Sponsored Links

Is ... Woke?

Keep discussions to the forum, spew whatever thoughts you like away from the “mainstream news” posts (said lightly as the posts Mark creates are generally well informed having been a follower for a few years now).

To remove the comments is right to avoid ridiculous conflict in front of the Joe Public who don’t care for forums and debates, but want to read a formal headline and story without seeing the tit for tat disagreements made, whether right or wrong.

I agree with Marks decision on this one.

Nice read of a forum topic though, the internet bitterness shines bright.
 
Why turn off comments when companies roll out outrageous institutional sexism/quotas that discriminate against men?


Major UK Broadband and Mobile Providers Commit to Recruit More Women​

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...e-providers-commit-to-recruit-more-women.html
The site has been around for 24 years. The problematic posting has only really been a thing since 2022.

One guy arrived, then another, then another. Same folks writing much of the content, trying to put a political spin on everything, and in between in some cases ranting and raving about ULEZs or whatever.

@Mark.J can do as he pleases and, frankly, most site owners would've removed anonymous commenting a long time ago. That anonymity seems to make people feel empowered.

There were arguments before however they were nothing to do with 'wokism' it was largely about broadband.

I despise the term 'woke' as much as Mark does: it's a lazy insult that seems to be used for anything a group of people don't like.
 
It clearly is institutional discrimination against men, that's simply a fact. Just because a profession doesn't split 50/50 by sex or reflect the general population by ethnicity/race it is not an indicator of discrimination or unfairness. It is well documented that women naturally skew towards different interests and than men, gendered behaviour is rooted in biology and is not simply a "social construct". Females skew towards people men skew towards "things" and you can see this in job areas selected.

Meet Lexie:
 
Sponsored Links
Meet Lexie:
Try not to educate yourself from random anecdotes on TikTok -


Women like working with people, men like working with things, all across the world​


An analysis of responses of people from 42 countries on a vocational interest inventory confirmed the well-known finding that women tend to prefer jobs and activities that focus on working with people, much more than men. Men tend to prefer working with things much more than women. Women were also found to have somewhat higher preferences for jobs that involve working with ideas and for more prestigious jobs. The study was published in Sex Roles.
In late 1990s, Terence J. G. Tracey and James Rounds, found that individual differences in vocational preferences can be described through three dimensions of opposite preferences – working with people (e.g., teaching, helping) vs. working with things (machines, tools), working with ideas (e.g, creative writing) vs. working with data (accounting) and prestige (being a CEO or a prominent leader vs being an unqualified laborer). This model of vocational interests became known as the spherical model.

For decades, psychologists have studied the differences in career interests of men and women. When their results are considered from the perspective of the spherical model of vocational interests, research results consistently indicate that women prefer to work with people much more than men. On the other hand, men prefer working with things (e.g., machines, tools, vehicles) much more than women.

This finding was important as it might help explain the gender differences in choosing occupations, such as the one in choosing STEM field occupations (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).
However, most of the studies of gender differences have been done on groups from a single nation and mostly from economically developed and individualistic countries. Cross-national studies, on the other hand, mostly focused on STEM-related interests and on gender equality issues.

Surprisingly, the latter studies tended to show that gender differences appear to be greater in societies with greater gender equality and in which people have greater economic resources. This became known as the “gender equality paradox”

To study gender differences in vocational interests across different world cultures, study author Chun Tao and his colleagues analyzed data from an online survey conducted by Time, an internationally popular English-language news and lifestyle magazine. This survey contained responses of 84,393 respondents from 193 nations, territories and regions on a vocational interests assessment instrument (PGI-Mini).

The researchers included in their analyses only data from countries with at least 30 male and 30 female respondents. This resulted in a final dataset containing 75,908 responses from 42 countries. Scores on dimensions of vocational interests of the spherical model – working with people vs. working with things, working with ideas vs. working with data, and prestige – were calculated for each participant.


The researchers estimated national gender inequality in each country using the United Nations Development Programme’s measure of gender inequality and obtained national cultural dimension values based on Hofstede’s theory of dimensions of cultural differences.

As expected, results showed that the most pronounced differences between genders are in preferences for working with people vs. working with things. Women preferred working with people much more than men. Men preferred working with things much more than women.

EDIT:

Some women will have a greater preference for working with things than other women but that still doesn't change the fact that, in general, women tend to have a people preference.
 
umm NO how about leave the comments open and if you don't care to read them then don't, and WOW by the way Nice of you to tar everyone with the same brush , a brush coated thickly in your own prejudices and opinions.
What name do you use when you post in the comments section? Sam?
 
It was an invitation, Bob. You have her Twitter account now. Go talk with her about it.
Her point was silly and I've no idea who she is, why don't you explain why it is correct? Some women will have more of a "things" preference than others - that in no way changes the fact that as a population women skew towards people. It's like her arguing women aren't generally shorter than men because she knows a woman who is six feet two.
 
Her point was silly and I've no idea who she is, why don't you explain why it is correct? Some women will have more of a "things" preference than others - that in no way changes the fact that as a population women skew towards people. It's like her arguing women aren't generally shorter than men because she knows a woman who is six feet two.
I'm facilitating, Bob. I would be delighted to see you reach out: I could learn something.
 
Sponsored Links
What part of the article I posted do you think is wrong?
I'm not entirely sure what's so difficult here. I've hooked you up with Lexie's contact details and twice now subsequently suggested you reach out to her. I'm unclear why that necessitates my offering an opinion on the matter. I would like to hear her thoughts on your posts and your responses in turn.
 
I'm not entirely sure what's so difficult here. I've hooked you up with Lexie's contact details and twice now subsequently suggested you reach out to her. I'm unclear why that necessitates my offering an opinion on the matter. I would like to hear her thoughts on your posts and your responses in turn.
Asking me to debate a random "flat earther" on Twitter is not remotely serious, please get back to me when you've decided what parts of the article are incorrect or offend you.
 
The worst part about this site is the free (any name you want any time you post) news comments function.
Even just an option where replies are hidden by default and theres a button to show them so you can read the main comments, or replies are organized properly like on other sites, it's really hard for multiple people to have a conversation in replies, and even if not linked to the forum it should be linked to some kind of login/register system
 
Asking me to debate a random "flat earther" on Twitter is not remotely serious, please get back to me when you've decided what parts of the article are incorrect or offend you.
Get back to me when you aren't randomly insulting people you don't know and appear scared of.

This thread isn't remotely serious, it's a tantrum.
 
Sponsored Links
I don't debate random Twitter "flat earthers" when the science is well known. You still haven't pointed out what was inaccurate in the article I posted so should people take away the view that you agree with it?
 
Get back to me when you aren't randomly insulting people you don't know and appear scared of.

This thread isn't remotely serious, it's a tantrum.
I applaud your tenacity in sticking with this but NEVER EVER feed a troll ....

Snowflakes like Bob wanging on about "well known science", "facts" and "institutional discrimination" or citing quack US "psychologists" is utter b*llox as I'm sure he/him well knows and coupled with a nasty odour of sex*sm, oooffff...

Re-balancing a companies workforce by gender whoever the employer should be the minimum that any serious business should be undertaking in 2023. It sure ain't "institutional discrimination", it's a smart move by a company or group of companies to tap into new talent & a historically overlooked part of the workforce in an effort to ensure their future success. 100% approve!
 
I applaud your tenacity in sticking with this but NEVER EVER feed a troll ....

Snowflakes like Bob wanging on about "well known science", "facts" and "institutional discrimination" or citing quack US "psychologists" is utter b*llox as I'm sure he/him well knows and coupled with a nasty odour of sex*sm, oooffff...

Re-balancing a companies workforce by gender whoever the employer should be the minimum that any serious business should be undertaking in 2023. It sure ain't "institutional discrimination", it's a smart move by a company or group of companies to tap into new talent & a historically overlooked part of the workforce in an effort to ensure their future success. 100% approve!

What part of the article was incorrect? List your evidence rebutting the errors you found.

EDIT:

Here's another article on the topic, there are many -


>Gender equality paradox: Does biology explain why men and women choose stereotypical jobs?​

>Iceland consistently ranks as the most gender-equal nation. It is also the nation where men and women are most likely to pursue sex-typical jobs.

...
  • A longstanding body of research has consistently shown that men and women tend to aspire toward different vocations.
  • In general, men tend to prefer jobs dealing with things while women typically prefer jobs dealing with people.
  • The "gender equality paradox" notes that in countries like Iceland, which are highly gender-equal, sex-typical job preferences tend to increase.
...
Biology plays a considerable role in determining the types of jobs to which we are drawn. That was one of the key takeaways of a study recently published in the journal PLOS ONE. The results show that, no matter the country or culture, boys and girls tend to aspire toward jobs dealing with things and people, respectively. And, perhaps counterintuitively, this preference for sex-typical jobs seems to increase as nations experience greater wealth and gender equality — a phenomenon dubbed the “gender-equality paradox.”
...

... People versus things

The study analyzed survey results from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment, a study that measures the scholastic performance and interests of 15-year-olds around the world. The researchers focused on how nearly 500,000 students across 80 countries answered the question, “What kind of job do you expect to have when you are about 30 years old?”


The researchers sorted all possible answers into two broad job categories: one in which the focus is generally on people, the other generally on things.

“Things-oriented occupations are those that involve extensive work with machines, such as computer programming, repairing machines (e.g., cars), or tailoring, whereas people-oriented occupations involve beneficial face-to-face interactions, as in medicine or teaching,” the researchers noted, adding that they excluded jobs that weren’t dominantly centered on either people or things.

The results showed that:

  • In all countries, the percentage of boys aspiring to a things-oriented occupation was higher than the percentage of girls.
  • In all countries, more adolescent girls than boys aspired to people-oriented occupations.
  • The median percentages of boys and girls aspiring to a things-oriented occupation were 37.4% and 8.7%, respectively.
  • STEM career aspirations were uncommon for girls (even in the more technically developed OECD nations, 2.9% of girls compared to 14.8% of boys).
https://bigthink.com/the-present/gender-equality-paradox/
 
What part of the article was incorrect? List your evidence rebutting the errors you found.
Screenshot_20230626_220033.webp


I don't debate random forum "snowflakes" when science has got literally nothing to do with this..
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules