are these women? Are you certain that they support the draft? What countries where feminism has a stronghold also has both the draft and a group of feminists who refuse to be drafted but insist that men be drafted? I think you've made this scenario up.

    There are only a few countries that draft women.


  • #125
    LeBash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,646 ✭✭✭LeBash


    In fairness, we can p1ss standing up though.


  • #126
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    You seem biased to dislike her, you'll just discredit her having got there on her own. There's no point in furthering this debate.

    Where?

    Why are you trying to put words in my mouth that I never suggested or said anywhere?? I simply said that pointing to one female leader in the UK from the 73 PM's there's been since Walpole doesn't indicate a lack of sexism.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Tasden
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,166 ✭✭✭Tasden


    FortySeven wrote: »
    I'm in family court at the minute. To say it is biased is an understatement. I won't go into details but if I had done what my ex has done, I would be in prison now. Nothing. Nothing has happened to her.
    .....
    ....
    As for mens rights in the family. Those rights to children and family homes. Disgraceful in this nation. The remnants of a catholic ethos that has no place in a modern society coupled with the (perhaps good intentioned) influence of modern feminism upon the courts has made destruction of men as fathers a simple task for a vengeful mother.


    And I can't even get to court because I dont have an address to serve papers to the father. Even if it did get to court I cannot force him to be a decent parent, i cannot enforce access if he is not willing to be involved. I can only apply for a tiny portion of his dole and if he shows that he can only afford a tenner a week then tough luck for me, yet somehow I'm supposed to pick up his slack and manage on my single income, while paying childcare fees in order to earn that income.
    He upped and left, as many do, and contributes in no way to his child which seems to be pretty accepted by society as he was "not ready to be a father", whereas my being a single mother through no fault of my own is not so easily accepted by some for whatever reason.
    Had I decided I was "not ready" to be a parent, as the mother of the child, I would be accused of all sorts-neglect, abandonment etc. As the woman and the mother I am expected to care for the child regardless. How many women are left "holding the baby" as they say?
    There are inequalities and injustices on both sides and too many men and women are being too selfish when it should be about the child.


  • #128
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    OK, both of those examples are for posts in colleges in America. Not exactly representative of real world hiring, and certainly not of real world hiring in Ireland.

    Has there been similar studies done for STEM positions in a non Education setting?

    The problem in that is that even women who study in STEM fields tend to work in different industries than their male counterparts, according to the US Dept. of Commerce

    http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf


  • #129
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    LeBash wrote: »
    In fairness, we can p1ss standing up though.

    Buy a Shewee.


  • #130
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    Where?

    Why are you trying to put words in my mouth that I never suggested or said anywhere?? I simply said that pointing to one female leader in the UK from the 73 PM's there's been since Walpole doesn't indicate a lack of sexism.

    And there was a lack of Irish PMs (even among Protestants) when we were part of the Union, that doesn't mean there was racism/discrimination against the Protestant Ascendancy.


  • #131
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    The problem in that is that even women who study in STEM fields tend to work in different industries than their male counterparts, according to the US Dept. of Commerce

    http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf

    So apart from a few colleges in the US you can't show any research to prove that woman are twice as likely to be hired in STEM jobs than men despite the fact you've posted this assertion a few times in this thread?

    Seriously, give your head a wobble. From saying I'll discredit Thatcher getting elected because I don't like her to making assertions like that you're really having a mare here.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    liz lemoncello wrote: »
    Who are these women? Are you certain that they support the draft? What countries where feminism has a stronghold also has both the draft and a group of feminists who refuse to be drafted but insist that men be drafted? I think you've made this scenario up.

    I read the post that you responded to with that, started typing, then just rubbed the bridge of my nose, sighed, and did something else.


  • #133
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Tasden wrote: »
    And I can't even get to court because I dont have an address to serve papers to the father. Even if it did get to court I cannot force him to be a decent parent, i cannot enforce access if he is not willing to be involved. I can only apply for a tiny portion of his dole and if he shows that he can only afford a tenner a week then tough luck for me, yet somehow I'm supposed to pick up his slack and manage on my single income, while paying childcare fees in order to earn that income.
    He upped and left, as many do, and contributes in no way to his child which seems to be pretty accepted by society as he was "not ready to be a father", whereas my being a single mother through no fault of my own is not so easily accepted by some for whatever reason.
    Had I decided I was "not ready" to be a parent, as the mother of the child, I would be accused of all sorts-neglect, abandonment etc. As the woman and the mother I am expected to care for the child regardless. How many women are left "holding the baby" as they say?
    There are inequalities and injustices on both sides and too many men and women are being too selfish when it should be about the child.


    Completely agree that you are in a bad situation and fathers should stand up to their responsibilities. I am trying to do so but being stopped at every turn by legislation that allows women to punish fathers at their whim. My partner is refusing offered maintenance as she believes it gives me access rights! I was a daily dad for their whole lives and a stay at home dad for the first baby years. This is purely out of vengeance.

    Family court needs to be taken by the ankles and shaken, for all involved.


  • #134
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Jayop wrote: »
    So apart from a few colleges in the US you can't show any research to prove that woman are twice as likely to be hired in STEM jobs than men despite the fact you've posted this assertion a few times in this thread?

    Seriously, give your head a wobble. From saying I'll discredit Thatcher getting elected because I don't like her to making assertions like that you're really having a mare here.

    Its good internet etiquette if somebody post evidence to support their argument to reply with evidence of your own rather than to keep dodging the question


  • #135
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    And there was a lack of Irish PMs (even among Protestants) when we were part of the Union, that doesn't mean there was racism/discrimination against the Protestant Ascendancy.

    Good Christ almighty. You're reasoning and logic are just astounding.

    Don't you think that that would have more to do with the fact that...

    1) Ireland made up a tiny proportion of the electorate in the UK unlike the 51% woman.
    2) There was a discrimination against the Irish that overwhelmed any non discrimination against Irish Protestants.


    You know what, the last few posts you've made have been so mindbogglingly stupid I'm going to take a break from replying.


  • #136
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    So, women who have the drive to do something without needing cop-outs and quotas, only got there because they're masculine and not because they were the best person? No True Scotsman is a fallacy.

    I'll see your Scotsman fallacy and raise you a Straw Man. I'll even thrown in an Ad-Hom and sarcastically dub you "Captain Logic".

    You mis-stated my argument. I was pointing out that if the argument is that women can succeed on their own merits without quotas, then Maggie is a **** example of the same, because she succeed by being a man.

    Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.


  • #137
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Its good internet etiquette if somebody post evidence to support their argument to reply with evidence of your own rather than to keep dodging the question

    They didn't post evidence. Have you looked at either of the two articles posted as evidence that woman re twice as likely to be hired in STEM fields than men? Both point to the hiring process in third level institutions in the US. Hardly clearly representative of the STEM field as a whole and certainly not representative of it in Ireland.

    I've never said this was untrue so I have no burden of evidence. I'm dodging nothing because I've not said anything to the contrary.


  • #138
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I'll see your Scotsman fallacy and raise you a Straw Man. I'll even thrown in an Ad-Hom and sarcastically dub you "Captain Logic".

    You mis-stated my argument. I was pointing out that if the argument is that women can succeed on their own merits without quotas, then Maggie is a **** example of the same, because she succeed by being a man.

    Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.

    Can you provide evidence of sexism being the cause of these discrepancies in the modern day society? There are many factors at work here.


  • #139
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I don't understand why these debates always end up centring on Maggie Thatcher. She was a vile individual who was despised by women as much as by men.

    Catherine Murphy and Ruth Coppinger would be far better examples to talk about when it comes to women in politics. Two of the best TDs in the last Dail.

    If you can make sweeping statements about "women in politics" by just focusing on one appalling example, then to be honest we should also be making sweeping statements about "men in politics" by looking at people like Enda Kenny - do you really want to go down that route? :pac:


  • #140
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 872 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Jayop wrote: »
    They didn't post evidence. Have you looked at either of the two articles posted as evidence that woman re twice as likely to be hired in STEM fields than men? Both point to the hiring process in third level institutions in the US. Hardly clearly representative of the STEM field as a whole and certainly not representative of it in Ireland.

    I've never said this was untrue so I have no burden of evidence. I'm dodging nothing because I've not said anything to the contrary.

    I didn't make the original claim, so allow me to make my own new one. Women in academia in STEM fields in the US benefit from a 2:1 hiring bias.


  • #141
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    So apart from a few colleges in the US you can't show any research to prove that woman are twice as likely to be hired in STEM jobs than men despite the fact you've posted this assertion a few times in this thread?

    Because women don't want to work in STEM jobs. You can't discredit a piece of research just because you don't like where it was done. Women don't want to work in STEM fields, but the ones who do, are favoured over males.
    Studies suggest that many factors contribute to the attitudes and achievement of young women in mathematics and science including encouragement from parents, interaction with mathematics and science teachers, curriculum content, hands-on laboratory experiences, high school achievement in mathematics and science, and resources available at home.[6] In the United States, research findings are mixed concerning the grade in which boys’ and girls’ attitudes about mathematics and science diverge. Analyzing several nationally representative longitudinal studies, one researcher found few differences in girls' and boys' attitudes towards science in the early secondary school years.[6]

    Students’ aspirations to pursue careers in mathematics and science influence both the courses they choose to take in those areas as well as the level of effort put forth in these courses. A report by the U.S. Department of Education found that the gap in the career aspirations of boys and girls in science or engineering fields exists as early as eighth grade. Among the eighth grade class of 1988, boys were more than twice as likely as girls to aspire to be scientists or engineers (9 and 3 percent, respectively), although girls were more likely than boys to aspire to professional, business, or managerial occupations (38 and 20 percent respectively). While male and female high school seniors are equally likely to expect a career in science or mathematics, male seniors are much more likely than their female counterparts to expect a career in engineering.[7]

    A 1996 study of college freshmen by the Higher Education Research Institute shows that men and women differ greatly in their intended fields of study. Of first-time college freshmen in 1996, 20 percent of men and 4 percent of women planned to major in computer science and engineering, while similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences. The differences in the intended majors between male and female first-time freshmen directly relate to the differences in the fields in which men and women earn their degree. At the post-secondary level, women are less likely than men to earn a degree in mathematics, physical sciences, and computer sciences and engineering. The exception to this gender imbalance is in the life sciences.[8]
    Jayop wrote: »
    Seriously, give your head a wobble. From saying I'll discredit Thatcher getting elected because I don't like her to making assertions like that you're really having a mare here.

    Because you've "thanked" a post stating she got there because she exhibited masculine traits, and "let's start by agreeing she was a cúnt". You're quite obviously biased against her, there's no point in discussing it further with you.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".


  • #143
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.

    And forcing gender quotas will somehow "fix" this non-existent problem and not just plaster over those who are best for the job, replacing them with people put forward, not on the basis of their skill, but because it makes some limp-wristed Amadán feel good about themselves and their progressive policy?


  • #144
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Icemancometh wrote: »
    I didn't make the original claim, so allow me to make my own new one. Women in academia in STEM fields in the US benefit from a 2:1 hiring bias.

    A fair point, well researched and backed up. On the basis of what I've read it would appear that you are correct.
    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    Because women don't want to work in STEM jobs. You can't discredit a piece of research just because you don't like where it was done. Women don't want to work in STEM fields, but the ones who do, are favoured over males.





    Because you've "thanked" a post stating she got there because she exhibited masculine traits, and "let's start by agreeing she was a cúnt". You're quite obviously biased against her, there's no point in discussing it further with you.

    Yeah I grew up in NI while she was in charge and I do think she was a cúnt. Call that a bias if you want but I'm not about to start congratulating that scum for anything.

    It's really not that important what I think about her. The fact that she's the only female PM in a list of 73 proves that there's institutional sexism in UK politics.


  • #145
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Samaris wrote: »
    Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".

    It's not too surprising, most of this identity politics crap is being generated in America and then exported to other countries via the internet. Man shaming campaigns in Irish and British universities for instance are extremely predictable, since like clockwork they appear here roughly one academic year after they have taken hold in the US.


  • #146
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Samaris wrote: »
    Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".

    Yeah, because people living in the US are so inherently different from people in Ireland...


  • #147
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 872 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    Samaris wrote: »
    Sheesh, even on an Irish forum, you'd be forgiven for reckoning the world was "America" and "Otherplaces".

    It's a problem in most research fields. America is producing an abundance of good quality research (that's also in English!); we just don't have the numbers here. Asking for research on Irish figures is asking for something you know doesn't exist.


  • #148
    IrishTrajan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Jayop wrote: »
    Yeah I grew up in NI while she was in charge and I do think she was a cúnt. Call that a bias if you want but I'm not about to start congratulating that scum for anything.

    It's really not that important what I think about her. The fact that she's the only female PM in a list of 73 proves that there's institutional sexism in UK politics.

    No it doesn't.


  • #149
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    And forcing gender quotas will somehow "fix" this non-existent problem and not just plaster over those who are best for the job, replacing them with people put forward, not on the basis of their skill, but because it makes some limp-wristed Amadán feel good about themselves and their progressive policy?

    You see you're starting on the assumption that quotas don't work or are inherently wrong. I disagree with your starting point so of course I'm going to disagree with your end point.

    Take the PSNI, there was favourable hiring practices for Catholics to address a complete imbalance of hiring in favour of protestants for generations. Irish policics are attempting to do something similar with party sex quotas (quite unambitious ones) to redress the imbalance of pro male selections by the parties for generations.


  • #150
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,387 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    IrishTrajan wrote: »
    No it doesn't.

    Another good point well made. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    If you use Reddit, you had early warning of the "mandatory consent classes" sh!tstorm here, because the same sh!tstorm happened in America back in 2014.
    Same applies to recent campaigns in the UK for universities to deny a platform to speakers with "objectionable" opinions - that sort of mob censorship was a craze which originated in the US and Canada maybe ~6 months before it started happening in the UK.


Advertisement