₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Can you just answer the simple question, is that example discriminatory or not?

If you want a short answer it's "yes" - especially if viewed using the lens of gender equality.

Historically, women were given lighter sentences due to their child rearing responsibilities - and I for one can see the reasoning behind that. But in this age of equality, and people who can't rightly read making lung-bursting cries of discrimination, then it is - if you want to play that game.

There are murmurs of moves to stop the incarceration of women in the UK - the ideologically charged reasoning being that only men are really violent .

I repeat, no one - and yes, it was probably mostly men - sat down gleefully conjuring up ways to codify systematic discrimination against women. At worst what was codified was what already obtained societally. If viewed holistically, anything that appeared discriminatory against women would probably have placed a corollary burden on men.

And in this age, any discriminatory law will surely be repealed on challenge. The law evolves. Up until recently, it was legally permissable for a man to cane his wife in the UK - the only rule being the cane must not be thicker than his thumb. Guess I'm a law-breaker .


TV

Mindfulness:
This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

AT has already responded - probably conclusively !

But let me add this; race is a social-cultural construct, which is at best a superficial attempt at broad-brush labelling. Human beiongs are sexually dimorphous. The only real categories of human are male and female.

Black, white, or gay, straight, or any other such notions are all fallacies merely used to push ideologies or agendas. Now, even if black/white was a thing, as AT has pointed out, we'd have to make that call on properly factored longitudinal studies.

And even if we did come to the conclusion that one "race" - see what I did there - had an edge over another in certain aspects, would it change a thing I have said? No. Equal opportunity and open access - and may the best man(or woman) win !

The truth is, even if women were simply brainier than men,their desires, choices and aspirations would probably mean they would always be under-represented in STEM fields.

And finally, as you seem to ascribe to racial notions, given the pre-ponderance of AA in the NBA, NFL etc., and how they are over-represented in sports in countries where they are a minority, given that the Olympics typically features 8 men (usually of West African descent), in the 100m final and black East Africans typically sweep the middle to long distance events, are black people physically superior to white people?

Stilly feel free to answer that last question !


TV

crackhaus:
Do you know why I asked you to look up the difference between a felony assault and a misdemeanor assault?
It's to save me the stress of having to explain it myself...

So on the assumption that you have looked up the difference, I'm going to try my best to explain why the sentences for both differ.

Real good effort here Cracky. Some of the most erudite minds of their era did not sit down gleefully looking to codify the oppression of women into the constitution.

The very worst they would have done is capture what was already generally accepted in society - point in question being things about spousal unions and the marital estate.

Trawling through the constitution and then wilfully or ignorantly mis-ascribing discriminatory intent is the purview of a troubled mind. Like I noted, the law - for better or worse - evolves. Under appeal, any such blatantly discriminatory law would be repealed.

That is in part the confoundingly obtuse confusion of feminism. Always playing the victim, always bleating on about rights - yet totally neglecting responsibilities - and always looking to villify men as misogynist, whilst demanding the same men give in to their unthinking demands. Did anyone even look to see if any women were involved in framing the constitution?

LordReed:
@Crackhaus
Do you find this discriminatory:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1874742
Excerpt:
CRIME
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Sep 11, 2012
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.
A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility."
Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

I noted this phenom in my initial post. Even if laws are written in a perfectly gender-neutral manner, discrimination can still happen. It's common knowledge that women typically are charged less and receive lighter sentences where they are charged. It's not just the law, it's the application of the law.

Especially in sexual assault cases - where females are the perpetrators. Some women are shameless enough to claim victimhood - one case I recall the male she assaulted was barely 11 years old, and she claimed he seduced her .

A cause for whingers, mewlers, bleaters and losers who campaign on identity politics, unthinking notions of equal rights and victimhood.

Shior


TV

Sagamite:
The constitution's aim was to see women as an inferior human with inferior rights, so it was aimed to be sexist against WOMEN.

I would dispute that assertion - it was an attempt to codify the prevailing morés of the time - with of course some external influence.

No one sat down with the rubric "how can we institutionalise discrimination against women" and set to work. Just like no one thought "lets look at where we are now and where we will be in 50 years and promulgate future proof laws. The law evolves.

Sagamite:
It being perculiar to the era does not make it right.

I did not say it was right - only that the constitutional provisions were sexist against both men and female, if one uses that lens - and that in Nigeria, as everywhere else, things were evolving for better or worse.

Sagamite:
It does not make it sensible, correct, progressive and apt. It is against my beliefs, hence it is OBVIOUSLY completely wrong.

Why? Because I am always right!

If laws are to be ever "progressive", then you can never be right can you? Or at best, you can only be right, right now - which brings us back to evolving .

Sagamite:
A position of equality and giving each individuals the right to control and decide their destiny.

Only to a degree and to ensure it is fairly done. Society cannot just give leave to everyones unfettered desires, Hence why we have laws, traditions, customs and morés in the first place.

Sagamite:
That is why the world needs people like me with foresight, so hindsight becomes largely redundant.

You can't go into the world Saga - well at least not until you've sorted out NL first !

Sagamite:
Don't confuse "choice" with "discrimination".

Fair point, but I'm not not in a sense. And there is not always a marked difference.

Sagamite:
It is the fair and most objective way to underpin a law. So when it was decided is irrelevant.
It is sensible, correct, progressive and apt.

As log as it is applied sensibly and not as some over-arching and universal principal.


TV

Sagamite:
No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.

If there are laws based on the premise of any burden or expectations on a man, solely because of his gender, then that law is sexist.

For example, I know in the UK, it is the law that the burden to get consent is solely placed on the shoulder of the man. I find that as sexist.

I am sure I have even read somewhere that a wife sued a man in Nigeria for not providing for her and the court took the case. That is sexist.

In my philosophy, both parents should provide for their child, not just the man, based on REASONABLE needs and divided based on proportion of earnings. Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to ensure the money is actually being spent on the child by the parent acting as custodian of the child.

We are not deliberating your beliefs, just what this particular portion ot the Nigerian constitutions says - in context. It was sexist to both men and women - if you are viewing things from that perspective. It was peculiar to that era and the antecedents of the constitution.

Sagamite:
I rail against divorce laws because, in the UK, the laws are sexist against men. In Nigeria, the laws are sexist against women.

But the plaintive cry of this thread is how women are institutionallly/legally discriminated against in Nigeria and the world over

Sagamite:
I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

Again, that is your position, not necessarily the focus here, but needless to say, promulgating laws through a "gendered" lens, sounds somewhat "funky" to me. I would personally opt for a more holistic, what better serves all round" approach.

Sagamite:
We can't continue practicing stupidity based on the excuse "It was given to us under colonial times". (not saying that is your own stance)

As much as I call black people monkeys, I still believe we have a little bit of brain. Lets use it!

With hindsight, the whole world practices stupidity - laws are being enacted and repealed everywhere and all the time. Hence my noting that we are all "evolving", for "better or worse". IN 50 years time what is considered right now, may well be considered dated then.

Sagamite:
All forms of discrimination, in ANY part of the world has to be reversed.

Equality should be the premise the law is based on.

Discrimination is what humans live and die by every minute of every day. And some forms of discrimination are perfectly and legally appropriate. In marrying my wife, I discriminated against all the other candidates - ok, there was just one and we were too closely related !

If you buy a Benz, you discriminate against Jaguar, BMW and all the others, if you choose to live in Chelsea, you are hating on Dagenham.

When, and by whom was "Equality" decided to be the underpinning of the law. And even if you don't mean in the new-age sense of the word, equality means to treat things similarly situated or all aspect alike the same under the law. It doesn't mean the use of the law to "equalise" things that are in purpose, design, function or outcome quantitavely different.

Sagamite:
If 2 people then get together and decide, to create "harmony", they want to practice some form of non-equality, then fine.

I, for one, would never practice equality in my relationship. I am the BOSS, if any girl does not like it, she is free to take a hike!

https://www.nairaland.com/1020560/relative-spouse-beaten-brother-in-law-story/9#11937820

I should not be able to force her to take it and the law should not back me to force her to take it. But we should both have the choice to decide if that is what we individually want or not.

"Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.

The law does not intrude on relationships - unless you willingly place yourself under a relationship defined by law.


TV

Stillfire:
The premise of my argument between TV01 and I, was not about entering the STEM but about the girl child completing it. This would help push our numbers up. At the moment, our drop out rates are high. And one of the factors that limits the girl child are familial circumstances and sexist tendencies like this.

Which basically "deads" your argument. So girls prove themselves capable of doing STEM, good enough to start - and then drop out? Any pressure would have been prior to starting. Once they start - whether they faced a lot of pressure or none, good or bad - the end result lies squarely with them.

What the high drop out rates signify, is;
1. They found they were not really up to it
2. Not really up for it
3. Even if they were up for it, they figured their real talents, greater gains or an easier life lie elsewhere

Stillfire:
So, you arrived at faulty hypothesis without carrying out an experiment to prove my hypothesis is faulty? Mr. man you can do better. All you had to say was ok, let's carry out this experiment on Naija girls. And this is simply a rate reaction , we would see an increase of girls in the STEM, if we decrease familial factors that hinders females. Are we going to deny that Nigerian girls are psychologically discouraged from going further in their endeavours but aspire to be wives first, defined by a husband? So why would a girl go into STEM, when your aspirations should be home economics . Boys are encouraged to be providers hence the doggedness to take financially rewarding courses of which a career in STEM stereotypically insinuates. There were a lot of 'last-carrying' boys in my class who should have just respected themselves and gone to less-tasking courses . Take away these limiting factors and let's see if the percentage of Nigerian women in STEM would not increase. Simple.

A hypothesis presented without proof does not require proof to be rebutted

To say that Nigerian girls are discouraged is disingenuous. Without any outside influence whatsoever, they would soon realise that the cost benefit of pursuing some of the harder, more rigorous courses - especially those that may mean harsher work conditions - did not accord with the lifestyles they wanted.

Newsflash - women are not just pressured to want children. It creational, or natural if you prefer. All society does is pass on recieved wisdom. We all have the liberty to demur.

And this is patently evidenced by the low rate of STEM take-up in the West. Not only do they wilfully eschew STEM due to their personal aspirations, they have a wider array of alternatives. And, alternatives that more closely align with their natural inclinations.

How many women would choose a hard hat over the wardrobe allowance of a TV presenter? Afterall, the bugly ones can always opt for radio . Which female would choose drilling for oil in desolate terrain over running a gossip blog? Only a very few exceptions.

And as for those "last carrying" boys, abeg free them. They labour under the knowledge that if they don't deliver, men will not respect them and women despise - if they actually acknowledge - them. Their burden, social expectation and the pressure they are under is far more punishing - as a certified "last-carrying" Joe, I can personally attest to that


TV

Sagamite:
So you think saying a "woman marries into the family of a man" as a premise of making laws is not sexist discrimination?

Indeed, viewing through the “modern” lens of “equality” and, specifically “gender equality”, it may well appear “sexist”. But there would have been similar burdens and expectations on the man that would equally be deemed sexist if viewed from the same perspective.

So for example, he would have been “expected” to be solely responsible to protect and provide for the woman and any children they may have”, is that not equally sexist? Have you yourself not railed against the unfairness of divorce laws? Either you’ve become an Emma Watson fan or you’ve….wait 0! Saga, Saga, you get news

These things should be parsed as a whole – it was about harmony and flourishing, not discrimination. Those were the social morés agreed and in place at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the law merely sought to codify them.

And it’s worth mentioning that large sections of our constitution were lifted wholesale for the British one. They had like traditions and, for "better or worse", are evolving, as we all are. It’s not to say that those laws were instituted with the specific aim of oppressing women – which is the whole thrust of this pathetic thread.



Pathetic and atrociously pitiful thread. An utter fail. Women are discriminated against all over the world? Discrimination against women is institutionalised?? And for what? A married woman is was once required to have her husband’ written permission to obtain a passport What a bunch of near-unredeemable whingers. Oh my! So;

1.What was the point? – it was all about the integrity of the family and acknowledging the traditional headship of the husband – nothing implicitly wrong with that, and in that era
2. What was the implication? – the crippling cost and life-threatening trauma of having hubby pen a brief note – a totally unecessary burden on the husband !
3. What now? – the law was repealed once anyone cared to challenge it. But some still think it serves as an example of women being under the boot of the evil patriarchy

And a woman being able to obtain a Nigerian passport far more readily than a man is discrimination against women, not men? Is that all you can find? Does that mark Nigeria as an antediluvian cesspit of misogyny and it’s men as brutish cavemen. Anything meaty? or even a tad bit relevant to present?

Well, I have news for you “men are discriminated against – and institutionally – the world over”. Take a snippet of current – not dated or repealed - laws/application of laws in the West;

A father does not automatically have Parental rights to his children unless he is married to or marries the mother. If he is married to the mother of the child and it turns out not to be his, he cannot readily disclaim parental responsibility.

If a woman decides she doesn’t want a baby she wilfully conceived, she can abort it, if a man doesn’t, unless the woman agrees, tough. If the man causes the woman to miscarry, it’s murder, if the woman aborts, it’s a “clump of cells”

If the woman decides she doesn’t want the baby after delivery, she only has to put it up for adoption or simply leave it with a note at a convenient place – no questions asked. A man will be on the hook for child support till the child is 18, if it can be proven he is the biological father – whatever his views or desires at any stage from conception to birth.

Yes, there are probably some vestigial traditions that hampered women - just like there were some that disadvantaged men. Discrimination is not institutionalised against women any more than it is against men. The law actually treats men way more harshly than women, and burdens then a lot more - especially when it comes to punishment for crimes.

So please, just quit this “victim mentality” tripe and if anyone has things they need to work through, best seek help.


TV

Mindfulness:
PISA, the best known assessment program, which compares school performance by country, by gender, by social class etc. measures, compares and contrasts the performance of students with the help of exactly the same methods, questionnaires AND worksheets.

All your questions and postulations here amount to very little. The real questions here are;

1. Do men have brains that are dissimilar in some ways, giving them differing relative advantages in some areas - point in question here being TEM?
2. Are men and womens brain wiring and structure exactly the same - or indeed, womens have superior intelligence specifically with regards to TEM - meaning under/over representation is due to discrimination?
3. Do womens choices - due to lifestyle, preference etc - play a part in under/over-representation

Please present cogent arguements to make a case either way. It's worth noting that Chess which ios a totally cerebral exercising - ignoring mens greater digit strength - has segregated championships for men and women. Why is this?

It is also worth noting that the best female player plays against men - not in the womens league, hence she is not the womens champion - and the top ten women from the womens league would not make the mens top 100.

Is this also due to age-old discrimination or regressive gender stereotyping? Or do men simply have a "relative advantage" in some areas? And perhaps womens strengths tend to lead them - if not coerced by ideology - to other areas?

I'm just being rhetorical here and don't expect answers - although I'd be pleasantly surprised.


TV

Stillfire:
Social engineering? TV01 stop slacking. It is within my rights to make postulations, that is how theories and laws come into place.

Based on sound data, real life dynamics and mutually acceptable outcomes that lead to flourishing for all. You are using what at best is a blinkered ideology to justify what will be costly and counter-productive social engineering.

Stillfire:
We can now go ahead and do our experiments as 'scientists' lmao on a sample of Nigerian girls based on my hypothesis that if we don't limit Nigerian girls to aspire to kitchen life , the drop out rate will decrease and we would have an increase in the number of nigerian girls in STEM.

Firstly, your hypothesis is clearly faulty ! Secondly, your underlying assumption that most Nigerian girls arer STEM material is seriously flawed - not even most/many men are. Thirdly, nobody "limits" Nigerian girls - if they really want it - "and are capable" - it's there for the taking. Sounding like the only reason Nigerian girls eschew STEM is because they are actively discouraged . Any limitations are likely from girls or women anyway.

Stillfire:
And no I am not despising the girls that aspire to kitchen life, I am concerned about the girls who have it in them but drop out due to some retrogressive ways of thinking.

Such will be minimal and are probably decreasing. The real cause is the choice of women themselves. End of.


TV

raumdeuter:
TV01

SEGREGATED SPECIALTIES:
 Women are only 29% of all physicians, yet they are
overrepresented in traditionally lower-paying
specialties. Pediatrics is the only specialty in which
women are the majority (55%).3, 7
 Women have the lowest representation in surgery.
In 2005, women were less than 6% of each
orthopedic, thoracic, urological and neurological
surgeons.5

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf

Baically even in the field of medicine and Surgery, the harder part are left for the men while the easier part are female dominated

I know some would say which are the harder part. Well in the US post med school redicency to be a Neuero surgeon is 7yrs while for family medicine is 3yrs

The average required USMLE scores for Neuerosurgery is way higher than most specialties

The figures speak for themselves. There is way more data out there that shows that men are "over-represented" for a whole host of reasons aside discrimination.

If real-life dynamics and lived experince don;t accord with your ideology, social re-engineering is not the answer !


TV

Mindfulness:
What are women's strengths? Which jobs are family friendly / unfriendly? Why are women able or not able to compete at the point of entry?

It's been noted repeatedly that the men are better suited to the requirements of TEM. Medicine has lots of branches that afford women the flexibility to combine work with family. Female Dr's can opt for peadiatrics as opposed to neurosurgery, or being a GP as opposed to an opthalmologist.

Being a GP for example means they can easily adopt P/T or flexible working arrangements. This - as I have already detailed and evidenced - is actually compromising healthcare delivery in the UK.

Firstly becuase most new Dr's are women, there are fewer entrants into things like neurosurgery (still tend to be male), and because they look for areas that are flexible, front-line services are compromised. Try getting a GP appointment in the UK today.

At the point of entry for medicine, soft skills, i.e.e bedside manner, articulacy etc. are emphasised as much, if not more than pure scientific ability. This favours women at that point - 18-20 - one reason why they secure more places. Contrast this to things more math, logic or modelling based, which is the emphasis in TEM. Men have the edge - even if they are nerdy/clumsy/inarticulate!

Mindfulness:
Preferences can change over time, they are not fixed but flexible, which is great and convenient. What we are discussing here, however, is where these preferences come from. And I am still not sure whether it is nature or nurture or both.

If you are cliaming nature has nothing to do with it - and can prove that - then you would be correct.

I am of the opinion that nurture, and all our social norms, constructs etc. have always been predicated to some degree on nature/biology - and it has worked more or less. If you would bring something different please prove it works. All efforts to deny nature have so far proved abortive !

Mindfulness:
I agree and who wouldn't? Who wants to discriminate in favor or against anyone though? I thought it was more about encouragement of girls and not discrimination against boys.

Encourage them against their will?


TV

Stillfire:
TV01, I'm glad you are aware of the familial factors and the way women are 'nurtured' that 'hinders' our progress.

I'm sure there's an element of this, but; 1. It is almost certainly reducing, if not all but vestigial 2. nurture can negatively impact males as well.

Stillfire:
And yes we should at least be at 45% at the moment if women are socially brought up to prioritize traits like assertiveness, doggedness, not modesty. And yes I am making estimations not assertions , because for the fact that we are merely having a discussion, we can make hypothetical statements, and a scientist often puts her opinion and estimations in her discussion section of her scientific reports, tehehe. So no I'm not being 'ideological' but doing what scientists do, make hypothetical statements and then work towards proving it.

And I maintain that putting a figure on it suggests overtones of "social engineering" engendered by ideology. I have no problem with any level of representation - high or low - as long as it is merited, and on the basis of equal opportunity and open access for all.

Stillfire:
I chose 45% at the moment because men have always had the benefit of a head start. I'm not stupid to make foolhardy estimations of 60% at the moment.

The head start that men have is their heads in this case . Abeg easy on the social re-engineering 0! Otherwise men may be at risk....

Stillfire:
As of my lazy comment, as of the 1930s we start seeing women in physics, chemistry fields. So yes I think Western women have grown lazy over the years.

Not lazy, comfortable perhaps . Or just prone to different preferences and probably a wider array of options. Why would they not play to their strengths and seek to fulfill their desires?

Stillfire:
I have no worries though Nigerian women match them despite the incriminating factors we have in our country, both economic and sexist views that most of you here would wish women to aspire too. To think kitchen! But not under my watch. Tehehe

Why are you despising women that choose to be homemakers? Stop denying women choice ! And don't forget, womens choices will impact on the dynamic of their relationships with men - unless of course relatiosnhips with men are forgone - by choice !


TV

Mindfulness:
Could it be that women are overrepresented in the medical field because they have always been a big part of it and hence find it easier to access it whereas the other fields have always been male-dominated?

It may well factor, as will a number of other things, amongst which are; it better suits womens strengths, it is more family friendly and at the point of entry women are able to compete favourably against men

Mindfulness:
I guess because countries are in high demand of engineers and need to tackle skills shortages.

...and the best way to tackle a skills shortage would be to positively discriminate in favour of a group whose preferences typically lie elsewhere? As opposed to incentivising it for all - i.e. making the opportunity equal and attractive - in order to increase take-up by all??

Discriminating in favour of women to increase STEM take-up is bad for women and bad for STEM.


TV

ApexTitan:
^^^

Yeah that ish was just plain wrong. Biology and medicine, true sciences that they are, are demanding courses in their own rights.

To put things back on track the fascinating question here is that why are women under-represented in the STEM fields even when the cultural and societal hurdles that checked their participation in times past are removed?

Why do some people see this as a problem so much so that they want some kind of government intervention or cultural effort to address this? They are only creating a problem where none existed before - women, as has been stated earlier, will tend to make career choices that are in line with their inherent natural dispositions. Women are nurturers by nature so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they dominate the Health sciences and are under represented in other STEM fields, boys tend to build things. This is all natural. It's only activists and politicians who are not in tune with how biology and nature actually work that will go about trying to fix something that isn't broken here.

AT abeg no mind them.

No one said any such thing. Ask them to point out where. Simply put, the demands of hardocre TEM courses suit men better. No one has said that women can't excel in TEM, or that natural science/medical courses are not rigorous or don't require brains.

The inability of - mostly women - to reason, deduce and make cogent arguments is actually prima facie evidence of why they are "under-represented". It's mostly peppered sentiment and emotional indignation.

If anyone will make a case for women, it's not the females here - who are confusing their ideology with their biology. Scientific fact !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have no case to present to you. I am still a learner regarding the subject of this discussion. I liked your essay so I read it carefully and by doing so some questions popped up, which I am asking you to answer. I hope, you don't mind.

At all.

Mindfulness:
When you refer to medical schools, do you also have nurses in mind?

Nope - just MD's really.


TV

Mindfulness:
First of all, where have women made considerable progress and where not EXACTLY?

You are great at querying - it would be good to hear you present a case with backup for your views. After all, you are not merely fact-finding are you ?

For one, see ramdeuter' earlier post detailing difference between 2004 and 2014. Secondly, I've detailed how women now make up 60% of medical school intake in the UK. Thirdly, it's well known women are enrolling in university in greater numbers than men - still the TEM representation is proving a difficult nut to crack. Even with positive policies and positive discrimination in favour of women.

If you have anything persuasive, please share.


TV

Mindfulness:
What makes you believe so?

In other - more life science - areas, women have made great strides (as noted they are starting to dominate in terms of numbers in the UK). Why are the nurturing factors that they overcome here not likewise overcome in TEM?

With all the initiatives, positive discrimination, campaigns and specially formulated policies, women have still not made much progress. Read the OP. Check out Sweden, where concerted efforts to get women into STEM have been made.

Any vestigial cultural hindrances or cultural effects are minimal. The difference between the sexes is apparent even before socialisation and is evident in babies as young as 4 months.

It is what it is.


TV

Mindfulness:
Why?

I've enumerated a number, amongst which are wiring - probably leading to a competitive disadvantage - and choice,

Mindfulness:
What part and to what extent?

All told, I couldn't say for sure, but as I've posted, I believe difference in wiring and women' choices play the largest part in this seeming "under-representation".


TV

Mindfulness:
Are women at 45% in TEM?

That was Stillfires assertion of where women should be. I merely questioned why so low and why she described them as lazy for not being there !

I bring no charge against women for their choices, l just have my opinions as to why. And I certainly don't think "nurture" or structural discrimination are the main reasons women are supposedly "under-represented", even if it does play a part.

Stillfire:
I actually agree but at the same time the percentage of women in the STEM is incredibly too low but I would not use that statistic to reflect the percentage of women who are predisposed to the sciences. I believe the number should be higher than what is, women are just being lazy. Even if the men are endeared towards it, we should at least be at 45%...

TV

Stillfire:
Are you seriously trying to rule out the fact that the way the genders are nurtured does not influence the decisions they eventually make?

Ah Stilly, so you at once deign not to to answer any of my assertions and at the same time charge me with something I did not say? . Why should women be at 45% in TEM, why not 60% like in medicine. Why does it make them lazy !

I'm sure nurture influences everyones choices to some degree, and doubtless it's at play here also. However, the fact remains that when it comes to the requirements of technology engineering and mathamatics, men' brains are better suited.

Does that mean women can't excel in those areas? No, it just means that they won't tend to go there as much and consequently have fewer outliers.

Other factors would be women' situations and life choices - they typically try and juggle family (for which read child-rearing) with career, this also informs their choices.

If you want to make a case for "nurture" being the overriding factor, please do so. I figure you are able to present your position absent snide asides and "skirt-surfing".



TV

^{skirt surfer* - one who lacks the nous to rebut opinions or present a cogent case on a topic, but instead chooses to indirectly make baseless insinuations and trite asides - typically by referencing their pain indirectly as a response to another post. Closely related to trolls, but typically sadder, and with a tendency to whinge and present as emotionally skewed}

doublex:
whatever you want to call the differences between human groups,race/not,its there thats how cultures,ethnicities,just basically differences between human 'groups' .my point is this,you are using an unfair method to discredit women and the same method(s) white men use to discredit black men.this is my point:do you agree when white men use the same method you ae using to discredit black men and say they didnt contribute to advancement?.....

1. What method did I use
2. How is it unfair?
3. How did I use it to discredit women?

As for "white" men discrediting "black" men in terms of "advancement", if they can empirically demonstrate that they have contributed more, I have no problem with that. It remains for black men to compete - if they so choose - and show otherwise.

Science is not sentimental or emotional.


TV

doublex:
black man using the same methodology you have used to say all that about woman,a white man can say the same about you.so would you also agree that white men were created to build,creat and civilise,end of? #SAY NO TO HYPOCRISY

My point was about sex - humans are sexually dimorphous - not race, which is at best convenient labelling. I believe I only ever referenced "men" unqualified. But what's your point exactly?


TV

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics - STEM.

Women tend to congregrate - and are starting to dominate - in the softer fields, such as life sciences and medicine. Although these can be captured under the "Science", when this discussion is had, it's invariably about womens presence in the harder fields, Technology, Engineering & Math based disciplines.

As Bellong noted, the kind of complex modelling and computation required here play better to mens relative strengths. Idology cant trump biology - now that's science !

Can women participate and excel in any STEM area - soft or hard? A resounding yes, but they are unlikely to do so in the same numbers as men, or produce as many exceptional outliers.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/13/fields-medal-mathematics-prize-woman-maryam-mirzakhani.

It's also pertinent to note that an ideological push to equalise number does not always work for the overall good. With women now dominating numbers in the medical field in the UK, the profession has effectively been "feminised".

Structural changes to accomodate womens higher desire for p/t work and maternity leave have had to be made. Even factoring for their life choices, female Dr's simply do not work as many hours as males.

It's further compounded by the fact that even in medicine, women tend towars the "soft" specialities or prefer to be GP's, leading to shortfalls in the more acute areas.

But the real problem is the attrition rate - to many female Dr's leave the profession prematurely - and this is leading to compromised healthcare delivery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2338607/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Part-time-women-doctors-ARE-real-problem-Why-sexist-say-so.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/9950248/Part-time-women-doctors-are-creating-a-timebomb.html

Equality in it's true sense is a nice to have and should be a consideration, but as a primary driver for policy formulation it is horribly flawed and ultimately unsustainable.

We shall see.


TV

Stillfire:
I actually agree but at the same time the percentage of women in the STEM is incredibly too low

That right there is an ideologically based - and biased - value judgement. Why is it too low? Especially if opportunity is equal? Are the number of female road sweepers, dustbin "men", or conductors too low ?

Stillfire:
but I would not use that statistic to reflect the percentage of women who are predisposed to the sciences.

This is conjecture; "predisposed"? in what way, want to do STEM, are good enough to do STEM, are incentivised to do STEM or have the tenacity to do STEM? Even a natural predisposition may be superceded by another preference.

Stillfire:
I believe the number should be higher than what is, women are just being lazy. Even if the men are endeared towards it, we should at least be at 45%...

Why are they termed lazy? If the sum of their talents, desires and situations typically rule out STEM, why is that a problem? Your figure of 45% can't hold, at least not as an ideologically pursued outcome.

What will happen, is that women will be "seduced" in, then the attrition rates will rocket as they figure they are not best suited and would rather do other things.

The whole thrust is supposedly for women to be able to avail themselves of freely available choice, no? So why then do those choices have to be coerced or condemned


TV

Stillfire:
I won't say coerced but encourage the ones that are naturally predisposed to the sciences. For science it's either you have it or you just don't. You can't force it.

Here is another Nigerian woman doing great things.

Which is the whole point - no one is saying women can't do great things, or should be denied the opportunity to do so. The simple truth is women' preferences often lie elsewhere.

As has been amply demonstrated in those nations that incentivise, formulate policy or otherwise proactively intervene in order to increase or balance numbers in STEM fields - it's a pointless exercise. If they are predisposed they will naturally gravitate towards, just like you stated.

bukatyne:
If the female Drs leave within 10yrs, I doubt there would be a shortfall because Drs male & female will be produced yearly.

I don't know the source of your "doubt", but the figures and situation clearly show the UK is suffering due to the high attrition rate of female Dr's. Countries don't train Dr's at great cost for a few years post-qualification work.


TV

bukatyne:
I believe very much in equal opportunities and leaving people to make their choices.

Absolutely agree regards equal opportunities - there are more women in medical school in Britain than men. Nobody is looking to gender balance things or incentivice men to take up medicine - even though the imbalace comes at cost, as fully 60%of female Dr's opt for p/t work or leave the profession within 10 years, leaving a problematic shortfall in healthcare delivery.

bukatyne:
If after enlightenment and guidance men are more than women in STEM, so be it

Dat's how it be !


TV

Tallesty1:
I think You will understand me better after you go through the thread that compelled me this one.

I did and I don't - your premise here is flawed.


TV

Kimoni:
TV, If the OP has blamed husbands for their wifes' behavior, it's because a lot of responsibility, expectations and accountability comes with leadership. The man clearly has to lead aright. But in all, OP has been very detailed in explaining his reasons.

So, if a man does not lead perfectly, or as his wife deems "perfect", she has leave to misbehave? The thread infantilises women and paints them as lacking agency or a sense or responsibility outside being well led. It is flawed - or fine if you think women are akin to children !

It's also the same toxic feminist inspired reading of scripture that justifies wifely rebellion and even divorce if "the husband is not leading correctly/perfectly" - all decided on by the wife (possibly in conjunction with rogue pastor)

1 Peter 3:1 KJV - Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conduct of the wives;

Kimoni:
Now compare to this thread- https://www.nairaland.com/2661461/tips-saving-drowning-marriage-woman

I may not agree with some of the detail here, but in terms of telling wives to take responsibility and "own" the success of their unions, it's spot on.


TV

bukatyne:
I do not know if men are more 'suited' to STEM; this thread is saying every student should be guided to pick what best suits them.... Incentives are not necessary to put women in STEM... their passion should be enough incentive to.

The reason that women are being incentivised is that they don't "naturally" tend to choose STEM subjects in the same relative numbers as men. Ideologically that doesn't sit well with some people and they'd like to see that change.

Equal opportunity is all that is called for, but that won't give the desired ideological outcome! And the reason for the "unbalance" is because men are better suited - hence the incentivisation to "gender balance" things - sometmimes you need a bigger picture !

bukatyne:
Must more ladies be enrolled into STEM courses? Must there be a gender based quota as regards the enrollment into STEM courses?

Therefore, as above; no, as it won't really work; no, as they don't really want to.

bukatyne:
If men were created to build, create and civilize, then they have made a woeful job of it.

That's a value judgement you are free to make - I wasn't grading them, just proclaiming their purpose


TV

Kimoni:
This thread on FP is hilarious

https://www.nairaland.com/2663660/noboxersday-nigerians-react-nobraday

Ngwanu, gentlemen, can we see your pics of #noboxersday in honor of those who survived prostrate cancer. Remember this is a worthy cause and it demonstrates gender equality.

Coogar, r231, RR, raumdeuter, Tim, Pickabeau1, Sagamite, anonimus, Crackhaus, apextitan, (TV01 ) and my other able gentlemen...the floor is all yours



Only my boss, the chief priest @bellong is exempted. Thunder will strike 3 times if he complies

Boxers as requested .

TV ^{knocking them out since way back!}

Hi Tallesty,

I'm going to have to call you out on this one - it's somewhere between deeply flawed and utter tosh !

All you've done is blame men for womens behaviour . Helping no one, and at best and ascribing women with reduced responsibility, that is, you've infantalised them.

I wouldn't have been so concerned, but you are stressing the spiritual - Christian - element. The bible is clear, that a husbands failings do not give the wife recourse to disobedience or otherwise being antagonistic.

And although leaders serve, they are not servants in the sense that that is the whole of their remit. Another classic error knowingly or unknowingly promulgated by many which is coloured by feminism - in and out of church sadly.

There's more to debunk in your post, but I'll stop there. Happy to provide more depth on any of the points.


Consulting pastor over and above, or and without your husbands leave, is rebelliousness. Any pastor that tries that with me better lace up
What would my wife even be thinking?

TV

Tallesty1:
So I created this thread about The Married Women That Respect Their Spiritual Leaders More Than Their Husbands and many of us didn't waste time to type down our frustrations.

Well, it is good because the women won't know how we feel about the ish if we don't speak out the way we did but have we taken out time to find out why it is so?


Well I tried, and I traced the fault back to us.

So I called us here to look for solution on how to end the virus before it eats too deep into our marriages.

#My_Opinion.


As a man, you are the head of your home.

Being the head of your home also means you're the leader.

And your responsibilities goes far beyond providing food and shelter for your wife and kids, giving her money and getting her pregnant etc.

Leadership means responsibility of service to others – the people who follow you. A good leader is also a servant.

That been said............

The problems facing many families today is the lack of leadership by the husband. (Quote me anywhere) we can blame the wife all we want but the problem is somehow our fault.

We all know that women are emotional creatures and they love attention, they love to be listened to and this is where most of us fall hand.

We are just too negligent of our responsiblity and thus we sell our worth and respect out.

Do You Know Why Your Wife Respects Her Spiritual Leader More Than You?

I Will Tell You...........

1: You are not leading her spiritually. Leading our wives spiritually is an important area where we fall hand greatly. It is a man's responsibility to disciple his wife and serve in her sanctification. Women are more spiritual than men and they don't joke with religion. So if you are not doing anything to lead in this area, you need a plan towards leading, otherwise your pastor will take over.

Lead her spiritually, pray with your wife. It’s tragic how many husbands never do. Rise early and call out to God for your own growth and then for wisdom in how to serve your wife in her growth.

2. You Don't Listen To Her, Talk To Her Or Encourage her When Necessary. Women love to be listened to and talked to especially when they are down emotionally. Pastors are aware of this so they always present themselves as those who are always ready to listen and advice.

Do you know who she called/ran to that morning she asked for few minutes of your time and your said later? That night you came home and went to bed straight without touching her food, saying a word to her or asking her how she spent her day? That day you slapped stars out her eyes? That day she was sick and you couldn't call from office/shop to check on her? That day she was emotionally down but you were busy with work and didn't even notice? And other times you messed up?.

Obviously her Pastor or Church member, and they listened to her, prayed for her and assured her that all will be fine.

So who should she respect more?

If you want to enjoy all the respect of your woman alone then you must be her leader in all ramifications.

Fortune is a woman; if you neglect her today do not expect to regain her tomorrow.

I am Out.

bukatyne:
Must more ladies be enrolled into STEM courses? Must there be a gender based quota as regards the enrollment into STEM courses?

Not really, but the prevailing ideological positions will try and force it to happen. Fortunately or unfortunatley, biology will prevail; simply put, womens strengths don't play to them achieving equal success with men in STEM fields. In this sense men are simply more gifted/better suited.

Sex based quotas cannot change that. Sweden the most poitically correct and feminist led nation in the world has relatively no more engineers than say a typical patriarchial nation like India. It's not mainly "gender" bias or stereotyping or even "old boys clubism" it's preference.

Even with more more women enrolling and graduating, with unfair incentives and policies designed to ensure women take up STEM courses, men still rule STEM fields. Things may change slightly due to the pressure, but women themselves don't - for the most part - want it.

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/courses/pg/funding/scholarships-bursaries - note the female only engineering bursary
http://www.uis.unesco.org/_LAYOUTS/UNESCO/women-in-science/index.html#overview!lang=en

Men were created to build, create and civilise. End of !


TV