Staff outing - only ladies invited

System

ViolaLass wrote: »

Men are socialised to 'have more aggression' i.e. to show their emotions that way.

You are wrong. It's not socialised. It's through millions of years of evolution and more biological than anything else.

System

Dean000000 wrote: »

I’m gonna invent toxic femininity

It already exists. Extremes are just as bad in both men and women.

System

ViolaLass wrote: »

I'm uneasy about this situation too but let's also recognise that there is historical and great discrimination against women and girls in STEM subjects (which is what I think pinkshoes teaches, reading between the lines).

You're probably right, there are barriers once in the industry (attitudes etc.) however the equality of opportunity has been around for many years now.



However, girls do not tend to gravitate toward STEM subjects anyway due to genetics, so it makes the issue a bit less black and white as you'd imagine. Boys of course do, coupled with aggression, you get very successful men in STEM fields and plenty of competition.



If you want an interesting read, check out the egalitarian countries in Scandinavia who made the playing field more or less 50/50...even more women avoided STEM subjects...

bugslett

andydownes123 wrote: »

You're probably right, there are barriers once in the industry (attitudes etc.) however the equality of opportunity has been around for many years now.



However, girls do not tend to gravitate toward STEM subjects anyway due to genetics, so it makes the issue a bit less black and white as you'd imagine. Boys of course do, coupled with aggression, you get very successful men in STEM fields and plenty of competition.



If you want an interesting read, check out the egalitarian countries in Scandinavia who made the playing field more or less 50/50...even more women avoided STEM subjects...

Reading this thread is a bit like watching bald men argue over a comb.

Know nothing about STEM but a lot about haulage. Women generally do not really want to be truck drivers, around 1% are. It's not because of discrimination or lack of access, as a woman with 36 years in the industry in various guises, I find it's remarkably discrimination free.

ViolaLass

Cicatriz wrote: »

Are you aware of higher trend of men to be interested in 'things' whereas women are more interested people as a result of testosterone exposure?

No, I am not aware of this, since it is not supported by science. There are men and women who fit these categories, of course, and men and women who do not.

Modern science does not support your assertion that any correlation in this area is caused by testosterone.

Cicatriz_2

ViolaLass wrote: »

No, I am not aware of this, since it is not supported by science. There are men and women who fit these categories, of course, and men and women who do not.

Modern science does not support your assertion that any correlation in this area is caused by testosterone.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/02/career-choice-influenced-by-sex-hormones/29136.html

System

ViolaLass wrote: »

No, I am not aware of this, since it is not supported by science. There are men and women who fit these categories, of course, and men and women who do not.

Modern science does not support your assertion that any correlation in this area is caused by testosterone.

ViolaLass - you need to do some research as there's quite a number educated posters trying to say to you...it is supported by science!! Lots and lots and lots of it!!



Modern science completely supports (in fact there is no argument now, it's pretty much a done deal) that testosterone, or lack of it, has a immeasurable affect on career choice.

theoretica

Comms69 wrote: »

That is frankly, irrelevant.


This is clearly a case of gender discrimination - you may not like it, but that's exactly what it is.


It's clearly teaching valuable lessons to societies youngest members... Girls matter, boys don't. And then people ask why there's 80+ male suicides a week... Pathetic

Are you equally against (and I have seen them, I am not making them up for the sake of argument) male only mental health activities?

ArcticRoll

theoretica wrote: »

Are you equally against (and I have seen them, I am not making them up for the sake of argument) male only mental health activities?

It's ridiculous comparison.

We're talking about a class room of children, some of whom are offered additional support and help in a subject they're struggling in, the other half have to identify their own learning needs and then plead to be allowed the honour of additional support in a subject they're struggling in as long as they can put up with the space where they can have that additional support being given a name that makes it clear as day the fact they want additional support and help in a subject they're struggling is considered at best a bit of an imposition.

You seem to think that because some have an issue with a teacher deciding based on genitalia which children they help and which they don't that somehow people must be unaware of gender-based services that exist or that somehow they must be a hypocrite if they don't also rail against those too.

With respect your points are awful. You do not seem to be able to distinguish between pointing out that bias in this case is being called out vs people being aware other targeted services exist for a perfectly legitimate reason. You seem to think that objecting to the fact that children of the same age, in the same class, in the same subject do not appear to have equal access to additional help and support as each other that it means somehow "Oh so you also object to male sexual health clinics?"

i don't know if you miss the point spectacularly or if you genuinely think you're batting it out of the park.

People are aware that there are specialist services for men, women, elderly, infirm, disabled, black, LGBT, young etc that exist for perfectly legitimate reasons. The issue is whether deciding whether to help a child based on what is or isn't between their legs is a legitimate reason because other legitimate reasons for targeting services/support to specific demographics of people is something that exists.

It's ridiculous whataboutery.

Objecting to "As a teacher I will offer to help other children who are falling behind but not your son because he's a boy" isn't the same as objecting to women's refuges or male mental health units or additional help for the elderly or LGBT rights or anything like that. So please stop repeatedly making essentially this point because it's ridiculous.

ViolaLass

andydownes123 wrote: »

ViolaLass - you need to do some research as there's quite a number educated posters trying to say to you...it is supported by science!! Lots and lots and lots of it!!



Modern science completely supports (in fact there is no argument now, it's pretty much a done deal) that testosterone, or lack of it, has a immeasurable affect on career choice.

I too am an educated poster who has read some of the science published about this and books about it - Cordelia Fine's are one such example.

I know that correlation is not causation and so do many of the scientists who have written about this area. Even the study posted earlier noted a correlation and posited that there might be a causal link but did not claim that it had shown that there is one.

Correlation is not causation. Causation has not been proven. Feel free to find a series of peer reviewed studies that shows that it has.