Sponsored Links

Is ... Woke?

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.
There are so many things wrong with what you say that I think most people just give up. For a start the same study you quote says in its Abstract:

"National cultural dimensions appear to moderate gender differences in interests beyond the influences of national gender inequality. Specifically, gender differences in interests in people (versus things) tend to be larger in countries of higher uncertainty avoidance and higher indulgence whereas gender differences in ideas (versus data) tend to be larger in countries of higher indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, and lower power distance. This study highlights how a better conceptualization of the influences of culture can inform vocational psychologists, gender studies researchers, and career counselors’ work with men and women in understanding their vocational interests."

What this is saying that culture is having an impact on people's choices. Then we have the nature vs nurture argument, which is almost imposible to scientifically prove since we will have to clone two humans and raise them differently to see what choices they make. We have lived thousands of years with a male dominated society, things are not going to change that quickly. Also do you think the Telecoms industry is welcoming to women with all the old school dinosaurs and "bro" culture?

The purpose of the study is not for you to take it out of context and use as backing for your stereotyping, but as the article says to inform vocational psychologists. If you had a daughter what would you want her to do with her life? Work with people as the study says? Would you actually tell her she has no chance with "things" and should give up? Do you not see that by stereotyping you are paiting everyone with the same brush even though like you said "Some women will have more of a "things" preference than others"? Why can't you let people decide what they want to be without you first putting them in some classification? How would you feel if you were the odd one out and got told you don't belong and that you can't do that job because most men prefer that other thing? How do you think women in technology and not in technology would feel if they read what you posted? Would your mother/sister/wife/daughter like it? Since you like studies I am sure you are aware that girls do better at school than boys do. Perhaps we should tell all our boys to give up studyng and go back to labour jobs, after all girls are better than boys at school!

Now to your argument of discrimination. If a woman were to have an interview with you for a Telco job what chance will she have to get the job if you already made up your mind about all women? Do you really think you could interview a woman and have no bias thinking like you think? Don't you see that people like you will hire more people like you and that is not good for any company? Since you love to look for studies go and read all the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring to a company. It's not just equality, it brings many other things. It's not discrimination if you are trying to balance things out. You make it sound like the child that cries because the mother gave the brother/sister a toy because you got the previous one. Men, and in particular white men, have won it trillion times before and statistically have better chance of getting on with life. So it's right to help the ones don't have it so easy to balance things out.

In this day an age it's sad having to bring the discusion to this level as you would asume most people have understood the basics of why we need to move forward. I have done my best but I presume you are only going to see what you want to see. That is how the internet works these days, the echo chambers only reinforce your beliefs, rather than allowing you to see the other argument and put yourself in someone's else shoes.

Finally consider this: most people that are caught being racist/sexist/homophobic say that they are not racist. They say they didn't mean that way, that it was a joke, that they have black/women/*** friends etc. It's always the same excuses. They just can't see it. They can't deal with the fact that's who they are. That maybe it's not the majority of the society that's wrong, but them. And since I made you many questions here is the last one: What if you are wrong? What if you are showing prejudice, stereotyping, discriminating against women? Have you considered the impact of your actions and mistakes?
 
Sponsored Links
There are so many things wrong with what you say that I think most people just give up. For a start the same study you quote says in its Abstract:

"National cultural dimensions appear to moderate gender differences in interests beyond the influences of national gender inequality. Specifically, gender differences in interests in people (versus things) tend to be larger in countries of higher uncertainty avoidance and higher indulgence whereas gender differences in ideas (versus data) tend to be larger in countries of higher indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, and lower power distance. This study highlights how a better conceptualization of the influences of culture can inform vocational psychologists, gender studies researchers, and career counselors’ work with men and women in understanding their vocational interests."

What this is saying that culture is having an impact on people's choices. Then we have the nature vs nurture argument, which is almost imposible to scientifically prove since we will have to clone two humans and raise them differently to see what choices they make. We have lived thousands of years with a male dominated society, things are not going to change that quickly. Also do you think the Telecoms industry is welcoming to women with all the old school dinosaurs and "bro" culture?

The purpose of the study is not for you to take it out of context and use as backing for your stereotyping, but as the article says to inform vocational psychologists. If you had a daughter what would you want her to do with her life? Work with people as the study says? Would you actually tell her she has no chance with "things" and should give up? Do you not see that by stereotyping you are paiting everyone with the same brush even though like you said "Some women will have more of a "things" preference than others"? Why can't you let people decide what they want to be without you first putting them in some classification? How would you feel if you were the odd one out and got told you don't belong and that you can't do that job because most men prefer that other thing? How do you think women in technology and not in technology would feel if they read what you posted? Would your mother/sister/wife/daughter like it? Since you like studies I am sure you are aware that girls do better at school than boys do. Perhaps we should tell all our boys to give up studyng and go back to labour jobs, after all girls are better than boys at school!

Now to your argument of discrimination. If a woman were to have an interview with you for a Telco job what chance will she have to get the job if you already made up your mind about all women? Do you really think you could interview a woman and have no bias thinking like you think? Don't you see that people like you will hire more people like you and that is not good for any company? Since you love to look for studies go and read all the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring to a company. It's not just equality, it brings many other things. It's not discrimination if you are trying to balance things out. You make it sound like the child that cries because the mother gave the brother/sister a toy because you got the previous one. Men, and in particular white men, have won it trillion times before and statistically have better chance of getting on with life. So it's right to help the ones don't have it so easy to balance things out.

In this day an age it's sad having to bring the discusion to this level as you would asume most people have understood the basics of why we need to move forward. I have done my best but I presume you are only going to see what you want to see. That is how the internet works these days, the echo chambers only reinforce your beliefs, rather than allowing you to see the other argument and put yourself in someone's else shoes.

Finally consider this: most people that are caught being racist/sexist/homophobic say that they are not racist. They say they didn't mean that way, that it was a joke, that they have black/women/*** friends etc. It's always the same excuses. They just can't see it. They can't deal with the fact that's who they are. That maybe it's not the majority of the society that's wrong, but them. And since I made you many questions here is the last one: What if you are wrong? What if you are showing prejudice, stereotyping, discriminating against women? Have you considered the impact of your actions and mistakes?
You've probably missed my last post -

>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.”

...

The effect is cross cultural. My argument is simply any job candidate should have an equal opportunity - and not be favoured by sex(in this case female)/ethnicity or any other immutable characteristic(I'm not convinced you are entirely unprejudiced given your demand for a "diverse" workforce, rather than a meritocracy. The studies that push diversity as beneficial financially are somewhat dubious). The lowest achievers in the UK are white working-class boys - not women or non-white members of society. I'm simply stating that men and women are different in some ways and will make different life choices given free reign. If men and women had precisely the same interests then all TV show audiences would be a 50/50 split by sex - in reality of course men and women often differ greatly in what they find interesting to watch.
 
Last edited:
And why do you think it's that?
Parliament listed the following reasons -

>Reasons​

During its inquiry, the Committee heard of many factors that may combine to put White working class pupils at a disadvantage. It was not convinced by the DfE’s claim that the gap can be attributed to poverty alone, with pupils from most ethnic minority backgrounds more likely to experience poverty, yet consistently out-performing their White British peers.

Among the many factors that may combine to put White working-class pupils at a disadvantage are:

1. Persistent and multigenerational disadvantage

2. Placed-based factors, including regional economics and underinvestment

3. Family experience of education

4. A lack of social capital (for example the absence of community organisations and youth groups)

5. Disengagement from the curriculum

6. A failure to address low participation in higher education
...



EDIT:

Oh, you're questioning if that fact is correct? From the same report although it has been widely reported elsewhere -

>
  • Early years: In 2018/19, just 53% of FSM-eligible White British pupils met the expected standard of development at the end of the early years foundation stage, one of the lowest percentages for any disadvantaged ethnic group.
  • GCSE performance: In 2019 just 17.7% of FSM-eligible White British pupils achieved grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with 22.5% of all FSM-eligible pupils. This means that around 39,000 children in the group did not achieve two strong passes.
  • Access to higher education: The proportion of White British pupils who were FSM-eligible starting higher education by the age of 19 in 2018/19 was 16%, the lowest of any ethnic group other than traveller of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Roma.
The Committee found these disparities particularly striking because White people are the ethnic majority in the country and, while White British pupils are less likely to be disadvantaged, FSM-eligible White British pupils are the largest disadvantaged group.
 
Parliament listed the following reasons -

>Reasons​

During its inquiry, the Committee heard of many factors that may combine to put White working class pupils at a disadvantage. It was not convinced by the DfE’s claim that the gap can be attributed to poverty alone, with pupils from most ethnic minority backgrounds more likely to experience poverty, yet consistently out-performing their White British peers.

Among the many factors that may combine to put White working-class pupils at a disadvantage are:

1. Persistent and multigenerational disadvantage

2. Placed-based factors, including regional economics and underinvestment

3. Family experience of education

4. A lack of social capital (for example the absence of community organisations and youth groups)

5. Disengagement from the curriculum

6. A failure to address low participation in higher education
...


All these apply to immigrants too:

1. Persistent and multigenerational disadvantage
2. Placed-based factors, including regional economics and underinvestment
3. Family experience of education
4. A lack of social capital (for example the absence of community organisations and youth groups)

Add to that the fact that your name or looks may dictate if you get a job or not.

Leaving these two:

5. Disengagement from the curriculum
6. A failure to address low participation in higher education

Which are mostly parenthood failures. See what Mr Gove said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39285039

And yet some immigrants outperform British workers:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan.../articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2018

"This new analysis shows that employees of Chinese, Indian and Mixed or Multiple ethnicity all had higher median hourly pay than White British employees in 2018; while employees in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups had lowest median hourly pay."

And your argument that whites are doing bad is not consistent with the ONS article. Some are, some aren't. Same with immigrants. So you see it's not one brush that can paint all whites and immigrants the same isn't?
 
Sponsored Links
All these apply to immigrants too:

1. Persistent and multigenerational disadvantage
2. Placed-based factors, including regional economics and underinvestment
3. Family experience of education
4. A lack of social capital (for example the absence of community organisations and youth groups)

Add to that the fact that your name or looks may dictate if you get a job or not.

Leaving these two:

5. Disengagement from the curriculum
6. A failure to address low participation in higher education

Which are mostly parenthood failures. See what Mr Gove said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39285039

And yet some immigrants outperform British workers:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan.../articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2018

"This new analysis shows that employees of Chinese, Indian and Mixed or Multiple ethnicity all had higher median hourly pay than White British employees in 2018; while employees in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups had lowest median hourly pay."

And your argument that whites are doing bad is not consistent with the ONS article. Some are, some aren't. Same with immigrants. So you see it's not one brush that can paint all whites and immigrants the same isn't?
My argument is not "whites are doing bad" I'm specifically talking about white working-class boys. I'm well aware of the educational performance ranking where Chinese British are at the top.
 
You're completely wrong and are clearly unfamiliar with what you're talking about. I've posted two articles and there are plenty more out there. Feel free to read them and educate yourself.
Bob. You kicked off this thread because you weren't happy with the owner of the site preventing you from complaining about a news article directly in the anonymous comments.

Had that been allowed the usual anonymous subjects would've piled in and it would've ended up a cesspit of misogyny at best and at worst one of those next to one detailing conspiracy theories. Which on hindsight might have been what you were hoping for.

People were so upset they spewed bile into the comments on he next article.

If you're unhappy with the moderation, comments policies or how woke the owner of the site is don't visit it. None of those are changing.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself next time, the wreckage of this thread is already done smouldering.
 
Sponsored Links
On the upside it's further motivation for Mark J to take the time to link forum and website comments if it's feasible. See how eager to share their wisdom some people are. Added bonus the usual troll runs into difficulty constantly changing ID whenever someone calls out his fantasy.

woke.webp
 
In Bob's world Cricket is not a "people" sport and women should aspire to something more appropriate, like knitting, croquet or tiddly winks.

Like every keyboard culture warrior Bob is very confused and will spend his time searching & selecting articles that reinforce his own twisted worldview. Hey Bob, go out & try and meet some modern young women, you'll be very surprised when you find out what they actually aspire to
 
My argument is not "whites are doing bad" I'm specifically talking about white working-class boys. I'm well aware of the educational performance ranking where Chinese British are at the top.

Missed this. Do you want the state to parent these kids, Bob? My wife taught in a school, met thousands of parents in her career. There was a trend with the parents that fits educational performance. You blaming the state for this?

I was brought up in a council house. I went to a grammar school. I dropped out of university. I lived in many different places, moving to develop my career. I didn't expect the opportunities to all be there within a few minutes of the family home. I was fortunate enough that my grandparents who raised me wanted the best for me and saw my potential.

I lived in a 'white working-class area' for 8 years, until 3 years ago. Prior to that I lived in Twickenham. The difference in the people was astonishing, and it was nothing to do with positive discrimination. In fact the previous area almost elected a BNP councillor on more than one occasion and UKIP could just be on the ballot and they'd get 20%.

I believe 40% of the population lived within 3 miles of the house where they were raised. The community social media group was home to casual racism, and minimal desire to see either the local area or themselves improve. Indeed I was admonished for pointing out that casual vandalism isn't okay. 'Kids will be kids' I was told by the welfare-dependent parent of said vandals.

My wife was a teacher for many years, her last assignment a school with a lot of 'white working-class' intake. The white working-class parents from Poland were at a quite different level from many of their British peers in terms of engagement and attitude towards their children's schooling. Chinese parents were off the scale engaged, Asian parents largely engaged.

Many, many times kids that joined the school in the first year or two with ESL outperformed the native kids in English by the end of their time there. They were driven to learn our language, that drive having been imparted in them by the parents that moved to a new country.

Multifactorial, but in my experience mostly the parents not giving a toss, being content with either welfare or poorly paid work and that attitude being imprinted on their children who will in turn impart it on theirs. Boys are pushed by parents and society towards manual work, no need for education. Girls a slightly different story as they may be considered unfit for manual work so will need at least enough education to read and write at an acceptable end of primary school level, alongside biology leaving them with the biggest advantage: they tend to be more articulate.

Just my cohort of one set of life experience alongside that of a teacher across many cohorts, though I would love to see Bob's solution. In my minimal experience this isn't a white working-class issue, it's a white British working-class issue.
 
Missed this. Do you want the state to parent these kids, Bob? My wife taught in a school, met thousands of parents in her career. There was a trend with the parents that fits educational performance. You blaming the state for this?

I was brought up in a council house. I went to a grammar school. I dropped out of university. I lived in many different places, moving to develop my career. I didn't expect the opportunities to all be there within a few minutes of the family home. I was fortunate enough that my grandparents who raised me wanted the best for me and saw my potential.

I lived in a 'white working-class area' for 8 years, until 3 years ago. Prior to that I lived in Twickenham. The difference in the people was astonishing, and it was nothing to do with positive discrimination. In fact the previous area almost elected a BNP councillor on more than one occasion and UKIP could just be on the ballot and they'd get 20%.

I believe 40% of the population lived within 3 miles of the house where they were raised. The community social media group was home to casual racism, and minimal desire to see either the local area or themselves improve. Indeed I was admonished for pointing out that casual vandalism isn't okay. 'Kids will be kids' I was told by the welfare-dependent parent of said vandals.

My wife was a teacher for many years, her last assignment a school with a lot of 'white working-class' intake. The white working-class parents from Poland were at a quite different level from many of their British peers in terms of engagement and attitude towards their children's schooling. Chinese parents were off the scale engaged, Asian parents largely engaged.

Many, many times kids that joined the school in the first year or two with ESL outperformed the native kids in English by the end of their time there. They were driven to learn our language, that drive having been imparted in them by the parents that moved to a new country.

Multifactorial, but in my experience mostly the parents not giving a toss, being content with either welfare or poorly paid work and that attitude being imprinted on their children who will in turn impart it on theirs. Boys are pushed by parents and society towards manual work, no need for education. Girls a slightly different story as they may be considered unfit for manual work so will need at least enough education to read and write at an acceptable end of primary school level, alongside biology leaving them with the biggest advantage: they tend to be more articulate.

Just my cohort of one set of life experience alongside that of a teacher across many cohorts, though I would love to see Bob's solution.
Couldn’t agree more. But Bob‘s solution can’t be positive discrimination since he doesn’t like any discrimination at all. Not even when helping majorities right Bob? So meritocracy for all. Even for the poor white boys who had no chance in life since their parents didn’t give them a good home education. Unless of course Bob is happy to positively discriminate to help the poor white Boys just because they are white so that’s OK then. We can’t positively discriminate ethnic minorities or women but it’s ok for white British boys...
 
Couldn’t agree more. But Bob‘s solution can’t be positive discrimination since he doesn’t like any discrimination at all. Not even when helping majorities right Bob? So meritocracy for all. Even for the poor white boys who had no chance in life since their parents didn’t give them a good home education. Unless of course Bob is happy to positively discriminate to help the poor white Boys just because they are white so that’s OK then. We can’t positively discriminate ethnic minorities or women but it’s ok for white British boys...
I imagine this is actually the result of discrimination against white British boys, so the solution is to look at all the help and support we threw at those from Eastern Europe that moved here via freedom of movement to do menial work and replicate that given they're most comparable. They got tons of goodies, right?
 
Sponsored Links
Couldn’t agree more. But Bob‘s solution can’t be positive discrimination since he doesn’t like any discrimination at all. Not even when helping majorities right Bob? So meritocracy for all. Even for the poor white boys who had no chance in life since their parents didn’t give them a good home education. Unless of course Bob is happy to positively discriminate to help the poor white Boys just because they are white so that’s OK then. We can’t positively discriminate ethnic minorities or women but it’s ok for white British boys...

I've said nothing about discriminating in favour of white working-class boys - I have stated they are at the bottom in achievement simply because people like to trot out stereotypes suggesting people(straight white men typically) are always at the top.

Going back on topic the two points I raised still stand - favouring an applicant on sex is sexual discrimination and yes, women have a things over people preference on average. Those two things bother some of you a lot.

>We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women’s empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women’s empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Implications for better understanding the sources of sex differences in career aspirations and associated policy are discussed. ...​
 
Last edited:
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!
Do you really believe the industry is discouraging / discriminating against women? If that's not the case, how could they "increase senior representation of women" and "achieve better representation for women" without discriminate against men?
 
Couldn’t agree more. But Bob‘s solution can’t be positive discrimination since he doesn’t like any discrimination at all. Not even when helping majorities right Bob? So meritocracy for all. Even for the poor white boys who had no chance in life since their parents didn’t give them a good home education. Unless of course Bob is happy to positively discriminate to help the poor white Boys just because they are white so that’s OK then. We can’t positively discriminate ethnic minorities or women but it’s ok for white British boys...
How about helping everyone in need no matter their race / background / gender? This identity politics nonsense is driving the country to ruin.
 
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