Which is kinda hilarious when there's a "female teacher and student at it again" article every couple of months with the usual lenient sentence.
google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Which is kinda hilarious when there's a "female teacher and student at it again" article every couple of months with the usual lenient sentence.
Yet they aren't repeatable across the globe. As already mentioned several times women's participation in construction in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe. Why is that?
For starters if this preference was completely true* why would the above be the case? And why is it even more stark amongst engineers (see page 15).
http://www.wes.org.uk/sites/default/files/Women in Engineering Statistics March2016.pdf
The UK has the lowest rate of female engineers in Europe at around 9%. Latvia on the other hand has around 30%; and Sweden and Belgium at around 25%.
How do you explain that if there is some kind of ingrained gender pull keeping UK participation so low. Again are UK women somehow genetically different to other women in Europe?
Gender stereotypes change over time, along with society norms. It's one the reason less women are staying at home and looking after kids full time in the UK now, it's one of the reasons more men are taking time off to look after their kids.
* I'm not disagreeing that some part of it is to do with possible innate biological preferences, but the preference is clearly a smaller part of this choice than is being portrayed considering the massive variations on a country to country basis.
Exactly. Do you not agree that this should be reversed and this perception challenged, or much like women in construction and men in nursing, should we just continue because it's "right"?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
But those examples are nowhere near parity, nowhere near.
Sure the UK is at the sharp edge of the figures but the stats remain the same. You read them how you want to though.
Of course gender stereotypes change, ESPECIALLY if we actively go out to bring about those changes. That's the crux of the issue here. It's not a natural progression, it's a forced issue.
It is being lobbied for and pushed upon society in a giant social experiment. An experiment that most people didn't ask for and do not wish to participate in.
But of course, if the only circles you find yourself in hold only these thoughts exclusively then you may find it strange that a great many others may disagree.
Sure the UK is at the sharp edge of the figures but the stats remain the same. You read them how you want to though.
Of course gender stereotypes change, ESPECIALLY if we actively go out to bring about those changes. That's the crux of the issue here. It's not a natural progression, it's a forced issue.
It is being lobbied for and pushed upon society in a giant social experiment. An experiment that most people didn't ask for and do not wish to participate in.
But of course, if the only circles you find yourself in hold only these thoughts exclusively then you may find it strange that a great many others may disagree.
I think the best person for the job should be employed to do the job, regardless of gender. Try starting a campaign to get men into primary school teaching, and see what kind of kickback you get from the SJWs. I'm sure we can get some t-shirts printed up that say "Not A Pedo". In the end, we're allowed to positively discriminate for women in male dominated areas, but the reverse is not true. Can you think of any female dominated areas where there are protests against sexism and active positive discrimination in favour of men?
Exactly, yet that's the crux of the argument being used against women in construction seemingly.
The question is why are women gravitating towards social and admin work? Why are Uk women far less likely to gravitate towards "male" industries like construction than other western countries? Is it in part because of the society we live in creating these distinct boundaries between male and female jobs, which are less prevelant in other countries?
I agree, we are never going to see parity, and I don't think anyone is looking for parity. Reducing the extreme gender imbalance is the aim. Whether that's male dominated industries or female dominated industries (although I'll agree, it's a little annoying that it usually the male dominated industries in the news).
The issue is opinion and personal experience don't usually count as heavily as empirical data. You're a single datapoint in an industry of hundreds of thousands. If you want to consider the overall trend of an industry something greater than a single datapoint is needed. As an example your points appear to be contradicted by quotes from women working in construction (in the links above).
It has nothing to do with party lines or anything else. I've drawn my guns based on the data provided and read. If you care to provide something other than personal opinion I'm happy to read and change my mind if it shows I'm wrong but so far you haven't provided any contradiction to most of the points raised. For example why is female participation in construction and engineering much lower in the UK than other countries if it's all to do with strength and biological "urges"?
And I totally agree, but at the moment, in many industries that just isn't the case, either because people aren't coming into those industries for whatever reasons (such as the perception of men being paedos, or women not being able to cut it in construction), or due to actual discrimination in the interview room.
Both of those issues need to be challenged, but I don't believe positive discrimination is the key either (which is what I said in my fist post in this thread). The SJW argument however is just a diversion tactic, it's such a minor part of the whole thing that it's akin to arguing that Brexit was because everyone is racist.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Your source here is a quote from Vince Cable. Do you have the actual data points and definitions that support them? It may be some countries have different definitions of what makes an engineer. Also that figure seems to reference graduates, not people who stay in the sector.
So yeah, more than happy to discuss, but first you need to provide meaningful data.
The king of the alt-right, Steve Bannon, is currently one of the president's top advisors. Other alt-right figures funded Trump's campaign and spoke at his rallies. They're also regular gusts on TV stations like Fox News.
Like this drive to recruit more male primary school teachers?
Just saying, that article is 8 years old. Considering how quickly policy's change, I don't think it is a good example
Basically the outcome of 'equal opportunities' agenda didn't give the results they wanted with regards to diversity. So now they are forcing it.
To hell with equal opportunities! Positive discrimination is the new fashion trend.
Also you are suppose to believe male and females are equal at everything and the same. Yet it's crucial to have a 50/50 split in the work place? If everyone is equal then any ratio of work force would provide the same results?
To hell with equal opportunities! Positive discrimination is the new fashion trend.
Also you are suppose to believe male and females are equal at everything and the same. Yet it's crucial to have a 50/50 split in the work place? If everyone is equal then any ratio of work force would provide the same results?
WRONG! Proper research confirms that bricklaying is a physically demanding job that involves frequent flexing of the trunk of the operative (upper body) and with woman having just above 50% of the upper body strength of men on average then by obvious inference women will be less suited to working in bricklaying jobs given that men and women experience similar relative strength gains when training under the same programme so the average woman would have a lot of 'adaptation' to do to be as capable as the average UNTRAINED man.
Of course, this doesn't mean that all women are incapable of working as bricklayers just that they are far less suitable for the role the men on average.
Of course not many people advocate seriously for increasing the amount of women bricklayers anyway because it’s a physical, dirty, dangerous job........
For bricklayers evidence was found for physical demands and risk on low back pain and complaints of arms and legs, for construction supervisors on psychosocial demands. Both occupations are at increased risk of lung cancer and injuries.
It’s amazing how powerful the patriarchy (or insert whatever nonsense explanation you wish to support the 'socialisation' explanation for gender roles') is now isn't it!
Where exactly have we found a group of humans with indistinguishable gender roles? Or even where has there been an example where a group of humans did not conform to 'stereotypical' male and female gender roles outside of modern western countries (which still largely conform to stereotypical gender roles despite continual assault from political gender revisionism)?
Yes I disagree with UCATT, as unions (In the UK at least) a now almost the exclusive enclaves of public sector workers and proportionally more women are in unions then men
‘The proportion of female employees who were in a trade union was around 27.7% in 2015, compared with 21.7% for male employees.’
‘Union membership levels in the private sector were almost 2.7 million members, an increase of 6,000 since 2014. Despite the small increase in numbers, the proportion of trade union members amongst private sector employees fell slightly from 14.2% to 13.9%'
'In the public sector, union membership levels increased by 29,000 year-on-year to 3.80 million in 2015. Trade union density in the public sector rose from 54.3% to 54.8% in 2015.’
Source
So its on the Unions self interest to promote more women in the industries they represent! That's before we get to their Marxist leanings.....
Check out their twitter feed…
Re tweet of Jeremey Corbyn standing by a socialism banner…check
Re tweet from the Morning Star… check
Lots of political attacks on the Tory Party… check
So yes you’re going to have to do a lot better than an advocacy piece from an un representative left leaning Union!
And talking about advocacy pieces……..
Oh dear… word of advice be very careful about advocacy journalism anyone who knows anything about statistics knows how cherry-picked data can be used to prove just about anything……. You linked to an article from the Women’s Engineering society… do you think they might have a bit of an agenda maybe?
The results are clearly all over the place....
for example if you look at your link which shows Latvia being at the top but yet with Lithuania being fourth from bottom! 30% vs 14.3% respectively! Care to explain that by your hypothesis?
Despite them being countries....
1) next to one another on the Baltic sea
2) both being of a comparable size
3) with a not too dissimilar total populations and GDP's per capita
4) and with very similar cultures
5) and up until not that long ago both controlled under the same regime (that of the USSR)
link Latvia 64,589km2, population 1,953,200 (2016 est) GDP Per capital 27,189 (US Dollars)
link Lithuania 65,300km2, population 2,821,674 (2017 est) GDP Per capital 31,849 (US Dollars)
Could it be maybe that the distribution of different types of engineering jobs in different countries (and what qualifies as being an 'engineer' in different countries) is relevant? For example Biomedical and Environmental Engineering have a far higher percentage of women working in them then compared to other engineering disciplines.
Of course we also see potential indication (if not evidence) of what is often called the Nordic paradox whereby more egalitarian countries sometimes show less participation in traditionally male roles then less egalitarian countries as the women have more choice to exercise their preferences vs their counterparts elsewhere who go more to whatever jobs will give then security and money to get by leading to higher rates of participation in certain files i.e STEM jobs (yes I am aware that in your link Sweden scores quite highly in the link but this is not generally replicated across all top/skilled jobs in the country .....
Sorry you have linked to a sloppy piece of advocacy work....
My personal favorite from your link is this claim.....
‘Enabling women to meet their full potential in work could add as much as $28 trillion to annual GDP in 2025, raising global economic output by 26 percent over a business-as-usual scenario.’
I wonder what the (not stated in this quote) downslides would be of women meeting their full economic output potential? Pure fantasy masquerading as attainable outcome from a think tank...
Of course back in the real word questions may have to be asked as to whether it is wise to advocate to hire an ever increasing amount of female professionals... given that they still disproportionally choose to take more part time work and leave then men on average.
'looking at the not seasonally adjusted series, around 13.4 million women aged 16 to 64 were in work (42% part-time) and 15.3 million men (12% part-time)'
Just take the NHS in England where were on the tipping point of having more women doctors then men which has caused issues as it has caused the total amount of hours worked in the profession to drop as women disproportionately elect to work part time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/health/8077083.stm
Last edited:
No, that would be an example of how patriarchy harms men as well as women.
How is that male patriarchy?
didn't you get the memo? Anything bad affecting men is also the result of the 'patriarchy' and any women who doesn't agree with the belief that anything wrong in the life is also the fault of the 'patriarchy' is suffering from internalised misogyny caused by the 'patriarchy'
quite how its the patriarchies fault that less men are in certain teaching roles now then when society was actually more overtly patriarchal is anyone's guess
I'm going for lazy. Women's participation in breastfeeding in the UK is one of the lowest in the WORLD. Why is that in your opinion Amp?