Boys left behind at school while girls get trip

[Quickchat1]

Recently my sons class went on an educational trip to a local university. But only the girls. The boys were left behind with a cover teacher listening to music and generally doing very little. My son is GCSE year and would have benefited from a computing and science event. No it was only for the girls with no mention of anything for the boys. I understand this was a STEM event for girls only but if there was a STEM event for boys only there would be uproar! AIBU?

Sorry but I disagree, it tells males that there is no way they could have earned where they in life. My brother is a very high up IT manager. He had huge learning and speech difficulties and from a young age he studied every hour he could in the day. That statement isn't fair. Yes women deserve to have equal chances but don't take away from male achievents either

Sometimes, when you are in the priveleged group that does not need extra support in order to achieve something 'normal', the reasonable and dignified response is to think 'aren't I lucky, having all this freedom and choice' for a second, before getting on with your freely-chosen activities / activities likely to lead to a freely-chosen life and career, for the day.

I am grateful that I and my DC do not need the extra support that might be required by someone with disabilities, from a family where no-one has ever been to university, a family dependent on benefits, from an under-performing school etc. I wouldn't begrudge people who do, a targeted 'into higher education' event.

This is a classic case of those who are inherently privileged (and their parental champions), not recognising that this is the case.

The only discomfort I feel is that failing to explain how and why that is the case, to all students, can have a counter-productive effect, feeding ignorant ideas, in this case that 'boys are naturally better, girls need help'. Sometimes, introducing ideas of unfairness prompts some people to misattribute that unfairness, or indeed, to seek to revel in and exploit that unfairness. A bit of context-setting can be helpful.

But if more men were doing those jobs, they'd probably become more valued and the wages would go up

Because men are better than women? Why else would you make this statement?

Because, as has been pointed out, the pattern is seen again and again. Male-dominated jobs tend to have higher status and higher pay.

I work in IT. One of my jobs was opposite a hospital, and I remember looking out of the window and musing that nurses need to do at least as much training as we did, probably more, and if they get things wrong, people could die, whereas we mae a mistake and the company loses money, but no one dies. And yet the IT workers were financially better-valued and rewarded, and that's almost entirely down to male-dominated vs female-dominated work, unconscious bias and so on.

Maybe it would be good for the boys to go along and see all those strong women already doing STEM roles. Then they can have female role models as well.

This too - it's important for boys to learn that it's normal to have female colleagues and managers, just as it's important for girls to learn those jobs are open to them.

Do you understand how inequality works stayathomer? Do you understand how data has informed widening participation initiatives such as the one being discussed here?
It's not about individuals - it's about groups. It's about trends and patterns of inequality which still exist.

Uh huh, lots of things would be nice, were there endless resources available. In the meantime there are priorities, based on evidence.

Male privelege exists, especially in IT, as discussed by many on the thread. The fact that makes some posters uncomfortable does not magic it away.

But if more men were doing those jobs, they'd probably become more valued and the wages would go up
If only. The only way for childcare or carers' jobs to be better paid would be to charge more money for the service in the first place. Imagine the impact that higher childcare costs would have on women going out to work!

...Imagine the political pressure this might generate for more publicly-funded childcare.

Social norms and political choices about who does childcare and who pays for that are not fixed.

Well I would pile in...but to be honest you guys already got this one covered!

I went to university in a male orientated field this was 20 year's ago. You know what very little has changed since then. I was 1 of 3 women on my physics course. The ratios haven't changed much.

What is really odd is, what are we doing wrong in the UK, I've work with people from Europe who said it's not like that in countries like Italy and Germany, so what are we doing wrong?

Male privelege exists, especially in IT, as discussed by many on the thread. The fact that makes some posters uncomfortable does not magic it away.

Male privilege doesn't exist in IT. I am an IT manager and the fact that a vast proportion of our team are male is because the vast majority of applicants for any jobs have always been male. Whether it's design, development or marketing it makes no difference to a tech company whether the applicant is male or female. It is an undeniable meritocracy.

The fact that more school-age boys are interested in IT (and computers/programming in general) is the reason for this, there's certainly no privilege at play.

As for the original post. I'm going to be the 'odd one out' and say you're not being unreasonable at all. Boys typically choose STEM subjects as they are more engaged by them (as girls are often engaged more by other careers).

To exclude boys from a visit when there is a greater chance of them ending up in these fields in order to try and redress some balance that is caused by nothing else that personal choices is unfair on them.

as for the original post. I'm going to be the 'odd one out' and say you're not being unreasonable at all. Boys typically choose STEM subjects as they are more engaged by them (as girls are often engaged more by other careers).

To exclude boys from a visit when there is a greater chance of them ending up in these fields in order to try and redress some balance that is caused by nothing else that personal choices is unfair on them.

That's not the point of these types of visits. They aren't recruitment events they are widening participation events. Very, very different. They aren't specifically about male privilege (although that does exist) they are awareness raising and they are addressing the reasons why more boys choose STEM subjects.

Personal choices ( as you describe) them are influenced by ,many factors - gender stereotypes being one of them. This is why these events exist!

Yy yo the last post. My dh has bent over backwards to get women in. They get more for projects if they employ women. He really struggles to get anybody for some jobs let alone women.

And sorry there was no privilege as regards my dh. He was a poor white boy with 2 parents that left school at 14. He got two degrees from red brick unis and has worked his way up from the bottom. He is excellent at his job and has a very good reputation for producing quality work. That is why he gets every job he applies for, not privilege.

What is really odd is, what are we doing wrong in the UK, I've work with people from Europe who said it's not like that in countries like Italy and Germany, so what are we doing wrong?

It's not just continental Europe though, as I alluded to in my earlier post several pages back most of the female engineers I work with are not British and more often then not come from societies/cultures that are way more patriarchal/sexist then the UK. The key difference I can observe from chatting to these women is that engineering in their home countries is seen as a prestigious well paid career. In the UK the term 'engineer' has been devalued massively and is often exchanged with technical vocational positions in the way it is simply allowed to be elsewhere.

My brother teaches IT, he runs an after school computer club where kids learn to write code, partake in projects and competitions, learn about robotics etc. It is overwhelmingly attended by boys. My brother has tried to encourage girls to attend and is usually met with a chorus of 'it's boring'. When he has suggested to parents that female pupils who have shown at aptitude for the subject attend the club it is often the mums who are dismissive 'Oh, Sarah would not like that'. He has had many a discussion with other IT teachers who run similar clubs and they report similar findings. It's sad.

I've work with people from Europe who said it's not like that in countries like Italy and Germany, so what are we doing wrong?

From what I've seen of IT in Germany, that area isn't so different, though other STEM areas may be different.

It's MINT auf Deutsch - Mathematik (maths), Informatik (IT), Naturwissenschaft (science), Technik (engineering). I think I prefer MINT to STEM - which in any case, is often STEAM these days - you need the creative side too. (A for Arts.)

Yes women deserve to have equal chances but don't take away from male achievents either

Acknowledging privilege doesn't mean taking away from male achievements. It means that a man, especially a white man, if more likely to be given the opportunity to shine and achieve. The other side is that a woman, person of colour or less abled person will have to work twice as hard to achieve the same amount. That doesn't mean the man involved isn't good at his job or deserve credit, it just accepts the reality that it is nonetheless easier for him than for someone else.

I see this all the time. Men complaining women are being promoted and they're terrible bosses. But when you challenge them and remind them that they must surely have had equally talentless bosses who were men, they just don't see it. Their view is that if women are going to be in senior positions they must ALWAYS be the best. There's absolutely no room for anything else. And while I agree with this in theory, it doesn't change the fact that the rule doesn't exist for (white) men.

"Male privilege doesn't exist in IT. I am an IT manager and the fact that a vast proportion of our team are male is because the vast majority of applicants for any jobs have always been male. Whether it's design, development or marketing it makes no difference to a tech company whether the applicant is male or female. It is an undeniable meritocracy"

Are you absolutely sure about this? If there are female and male applicants for a job, how often does the job go to the man rather than the woman? Have you questioned why women aren't applying? What is at play here that reduces the number who even step up?

Have you seen the seriously disturbing research about how AI and machine learning used in recruitment are excluding women from applicant shortlists? The machine "learns" that people with x or y on their CV are often hired, so it starts to control for that, removing applicants who don't have x, or y. And that x, or y, thing is often something that is usually only found on male CVs

Just look at MPs. I don't have statistics to hand (I think they're in Jess Philipps's book) but basically, in elections where there are actually both a male and female candidate, the woman does not, as you might expect, win approximately half the time. Rather, the percentage is massively lower. Is this because women are always worse? Of course not. It's because the voters assume she is less competent and/or give too much weighting to things they don't like about her.

I see this all the time.

I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer all you are going to see is nails.

Well if male privelege does not exist in IT, then IT as a profession is unique in our society. It follows that all professional training in eliminating conscious and unconsious bias should be run by IT companies - which could be very lucrative side-line.

Observations from a female friend who works in IT have been a little different. Part-time working after having children was not dealt with well; 'oh, we can only appraise you in terms of what we'd expect from a full-timer, as we haven't a clue about administering PT work' for example.

More widely (I've seen this amongst teenagers too), people 'presenting as geeks' being assumed to be more capable at programming than people with the same competence but also having social skills and other interests. (The 'geeks' may get found out eventually but the all-rounders can be held back long-term by a slower start, especially if they haven't become senior by the time they have children).

I do agree that privelege within the workplace and access to certain fields are different things. The discussion here is about an access to education event. No doubt the 'staying employed / reaching the top / coping with the sort of institutional biases everyone is blind to' training follows later.

I remember reading on here a fantastic and eye-opening post by someone who had explained to her dd's teacher, in evidenced point by point detail, why her dd was no longer attending after-school coding club (I think, or engineering), even though she loved the subject. It was all about hidden bias, communication, blindness to others' behaviours, all of which amounted to an unwelcoming and off-putting environment for girls. The teacher's response was 'no I'm not aware of any of that so it can't be real or important', followed by no action at all.

It does feel like we're hitting our head against a brick wall. As per my post of yesterday - people don't seem to want to see these societal issues and privilege because they think it means the people who are in power don't deserve it. They don't believe that there are insidious things impacting our girls because if they did, they'd have to od something or acknowledge that perhaps they aren't doing what's best for these girls. It's frustrating.

If there are female and male applicants for a job, how often does the job go to the man rather than the woman?

In my industry, if the final candidates are all of equal merit the women will almost always get the nod over the man, such is the demand for more women in engineering.

If there are female and male applicants for a job, how often does the job go to the man rather than the woman?

In my industry, if the final candidates are all of equal merit the women will almost always get the nod over the man, such is the demand for more women in engineering.

But what are we doing to ensure women are applying in the first place?

My dc’s company would hire women over men as they come with more funding. There are plenty of initiatives trying to encourage women in his sector of IT.

Pan - I was responding to PBo83 who claimed there's no male privilege in her (almost entirely) male IT department.

But to your point, that's interesting, and in my opinion, a worthwhile thing. But it's not foolproof. Research shows that an equally competent male and woman will nonetheless find themselves in a situation where the woman is perceived as less competent than the man. So if the decision making is based on empirical tests of some sort, great. But if its done on evaluations, it may well be that the woman is actually better qualified.

The problem with all these things which relate to unconscious bias is that it's so difficult to identify, assess and adapt for.

It's the whole performance appraisal thing where a woman is accused of being aggressive rather than assertive. Interestingly, I think a lot of firms are looking at statistical analysis to assess this stuff. eg, if they have a points based appraisal process, they will compare the percentage of women vs men who achieve at each bracket. Or on recruitment, how many roles where there were both male and female candidates led to a male getting the job vs a female (hint, it should, in theory, be around 50%). Ditto, promotions statistics. None of this changes the intrinsic gender imbalance but does start to consider where unconscious bias/ male privilege is coming into play.

"Male privilege doesn't exist in IT. I am an IT manager and the fact that a vast proportion of our team are male is because the vast majority of applicants for any jobs have always been male. "

This is a silly statement, and as an IT person you should be more qualified than most to know why. When a user gets an error when they press a button, does it mean the button must be broken? Or might it mean that when the form was first filled in, X data was missed out, which means that Y wasn't linked, which means that the button is trying to use Z data which isnt there?

Male privilege starts right back in early childhood, there are studies showing that toddlers who are dressed as girls are unconsciously prompted by adults to play with dolls and teddies, and toddlers who are dressed as boys are prompted to play with blocks and cars.

Add into that the way that girls are taught to be compromising and not "bossy" and boys are taught to be proactive and show "leadership" and you see a system where the few girls who are interested enough to stay the course are routinely spoken over and pushed past by boys, who are encouraged by other boys.

Getting an IT degree requires at least 4 schooling stages where this bias is in place, and THEN you have to try and actually be hired. Looking only at this final stage of "well only boys applied!" and concluding "no male privilege here" is vastly over-simplistic.