A thread started by a man to throw a few things around.

[Sanjeev]

Gents (and anyone else who is interested), here is where we can carry on this the discussion from this thread;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1465960-AIBU-to-treat-male-and-female-posters-differently-on-feminism-threads?msgid=31694784#31694784

So, who wants to go first?

I think personally it is fine to discuss issues on here in some depth. I think what feminists like myself get fed up with is online discussing 1 issue and then a man who knows little about sexism comes online and amkes a really basic point that basically just derails a whole in depth discussion to discussing something else. It is so common, feminists get fed up with it and that will affect their reactions to you.

Also tbh in lots of feminist threads some women posters do give others a hard time. There is an element of all tregular posters being given a hard time on here by somebody. And tbh I think certain radical feminists get a harder time than anyone else in feminism.

But sorry I am not trying to derail your thread Sanjeev. In terms of educational achievement - I think girls benefit massively from the fact that they mature physically e.g. puberty and emotionally, in general earlier than boys.This means they are more likely to see the point of working hard at exams at an earlier age than boys. I do think as well that in general society expects girls to be better behaved than boys and this benefits girls when it comes to working hard and listening to teachers over long periods of time.

Girls do better with coursework, boys do better with an exam at the end. Most schoolwork is now coursework based, hence one of the disparities.

Girls do better with course work because they are more likely to work hard over periods of months and basically be "good girls"

Most schoolwork is not coursework based. DS is about to start his GCSEs; he has some controlled assessment for English, has to have a portfolio for art as well as do the exam, and there are controlled assessments for Science.

I don't see how you can get around it for Science. Without controlled assessment there would be no lab component to testing, which would be absurd. With Art they need to assess the development of ideas not just the end result, so a portfolio is essential.

But for the majority of his GCSEs, there is only a terminal exam and no coursework whatsoever.

So girls do better in exams as well? I do think from working with kids in school that the fact girls mature earlier than boys and that they are more likely to behave well, makes a massive difference. You can't learn and remember stuff and so pass exams if you basically don't work and behave.

But even though girls are doing better at exams, men still earn more than women. Yes the pay gap is closing, but it is still there. In some companies and industries the pay gap is very small, whilst in others it is still pretty large. Public sector only about a year ago finished a massive piece of work to bring in equal pay across all jobs. Basically lots of women in jobs of equal value were stilll being paid a lot less than men. And it was only because of campaigns by women and court cases that this happened at all

It's almost funny that some chauvinist talking about "the glass ceiling myth" goes completely unchallenged on this thread in this section. I'll leave now. Well done, women were discussing equality but it's back to you now.

'So girls do better in exams as well? I do think from working with kids in school that the fact girls mature earlier than boys and that they are more likely to behave well, makes a massive difference.'

Doesn't this need to be addressed then?

Chairman, I hear you! One think I think I have picked up in here is that most posters are pretty reasonable people. As in any walk of life there are some who are not. There are also 'degrees' of feminism - I liken it to the Labour party. There are those with less and those with more extreme views. You will see some posters stating that their brand of feminism is more feminist that someone else's feminism. Other feminists believe that if men like your brand of feminism then 'you are doing something wrong'! I will leave it at that. That idea of posting as a woman has briefly occurred to me, but I decided against it. It wouldn't prove anything that I didn't already know. As I said though, the majority of posters are good people - it's a bit like real life! I try to treat everyone with the same level of respect. That is all you can do.

Eats, I agree that having to start from point one in too many discussions can take too much time. If it comes as a genuine enquiry, it's fine to point someone in the direction of some kind of 'beginner's guide'. If it comes complete with arrogance and half-baked theories, well put your tin hat on

On a personal level, I was never going to send my daughter or my son to a mixed school. My daughter has a female head, deputy head and head of year. She has plenty of role models there, and an environment where there are less distractions. Teenage boys are, by and large idiots. I know, I was one.

Behaviour in schools certainly needs to be addressed, but it also needs to be addressed in the home.

MrMag, yes, any disparity needs to be addressed. How a kid behaves in school is largely determined by how behaviour is taught in the home (in my opinion). Do you work in education? Do you have any ideas around this?

msrisotto - You are right, the glass ceiling myth is totally wrong. It is very difficult for women to get to senior levels. I honestly can't remember what company it was, but read a couple of years ago an interview with a woman who set up a very successful cpmpany - household name, floated it in stock market and left a few years later because of the chauvinism in the board room and from other directors. She was constantly ignored and treated like the little women.

Eats/msrisotto - I mentioned this earlier. It did not go 'unchallenged'. There was a group of female UK directors on R4 the other week (Woman's Hour maybe?). Positive discrimination and quotas were mentioned as ways of getting more women into the boardroom. None of them were in favour. Are these women just pulling up the drawbridge behind them?

Sanjeev - I agree. Of course kids are influenced by peers as well, but if its a decent school then kids brought up well at home do behave largely in the classroom. And the reality is generally parents are less tough on boys - boys will be boys and all that.

'Teenage boys are, by and large idiots. I know, I was one.'

I think this is the point at which I stop engaging. If you'd used the same generalization about teenage girls, you'd have been flamed to infinity.

This kind of divisive, sexist bullshit really fucking infuriates me.

Is it still generally accepted that as they get to teenage years, family influence lessens and peer influence increases? The problem here is, I can only speak personally as I don't work with children. I have one of each, and I could not cut my son more slack than my daughter or vice versa. Perhaps teachers do though.

Yes family influence lessens and peers become more important. But I think teenagers generally do listen more to parents than most parents think they do - they just don't always show any sign of it! Parents though do still have a lot of influence.

I think many parents and teachers - although not all - let boys away with stuff they wouldn't let girls away with. I'm not talking about big stuff, just lots of small stuff often. But it is the small stuff - talking in class, not concentrating, etc that makes a real difference to achievement often.

MrMagnolia - Of course teenage boys are not generally idiots. They do mature more slowly than girls though and this does have an impact

Oh, come on MrMag. It was a joke! Perhaps it wasn't the place for it though.

Risk centres in the brain are still developing in adolescent males, and lead to behaviour that wouldn't be considered in later life. However, there was a former city trader on R4 yesterday who is now a neuroscientist. He has written a book called 'The Hour between Dog and Wolf'. It examines risk taking amongst city traders and the physiological changes that such risk taking causes. It was linked to, though not limited to testosterone levels and changes in these levels throughout the day. He was making a case for more women traders because they suffered less from such swings. Now it could be absolute bollocks, he might just want to sell more books, but it also bears more investigation.

I thought it was a joke too

I think the rules were recently changed to make a lot more course work supervised for GCSEs. The problems for women seem to come because they marry up so the man earns more so if you decide who might stay home (given most people do not earn much and can hardly cover childcare) then the lower earner gives up work. If you earn a lot more than your husband as increasing numbers of women do then the woman is likely to keep on working .If you both earn £200k and like work then you probably jsut hire a nanny. If one earns £400k and the other £20k the £20ker if she or he has few prospects of higher pay later, is likely to tgive up work.

As long as women seek good providers as husbands they are likely to stop work or go part time when babies come along. If we can ensure daughters are not looking for that and earn the same or more than their men then the issues do largely go away. Obviously any woman can work for herself as I do. I cannot discriminate against my self. If you are the best at what you do in the UK peoople come to you whether you are white, black, one legged, female or male. If you are pretty useless waster who uses every excuse to be off sick - the sort of pat her tummy woe is me, I am first woman in the world pregnant or male equivalent with a bad back then everyone will always be happy to see the back of you.

I'm reading this thread but trying not to post. I do want to say that you haven't struck me as anti-feminist, Sanjeev, just a bit dozy over some issues ... Which is par for the course, male or female, when beginning to look at the world from a fresh perspective.

pulling up the drawbridge behined them, possibly sanjeev, i mean woman are more competitive with other women than with men.
personaly i think positive discrimination and quotas are a good thing, problematic of course, i mean people have to feel secure that they have reached their position on merit, but when i see a boardroom full of men i dont see merit, i see the old boy network and entitlement at work.

It always is a joke when it's aimed at men. Strange how it's never a joke when it's aimed at women.

I suggest you drop the 'joke' that teenage girls are idiots and see what response you get.

'i mean people have to feel secure that they have reached their position on merit'.

Which is why implementing quota's to get women into the boardroom is a crap idea, what self respecting woman would want to have any part of this.

teenage boys could not be described as the most sensible section of society, generaly speaking, i know i wasnt. but thats ok, i loved being a teenage boy, it was a laugh a minute.

Oh, I was! Well, I was intelligent but far more interested in being 'rebelliously independent'. Teenagers push boundaries, it's normal development.