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
