Staff outing - only ladies invited

Comms69

theoretica wrote: »

Have you missed that there is another session immediately open to everyone? So it is not that the additional support is not offered and available, just that it is offered on a different day or place. Not identical provision, but not wildly different either.

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

ViolaLass

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

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).

Comms69

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).

Let's not.


I could argue quite clearly that there is historical and great discrimination against all people in all subjects at some point in time.


Whether that is true or not is largely irrelevant to today. You cant use historical grievances to swing things the other way now.


Every child is a blank slate and these students haven't suffered from 'historical or great' discrimination. Discrimination isn't a genetic memory.

happyandcontented

I agree that the pendulum has swung too far towards female bias, and believe that young men pick up on that either consciously or unconsciously. I would hesitate to suggest that it is factored into the high male suicide rate, but if it was, it wouldn't unduly surprise me.

Young males are viewed with suspicion by many facets of society. In part, that is due to certain behaviours some of them exhibit, but it was probably always that way, but today the media hype means everyone is almost instantly aware of it.

Pinkshoes post made me think, not about providing classes designated 'female only' (although that does cause me to pause for thought) but that the reasoning she gave was that the girls were 'intimidated' by the boys and wouldn't ask questions because of it.

I find that such a classroom set up quite worrying. Surely, the optimum would be that the schools fosters a peer support ethos and so then if the girls feel that the boys have superior knowledge in any given area they can ask for help and support from them and, of course, vice versa.

In the real world, the working world, everyone needs to be able to work as a team and bolster lacks found in other team members. Everyone needs to be able to put their strengths into the mix regardless of gender. Neither sex has the prerogative on intelligence, practical ability, emotional intelligence etc, so surely it better to enable the sexes to work together from an early age rather than segregate them?

I think the intention is good but the execution of the idea is flawed.

charlotte1994

I agree, if they had it listed as a "ladies night" that would be different, but just flat out stating "no boys allowed" is awful.

charlotte1994

Comms69 wrote: »

Let's not.


I could argue quite clearly that there is historical and great discrimination against all people in all subjects at some point in time.


Whether that is true or not is largely irrelevant to today. You cant use historical grievances to swing things the other way now.


Every child is a blank slate and these students haven't suffered from 'historical or great' discrimination. Discrimination isn't a genetic memory.

But bigotry does carry on. As a teenager I was discriminated against because I was a female musician, and the tutor came from bands which did not allow women. He was awful to all the girls, everyone knew it and let him get on with it. He was a grade A tw*t!! Attitudes can be passed on, there are people who still think that women shouldn't have jobs and only belong in the home like we're still living in 1895.

ViolaLass

Comms69 wrote: »

Whether that is true or not is largely irrelevant to today. You cant use historical grievances to swing things the other way now.

It's very, very far from being irrelevant. Women are still discriminated against in STEM (not to say that no other groups are, but women are).

Ignoring discrimination doesn't make it go away. Feeling uncomfortable about it doesn't stop it being present.

Comms69

charlotte1994 wrote: »

But bigotry does carry on. As a teenager I was discriminated against because I was a female musician, and the tutor came from bands which did not allow women. He was awful to all the girls, everyone knew it and let him get on with it. He was a grade A tw*t!! Attitudes can be passed on, there are people who still think that women shouldn't have jobs and only belong in the home like we're still living in 1895.

Just to dissect what you have written:


1: Yes bigotry does carry on, it's unfortunate. It's not something I'd legislate against; but clearly that person had no place teaching a mixed gender class.


2: there are those people, and some of them are women. Fundamentally that lifestyle is fine. If that's what both parties want.

Comms69

ViolaLass wrote: »

It's very, very far from being irrelevant. Women are still discriminated against in STEM (not to say that no other groups are, but women are). - I'm not sure that your statement is fully accurate. I'm sure some women are, but others aren't. I'd suggest it's not systematic. Equally men are discriminated against in education.

Ignoring discrimination doesn't make it go away. Feeling uncomfortable about it doesn't stop it being present.

I've not suggested ignoring discrimination, confront it if you want, or whatever you want to do.


I'm saying that yes discrimination exists, yes it shouldn't, but there are no systematic barriers preventing women from entering STEM subjects.

Cicatriz_2

How are women discriminated against within STEM?



Are you making an equality of outcome argument whereby fewer women in STEM is indirect discrimination?


If it is, do you also concede that there is indirect discrimation against men cuasing them to be killed at a rate twent times higher in employment than women? Or how about simple life expectancy? Is 5 years less life okay?



And given your other posts, do you think that social constructionism is the sole cause of unequal outcome?

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?



This kind of thinking infuriates me. There are distinct biological differences when viewed at a population level. Historic bias is largely emergent from those trends and environment. We've changed our environment significantly to the one that we've evolved and adapted to and the idea that a couple of millenia of civilization will wipe away millions of years of evolution is seems rather naive to me.



The mature and rational view post enlightenment is to treat people by merit and allow for both freedom and competence. Essentially, equality of opportunity. This makes sense because it means we exploit the most proficient people of the benefit of all and award those people for it.


We've now replaced this competence and liberty based model for equality of outcome because arbitrarily defined groups are now considered more important than the individual.


It's the individual that's important. His/her capabilities and aspirations.



I wouldn't normally bother with a thread like this, but reading one too many social constructionist conspiracy theories really set me off.