Should we teach children about sexism/feminism?

But it usually isn't regardless of ability. Women are generally not chosen over men, not because they are less capable, but because there's the risk factor of paying someone who isn't working there during maternity leave (Actually this is far from the only reason why men usually get jobs over women, but it's the most common).

You're implying positive discrimination, but getting rid of the discrimination women face, doesn't give them "unfair" or "unearned" opportunity.

As for equal numbers; I don't expect there to be equal numbers. I expect slightly more women then men, in the majority of sectors, reflecting not only the numbers within our country, but the numbers we see in graduates. I'm not sure you can say that a 60:40 split in men's favour doesn't imply some measure of sexism.

That is a biological factor that teaching in a class room will not change.
What I'm saying is that you believe that there must be discrimination as the numbers don't work out exactly which is naive and my "flip a coin" analogy still works.
Even if all sociological, biological and psychological differences between men and women were removed that doesn't mean there will be an equal amount in a workplace/industry due to probability not being exact. Therefore, you can't say that there must be discrimination because the numbers do not work out when (even if everything as equal)men outweighing women or women outweighing men in an industry is still highly likely.
Therefore you cannot point to the uneven job numbers as evidence for the effects of stereotypes/discrimination.

No, but you could change the attitude people have towards maternity leave. Or change paternity leave rights so that hiring men is as big a risk.

Your coin flip analogy still seems pretty flawed. Mainly because you don't hire someone by chance, you choose them deliberately. Bare in mind I'm not talking about the numbers being "slightly" uneven. I'm saying there are more women than men in our country. Women are more likely to have good qualifications (A levels, GCSEs etc) and more likely to go to university. To have a 60:40 split in this situation is massively uneven.

No, but you could change the attitude people have towards maternity leave. Or change paternity leave rights so that hiring men is as big a risk.

Your coin flip analogy still seems pretty flawed. Mainly because you don't hire someone by chance, you choose them deliberately. Bare in mind I'm not talking about the numbers being "slightly" uneven. I'm saying there are more women than men in our country. Women are more likely to have good qualifications (A levels, GCSEs etc) and more likely to go to university. To have a 60:40 split in this situation is massively uneven.

I know you choose them deliberately, but maybe men are just better on average, that's not sexist btw. It's silly to believe that two groups of such a large amount of people will be just as good as each other.
Women are also more likely to take time off work when they have a baby and go part-time for a while. This is normally at a crucial stage of their career so men are naturally more likely to progress further. However, the couple could decided that the man looks after the child and it is their own choice. However, it makes more biological sense that the woman takes time off(breast feeding) that is because of nature, not manufactured lack of opportunities or stereotypes.

The man could easily care for the child after 3 months, as it's being weaned and is less dependent on breast milk


Posted from TSR Mobile

Haven't paternity leave rights been changed? I think that now parents can split the allocated 6 months of leave between them. Unfortunately, I doubt as many men will take this up as women due to the assumed roles of men and women in the family


Posted from TSR Mobile

Well then, maybe we could use education to increase the number of people who do choose this option.

I mean, I didn't even know this was an option, so obviously awareness could be increased.

I know you choose them deliberately, but maybe men are just better on average, that's not sexist btw. It's silly to believe that two groups of such a large amount of people will be just as good as each other.
Women are also more likely to take time off work when they have a baby and go part-time for a while. This is normally at a crucial stage of their career so men are naturally more likely to progress further. However, the couple could decided that the man looks after the child and it is their own choice. However, it makes more biological sense that the woman takes time off(breast feeding) that is because of nature, not manufactured lack of opportunities or stereotypes.

So you've just said it's unlikely that women are as good at men in the workplace but given absolutely no reason as to why this might be, and totally ignored the fact that women are generally more qualified to begin with, so if anything, you could argue the reverse as being far more likely (which anyone with half a mind wouldn't, because claiming that one massive group is inferior to another massive group with nothing to support such a claim is stupid)?

And that's not sexist?

I just think we could at least teach kids how to identify sexism......

I know you choose them deliberately, but maybe men are just better on average, that's not sexist btw. It's silly to believe that two groups of such a large amount of people will be just as good as each other.
Women are also more likely to take time off work when they have a baby and go part-time for a while. This is normally at a crucial stage of their career so men are naturally more likely to progress further. However, the couple could decided that the man looks after the child and it is their own choice. However, it makes more biological sense that the woman takes time off(breast feeding) that is because of nature, not manufactured lack of opportunities or stereotypes.

The command of basic statistics seems to be lower for the men involved in the conversation at the minute (50% out of you and I), as opposed to women (100% for JuiceInTheBox) , I therefore conclude that men are generally worse at stats. See the problem with gross generalisations?


Posted from TSR Mobile

No,it's not sexist to say that there is inequality. I'm saying that it is unlikely that two groups will possess equal ability even without outside influences. If I do better than a black kid in a test it is not because he is black. If a man does better at work than a woman it is unfair to assume it is because he is male.

So what you're saying is; Men are hired because in general women have a lower ability. And you still have no evidence to back this point up.

BUT although you're making a horribly untrue generalisation about women being inferior to men in the workplace, it's not sexist because their inability to do the job correctly is not down to the fact they're women.

Right. Well, that makes perfect sense.

You don't seem to understand. The point I'm making is that it is highly unlikely that two groups will have equal ability in something no matter the size or categorisation of the group be it age, gender, race etc. I don't know why you cant't comprehend that one group could perhaps be better at something in general than another. That doesn't mean all of one group is better than all of another group.

Actually, individuals who are members of a particular group can be better or worse at certain things than one another but when you talk about groups as large as men and women, then the groups tend to be roughly the same, on average. This is different to people as individuals being better or worse at certain things


Posted from TSR Mobile

Actually, individuals who are members of a particular group can be better or worse at certain things than one another but when you talk about groups as large as men and women, then the groups tend to be roughly the same, on average. This is different to people as individuals being better or worse.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What is your evidence that the two groups have equal abilities?