UK tech: gender and skills gap

[dust]

WTF ! I don't give a toss why it is some women don't choose it, they just don't and you think this a problem ?

 

There is no equality except the equality of rights, you are measuring fucking rainbows. How did you get that lodged in your brain ?

 

I cannot believe what I'm hearing, I thought this was just myth. I've seen young people talking like this like they just came out of a re-education camp. The number of women in any field is not a sign of 'gender inequality' whether it is the result of a historical/cultural patriarchy-which is what you are implying. Stop looking for correlation where there is none to be found.

 

I stated, quite clearly, that I don't know if it is a problem. I have said, quite clearly, that it is at least worth asking the question.

 

The fact that you seem to be getting your panties in more of a twist over the whole subject than I am suggests that even asking the question rankles you.

 

And yes, sometimes the ratio of men:women in a field is a sign of inequality. And not always against women.

 

 

 

if you want to start going down this stupid path, then perhaps you should stop off at the bit in history where men were expected to go to war to fight and die and women gave the white feather to men who refused. History shows women to have had a very nice time of things whilst the man worked himself into an early grave - men's lifespan was significantly shorter than women due to the expectation that they were bread winner in peace time and defender in war. Men were also entirely responsible for the debt of their wives.

 

We have equality of rights and then an awful lot of special privilege for women which appears to be some kind of perverted compensation that they are due because of some mythical history which has nothing to do with the men of today's world who are getting punished for these sins of the past.

 

Nobody's arguing that men in years past didn't have a shitty time of it. That's not the point. I didn't bring up Lovelace to complain about the awful time women had, I brought these women up to point out the effect the lack of women in the history of science and maths surely continues to have. Your tirade here is disingenuous.

 

But I can't now ignore what you said... your apparent understanding of history is deplorably skewed.

 

Men were expected to go to war and fight and die, and women... hung around, dancing and drinking champagne, yeah? And was it women who waged these wars, who sent men to die? Women who roamed the lands burning and raping and stealing and killing? Were women at the epicenter of every major religion, the likely ruler of every nation, the politicians, the generals, and antagonists in nearly every war? No. It is disgusting that you sit there acting like the choice wasn't nearly always that of the men, implying that women were fluffy and happy the whole time at home.

 

But, again, that's not the point.

 

 

We have equality of rights and then an awful lot of special privilege for women which appears to be some kind of perverted compensation that they are due because of some mythical history which has nothing to do with the men of today's world who are getting punished for these sins of the past.

 

What special privileges, exactly?

 

Not saying there aren't any... just wondering what you think they are.

[Karl]

I think the sides being drawn in this debate are actually both sharing some correct views because like any issue it can be viewed from various angles.

 

 

 

 

I would agree that the reasons, opportunities and likely pressures are varied.   Why did India emerge as the worlds 'tech support' ?    

 

When I go to DC to work with the data analysts and programmers there, it has a number of Indian works and the women outnumber the men.

 

Here, while in china, I'm reminded of how it is not uncommon to see women as a taxi driver, working at a gas pump, cleaning the streets, pulling full carts around at 5am; easy to heavy labor doesn't seem to have to much of a distinction in some areas.

 

I think you want to label some of the observations and causes and thus we end up with a topic on gender gap and influences that include the culture... one could say the culture of the mind as well as I think that is closer to what Karl suggests.

 

For some, it can just be opportunity cost but that usually comes with a setting where choice is readily available.  Remove choice and I think a lot changes.  For some, that removal may be due to population or competition issues but we can see it in India and China in some cases.  Some will jump at the opportunity to get ahead and others will grasp the chance to do anything beyond what they previous were doing.   These may be beyond cultural to just socio-economic pressures for survival that we don't quite experience say here in the US where laziness is rewarded on some level (ie: poverty programs).

 

 

 

 

 

I think from a historical perspective, this is the classic point... but if you dig down deep, why is this the case?

Because equality is a pipe dream of collectivists, of Mystics of both sides that refuse to accept the reality that consciousness has identity. That every person is not a soul trapped in a piece of meat, but an individual person. Part of the individualism is that men and women are uniquely different and must be in order to procreate. It is not simply a physical difference, it is a spiritual difference which manifests as masculinity and femininity. Humans are not rutting beasts attracted by pheromones, they are the product of their minds. Men necessarily have different values from women. For a woman it is to sexy and feminine and to be regarded in that sense so she can be free to express it and the best way she can do so is with a man she values as her equal. A woman shines in the light of masculinity as a man does in the light of femininity. A woman wants a hero and a man wants a heroine-these things are not equal, they are complimentary.

[Karl]

I stated, quite clearly, that I don't know if it is a problem. I have said, quite clearly, that it is at least worth asking the question.

 

The fact that you seem to be getting your panties in more of a twist over the whole subject than I am suggests that even asking the question rankles you.

 

And yes, sometimes the ratio of men:women in a field is a sign of inequality. And not always against women.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody's arguing that men in years past didn't have a shitty time of it. That's not the point. I didn't bring up Lovelace to complain about the awful time women had, I brought these women up to point out the effect the lack of women in the history of science and maths surely continues to have. Your tirade here is disingenuous.

 

But I can't now ignore what you said... your apparent understanding of history is deplorably skewed.

 

Men were expected to go to war and fight and die, and women... hung around, dancing and drinking champagne, yeah? And was it women who waged these wars, who sent men to die? Women who roamed the lands burning and raping and stealing and killing? Were women at the epicenter of every major religion, the likely ruler of every nation, the politicians, the generals, and antagonists in nearly every war? No. It is disgusting that you sit there acting like the choice wasn't nearly always that of the men, implying that women were fluffy and happy the whole time at home.

 

But, again, that's not the point.

 

 

 

 

What special privileges, exactly?

 

Not saying there aren't any... just wondering what you think they are.

Yes, you are making me angry because I see your philosophy etched into the words you write. It is the philosophy of violence, of 'might makes right' and that every nail must be hammered flat.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Karl

[dawei]

Because equality is a pipe dream of collectivists, of Mystics of both sides that refuse to accept the reality that consciousness has identity. That every person is not a soul trapped in a piece of meat, but an individual person. Part of the individualism is that men and women are uniquely different and must be in order to procreate. It is not simply a physical difference, it is a spiritual difference which manifests as masculinity and femininity. Humans are not rutting beasts attracted by pheromones, they are the product of their minds. Men necessarily have different values from women. For a woman it is to sexy and feminine and to be regarded in that sense so she can be free to express it and the best way she can do so is with a man she values as her equal. A woman shines in the light of masculinity as a man does in the light of femininity. A woman wants a hero and a man wants a heroine-these things are not equal, they are complimentary.

 

I really appreciate your comments as I feel I understand your point but I'd like to discuss it further.  I'm not into equality, so we can drop that argument..

 

So the sexes act to balance each other, in some kind of natural state?   As they see free to choose ?

 

You said:

Men necessarily have different values from women. For a woman it is to sexy and feminine and to be regarded in that sense so she can be free to express it and the best way she can do so is with a man she values as her equal. 

 

In what cultural understanding?  

[dust]

Yes, you are making me angry because I see your philosophy etched into the words you write. It is the philosophy of violence, of 'might makes right' and that every nail must be hammered flat.

 

Hah! OK... I ask some questions, point out some historical fact, and suddenly I'm Stalin. Nice.

 

I'm willing to let it go. I did not start the thread to bemoan some awful inequality between the sexes, in the tech industry or elsewhere. It was simply your refusal to even allow the question to be asked that made me argue. Not that what I've argued does not stand... but I do not have the energy to argue with someone who'll label me a totalitarian based on the fact that I'm not content seeing millennia of cultural bullshit unquestioningly accepted in the modern world.

 

If you read the article, you'll notice that the main question was of international disparity, and the general lack of interest in coding in this country. And, again, I wasn't claiming outright that this is a major problem, only asking whether or not.

[blue eyed snake]

well, apart from notions as equality, me thinks society as a whole would profit when young people were really free to choose the profession they are likely to excel in.

 

regarding coding, I'm stupid in that department, but I do know that one of the problems in the field is the communication between the customer and the coder. They do not speak each others language. The customer wants things of his program that are vital for her/his profession, the coder does not get the vitality of some of the demands. And vice versa.

 

That means that the on average better communicative skills of women would be valuable in that profession.

 

further I look at education, in the Netherlands education is thoroughly feminized, To me that is an unbalanced environment for children. I've worked in a school once where there was a guy teaching the preschoolers. he was very happy in his job, it was what he wanted. He did his job very well (and he was just as caring as his female colleagues). But he told me that his choice was met with much hurdles, mainly in the department of...that a womans job, you are a fool, you're working below your level... this is not long ago either.

 

so that is the other side of the unbalanced participation in jobs. For woman the message still seems to be that it might be too hard for them, for guys who prefer a womans job derision can wait for filling a womans ( read here : easy/caring/undemanding) job.

( btw, teaching preschoolers is a very demanding job...)

 

In my younger years I've worked as a mechanic, at first some eyebrows were raised mighty high by my colleagues to be ( this is some 30 years ago) I knew that would happen, did not want any exceptions made for me. just wanted to be a mechanic. Only exception I made was that i wanted a quarter of an hour off weekly to clean the loo 

 

after some time everybody was happy, without any knowledge or doing of my side a roster appeared so that we all had a share of cleaning the loo and the little kitchenette   seems they preferred it clean too. My hands and overalls were just as black as theirs, i took my equal share of the workload ( but i remember well the day i wasn't strong enough to get loose a screw-nut, o shit i thought. but there was a very strong guy working with us, I f he could not get something loose you could forget it, so I went to him, little shy, like shit " am I not able to do this job? after a big wank he loosened it and told me, hey, don't you mind, you're definitely not the weakest in muscles here, so that was that.

 

and after some months eating lunch there was a ( for me totally unexpected) general agreement that my coming was an asset for the firm because the atmosphere was much better than before I worked there.

 

later, my brother told me: (he worked in a male only job and a female arrived, same raised eyebrows.)  when a woman is around, men tent to curb there language somewhat. With no women around, men tend to fall in the trap of getting steadily more rough in their language and behavior and not being able to return on the road to more civilized manners. but the presence of a woman easily does the trick and the guys will be more happy for it.

 

and maybe something like that works too when guys work in all female groups,

 

so, apart from the gendergap ( imo very real) there is the question of balance

 

just my two cents.

[Karl]

I really appreciate your comments as I feel I understand your point but I'd like to discuss it further.  I'm not into equality, so we can drop that argument..

 

So the sexes act to balance each other, in some kind of natural state?   As they see free to choose ?

 

You said:

Men necessarily have different values from women. For a woman it is to sexy and feminine and to be regarded in that sense so she can be free to express it and the best way she can do so is with a man she values as her equal. 

 

In what cultural understanding?

 

It is not 'the sexes' it is two unique minds. All minds are unique not just male and female. It is the complete opposite to balance. A woman experiences her femininity most powerfully in the sex act with a male that she values for his masculinity as equals. These are not equals in the sense of a set of scales, they are values persisting in the mind. Men experience the same in the sex act with a woman they value as an equal. They can feel their masculinity intensely. It does not mean that we can simply couple up any man to any woman, this is a meeting of mind and body. Sex is a celebration, not of each other, but of ourselves, but only when values on both sides are satisfied.

 

There is nothing related to culture, it is irrelevant.

 

Everyone is entitled to the same rights be they men or women, but they are not entitled to succeed just because they are a man or women. They are free to pursue their own happiness, to produce what they can and to use their minds to do so. A man is not entitled to something more because his ancestor was a slave, nor if his ancestor was a King. A man is only entitled to justice if he first accepts the judgement of others of him as sacrosanct. That we freely associate with each other for the purpose of exchanging value with value.

[dust]

further I look at education, in the Netherlands education is thoroughly feminized, To me that is an unbalanced environment for children. I've worked in a school once where there was a guy teaching the preschoolers. he was very happy in his job, it was what he wanted. He did his job very well (and he was just as caring as his female colleagues). But he told me that his choice was met with much hurdles, mainly in the department of...that a womans job, you are a fool, you're working below your level... this is not long ago either.

 

Exactly.

 

When a 'gender gap' such as this is pointed out as favouring men, some men will get all bent out of shape arguing about the evils of feminism and totalitarianism. Never, though, did the article or me or you or anyone else suggest that the inequality doesn't work both ways.

 

In the UK, in my experience, teaching from secondary/high school is pretty much equal parts men and women, which is great. But there are certainly fewer men teaching the younger years. And I think there should be fewer men teaching the younger years -- I agree with Karl in that there are obviously differences between the sexes, and I think that one of them is that women are more child-oriented and more nurturing. In terms of evolution, this is pretty much inevitable.

 

But I also agree that in many places men face such hurdles.... and this is not equality.

 

 

 

so that is the other side of the unbalanced participation in jobs. For woman the message still seems to be that it might be too hard for them, for guys who prefer a womans job derision can wait for filling a womans ( read here : easy/caring/undemanding) job.

( btw, teaching preschoolers is a very demanding job...)

 

In my younger years I've worked as a mechanic, at first some eyebrows were raised mighty high by my colleagues to be ( this is some 30 years ago) I knew that would happen, did not want any exceptions made for me. just wanted to be a mechanic. Only exception I made was that i wanted a quarter of an hour off weekly to clean the loo 

 

after some time everybody was happy, without any knowledge or doing of my side a roster appeared so that we all had a share of cleaning the loo and the little kitchenette   seems they preferred it clean too. My hands and overalls were just as black as theirs, i took my equal share of the workload ( but i remember well the day i wasn't strong enough to get loose a screw-nut, o shit i thought. but there was a very strong guy working with us, I f he could not get something loose you could forget it, so I went to him, little shy, like shit " am I not able to do this job? after a big wank he loosened it and told me, hey, don't you mind, you're definitely not the weakest in muscles here, so that was that.

 

and after some months eating lunch there was a ( for me totally unexpected) general agreement that my coming was an asset for the firm because the atmosphere was much better than before I worked there.

 

later, my brother told me: (he worked in a male only job and a female arrived, same raised eyebrows.)  when a woman is around, men tent to curb there language somewhat. With no women around, men tend to fall in the trap of getting steadily more rough in their language and behavior and not being able to return on the road to more civilized manners. but the presence of a woman easily does the trick and the guys will be more happy for it.

 

and maybe something like that works too when guys work in all female groups,

 

so, apart from the gendergap ( imo very real) there is the question of balance

 

just my two cents.

 

Yes

 

Maybe we need different terms for different levels of gender gap -- the gender gap in the UAE is not the same as the gender gap in the Finnish workforce, for example. Extreme misogyny and inequality (UAE) vs some misogyny/misandry and some inequality (Finland).

 

But as a descriptive term, 'gender gap' only implies to me that there is some kind of gap between men and women, and suggests we ask the question: "Why?"

[Karl]

Hah! OK... I ask some questions, point out some historical fact, and suddenly I'm Stalin. Nice.

 

I'm willing to let it go. I did not start the thread to bemoan some awful inequality between the sexes, in the tech industry or elsewhere. It was simply your refusal to even allow the question to be asked that made me argue. Not that what I've argued does not stand... but I do not have the energy to argue with someone who'll label me a totalitarian based on the fact that I'm not content seeing millennia of cultural bullshit unquestioningly accepted in the modern world.

 

If you read the article, you'll notice that the main question was of international disparity, and the general lack of interest in coding in this country. And, again, I wasn't claiming outright that this is a major problem, only asking whether or not.

Where did I imply you were Stalin ? Don't exaggerate, I said that your underlying philosophy was one of violence, I could have said force, but ultimately one comes from the other it's only semantics.

 

I do not label you as totalitarian and I don't support 'culture' either. You began using it as the mainstay for your argument. I don't have to query past cultural bias because it is an irrelevance. You were implying some blame on culture, whether you posed it as a question is irrelevant as it was you who asked it. You cannot go around posing questions as if they tumbled out of the sky anonymously. You asked it, so please at least have the courage to stand by it.

 

If you were wrong then accept it with grace, if you don't think you are wrong then carry on fighting, but please don't expect leniency, because for me to grant you that would be the equivalent of you receiving my pity and you should certainly not want that:-)

[dust]

Where did I imply you were Stalin ? Don't exaggerate, I said that your underlying philosophy was one of violence, I could have said force, but ultimately one comes from the other it's only semantics.

 

Well, in my mind, the notion that "might makes right" is prominent in the lives of such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al.

You did not mean that; good. So what is this violence? To suggest that my questioning the balance of power, in society as a whole and the workforce and in the family etc, implies a philosophy of violence...

 

 

I do not label you as totalitarian and I don't support 'culture' either. You began using it as the mainstay for your argument. I don't have to query past cultural bias because it is an irrelevance. You were implying some blame on culture, whether you posed it as a question is irrelevant as it was you who asked it. You cannot go around posing questions as if they tumbled out of the sky anonymously. You asked it, so please at least have the courage to stand by it.

 

Not really sure what we're talking about now.

 

Going back to the beginning: I simply linked the article, summarised it, asked for thoughts on it, and stated that I'm not really sure what to think (the question).

 

It was only after an exchange between you and Jetsun and BES and james bond that I said, "Yes, a gap for whatever reason is a gap. Whether it's because women don't like it or see it as something men should do or another reason, there's a gap and it's worth addressing at least in passing." It gradually turned into a debate on equal rights.

 

Yes, I maintain that current culture / perception is responsible at least in part for minor and major differences in the way men and women feel that they can or should conduct themselves and live their lives.

 

Your general refusal to permit any consideration that there might be some unfair differences between how women and men are treated, by each other and themselves and society as a whole, irks me and I must argue against it...

 

When you say, "I don't have to query past cultural bias because it is an irrelevance." -- I must continue to object. Of course it is relevant.

[Karl]

You are transparent to me, but completely opaque to yourself. I glean your meaning on a thousand different levels that you are not even dimly aware of. I could pick any one of these, but you would not see it.

 

You are pointing out something that is true, but you have the instinct that somehow it isn't right. You are accusing me of saying that something is untrue, but I am not, I am stating it is irrelevant.

 

Everyone has a philosophy whether they think about it or regard it as such is irrelevant to the fact. That philosophy guides all the choices a person makes. The philosophy is composed of numerous things throughout history whether these things are right or wrong this is the view that will be held.

 

So, if a woman has picked up part of this philosophy to mean that she should not code, or that it is a male occupation, then that's what she thinks. The fact is that coding is open to anyone, male, female, black, white, gay or straight. That's a fact, it is a concrete reality and there is no point considering why someone does, or does not choose that particular career.

[Jetsun]

You are transparent to me, but completely opaque to yourself. I glean your meaning on a thousand different levels that you are not even dimly aware of. I could pick any one of these, but you would not see it.

 

So you are omniscient now    Karl the Guru 

[Karl]

So you are omniscient now    Karl the Guru

 

Not hardly. It's implicit in how people answer. From the general direction of the argument it's easy to uncover the fundamentals. It shouldn't be a suprise, anyone can do it if they learn to explore their own philosophies.

[Jetsun]

Not hardly. It's implicit in how people answer. From the general direction of the argument it's easy to uncover the fundamentals. It shouldn't be a suprise, anyone can do it if they learn to explore their own philosophies.

The common theme I see from you is that you make assumptions from people's posts and then demolish an argument based on those assumptions, which may have nothing to do with the persons beliefs or intentions. This thread is yet another example of this. So maybe you don't see as much as you think you do.

[Karl]

The common theme I see from you is that you make assumptions from people's posts and then demolish an argument based on those assumptions, which may have nothing to do with the persons beliefs or intentions. This thread is yet another example of this. So maybe you don't see as much as you think you do.

Or......I do. A word is enough. I haven't time, or space to tease out exactly what philosophy people hold from their own lips and generally when getting close to illustrating a philosophical conflict they will withdraw faster than turtles heads. So, I just put the lettuce out and then they can attack it. I admit freely that it is a technique I employ, but many here do the same without knowing it. In attack mode people reveal themselves far more than in defence. I think this is common to martial arts fighters too. Draw out the opponent and get them to commit to a move. It's better than posturing.

[dust]

There are no thousand levels to my opinion here, oh omniscient one.

 

 

So, if a woman has picked up part of this philosophy to mean that she should not code, or that it is a male occupation, then that's what she thinks. The fact is that coding is open to anyone, male, female, black, white, gay or straight. That's a fact, it is a concrete reality and there is no point considering why someone does, or does not choose that particular career.

 

Computing, as it existed 200 years ago, was legally open to women too. If it hadn't been, Lovelace wouldn't have been able to help Babbage. And the same applied to numerous people in numerous areas through history. But the absence of legal restriction to do a certain thing didn't mean that everyone was truly free to do it.

 

You are saying, quite simply, that if something is not illegal there is no barrier to it; and that claiming there are barriers, or thinking about whether it might behoove people to eliminate the barriers, is violent and impinges upon individual freedom.

 

That is bullshit.

Edited October 18, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

There are no thousand levels to my opinion here, oh omniscient one.

 

 

 

 

Computing, as it existed 200 years ago, was legally open to women too. If it hadn't been, Lovelace wouldn't have been able to help Babbage. And the same applied to numerous people in numerous areas through history. But the absence of legal restriction to do a certain thing didn't mean that everyone was truly free to do it.

 

You are saying, quite simply, that if something is not illegal there is no barrier to it; and that claiming there are barriers, or thinking about whether it might behoove people to eliminate the barriers, is violent and impinges upon individual freedom.

 

That is bullshit.

There is no 'legal' barrier to it. Correct.

 

As I am being accused of unfair presumption, let me ask you a direct question and please give me a direct honest answer:

 

How and who exactly, would you eliminate these barriers ?

[Brian]

Having been in the IT business for almost 25 years now (and in science/technology for longer than that), I can say that the US has a problem with both actively & passively discouraging girls from pursuing science, technology, engineering and mathematics -- which not surprisingly translates into quantitative disparities in career choices. This comes in part from within the educational system but is really a product of cultural influences (educators are not isolated from society, nor should we want them to be) and appears in many forms.

[blackstar212]

The common theme I see from you is that you make assumptions from people's posts and then demolish an argument based on those assumptions, which may have nothing to do with the persons beliefs or intentions. This thread is yet another example of this. So maybe you don't see as much as you think you do.

It is helpful if people consult rationalwiki and read about Karl's philosophy. It helps with understanding where he is coming from. If you read it you can see many common themes that Karl continues to bring up. Also the changing of common definitions this is common with his philosophy.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism

[dust]

There is no 'legal' barrier to it. Correct.

 

As I am being accused of unfair presumption, let me ask you a direct question and please give me a direct honest answer:

 

How and who exactly, would you eliminate these barriers ?

 

The answer is the same as I'd give for the vast majority of problems one might see with society: education.

 

If, and I do mean if, it were decided to be true that, as Brian helpfully says above, there is a problem with discouragement of women in pursuit of a certain subjects/career that they could be very well-suited to, and this discouragement begins in school and permeates the culture to a certain extent, then I would suggest focusing education on being more balanced in its encouragement.

 

It is obvious to me that education is unbalanced and inadequate in many respects -- different in different places, between different schools in the same areas, but still inadequate -- and, though I can't be sure as I haven't attended school for a decent while now, I think that sexism is still one of these imbalances.

 

I've got a good few posts on TDB now, but if you were to look through you'd find a few in which I expand upon my belief that an unbalanced and inadequate education is a major problem with almost every society in history and could be a major solution to many countries' problems. This is not about indoctrination or brainwashing, as I somewhat fear you might infer, but simply about a better balance. I'm not saying "Force men and women down each career path in equal numbers," I'm saying "Strip education back, remove historical and cultural bias as much as possible, and think about what we really want to be teaching younger people so that they are truly free to make the most informed and rational choices they can."

Edited October 18, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

The answer is the same as I'd give for the vast majority of problems one might see with society: education.

 

If, and I do mean if, it were decided to be true that, as Brian helpfully says above, there is a problem with discouragement of women in pursuit of a certain subjects/career that they could be very well-suited to, and this discouragement begins in school and permeates the culture to a certain extent, then I would suggest focusing education on being more balanced in its encouragement.

 

It is obvious to me that education is unbalanced and inadequate in many respects -- different in different places, between different schools in the same areas, but still inadequate -- and, though I can't be sure as I haven't attended school for a decent while now, I think that sexism is still one of these imbalances.

 

I've got a good few posts on TDB now, but if you were to look through you'd find a few in which I expand upon my belief that an unbalanced and inadequate education is a major problem with almost every society in history and could be a major solution to many countries' problems. This is not about indoctrination or brainwashing, as I somewhat fear you might infer, but simply about a better balance. I'm not saying "Force men and women down each career path in equal numbers," I'm saying "Strip education back, remove historical and cultural bias as much as possible, and think about what we really want to be teaching younger people so that they are truly free to make the most informed and rational choices they can."

Except girls in UK schools are outperforming boys.

 

You won't have me arguing against a Trivium style education delivered across a range of totally independent, private schools. It's impossible to take bias out of education because the catchment area creates a mix of widely different potentials and back grounds. The only way to avoid this is to allow parents to choose whatever school fits their own bias. Indeed, it is clear that private schools have delivered the most successful people in the UK.

[dust]

Except girls in UK schools are outperforming boys.

 

You won't have me arguing against a Trivium style education delivered across a range of totally independent, private schools. It's impossible to take bias out of education because the catchment area creates a mix of widely different potentials and back grounds. The only way to avoid this is to allow parents to choose whatever school fits their own bias. Indeed, it is clear that private schools have delivered the most successful people in the UK.

 

Yes, I attended private and state, and the private certainly provided more balance for the sexes and a general leg-up over the state. But there were still major issues -- being forced to study theology Christianity, the slant on history we were taught, the lack of certain subjects, etc.

 

Girls "outperforming" boys is not unheard of.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11364130/Girls-do-better-than-boys-at-school-despite-inequality.html

 

"The findings ... show that even in countries which are known for their lack of gender equality, including Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, girls still outstrip educational performance of boys."

 

I don't know what this means, though it would seem illogical to blame it on sexism in either direction when girls are outperforming boys in blatantly misogynist societies as well as far more balanced ones.

 

This outperformance, though, apparently isn't translating into better long-term success, even in the UK. Now, I'm not arguing in favour of women taking over all power because they do better in school (!!), but it would seem that the patriarchy of old is still in effect to a certain extent.

Edited October 18, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Jetsun]

Or......I do. A word is enough. I haven't time, or space to tease out exactly what philosophy people hold from their own lips and generally when getting close to illustrating a philosophical conflict they will withdraw faster than turtles heads. So, I just put the lettuce out and then they can attack it. I admit freely that it is a technique I employ, but many here do the same without knowing it. In attack mode people reveal themselves far more than in defence. I think this is common to martial arts fighters too. Draw out the opponent and get them to commit to a move. It's better than posturing.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in just filling in the gaps of your knowledge with assumptions, an intellectual dishonesty towards yourself and others. The reality is you just don't know, you may think this persons philosophy fits in with models you have in your own mind but in all truth you simply don't know, but you aren't willing to admit or live with not knowing, which is why you fill in the gaps with whatever suits your own agenda the best.

[dawei]

So, if a woman has picked up part of this philosophy to mean that she should not code, or that it is a male occupation, then that's what she thinks. The fact is that coding is open to anyone, male, female, black, white, gay or straight. That's a fact, it is a concrete reality and there is no point considering why someone does, or does not choose that particular career.

 

I work with data and one reason why I dislike any arguments from data.   You used data to suggest there is no need to use data.   I'll give you, that was clever

[dawei]

Girls "outperforming" boys is not unheard of.

 

Glad you raised this as I agreed with Brian's point but didn't want to spend any time finding support... just seems... correct.

 

I recall some past reporting on this and it seemed to suggest that girls do better in a more naturalistic level or non-competitive influence; guys just want to win and once that kicks in, they will apply that to study.   The girls didn't want to appear to win anything as there was nothing to seek to gain.  In a sense, they step aside to let the aggressor have their way and play.