Noggin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:56 pm
And yet you missed off the bit that is important - Women/girls really are NOT given the same career guidance
if they show interest in something different to the norm.
Maybe you didn't read to the end of my sentence - I guess I'm not writing in an interesting enough fashion
But the key issue here is you are taking sides.
There are only two sides.
You say that girls are disadvantaged because of X, that absolutely implies you think boys have a positive advantage in X.
In your reply above you acknowledge this: "I don't see the need to accuse me of assumptions about males choices - I wouldn't because I have not experienced their situations." If you are saying girls are disadvantaged, what else are they disadvantaged compared to, other than boys?
Perhaps it is a minor logical issue and perhaps I am having to overegg it because you are not seeing my comments in this context or I am explaining my opinion badly. While you may be a girl and while you may have been disadvantaged that does not mean that boys have a corresponding advantage which is implicit in your argument if you suggest one or other has a disadvantage...
Unless you pick a career, like, say, engineering. Then if you concentrate on that one topic, it is highly likely in todays society where statistically boys are vastly more likely to find employment in that sector, there is a skew in the likelihood (and accuracy) of girls not being advised into exploring engineering as a career.
I agree that is a real shame but that is the way things are. Even with the advent of positive discrimination and inclusivity, diversity, equal opportunity etc. you will still find more men on building sites and more women in office roles (for example). While that remains true (and it may remain true until humans become androgenised) there will be a bias in the encouragement being given for boys vs. girls - if they want the highest probability of finding a career. That bias will reflect the reality of the prevailing demographics, something I failed to explain well when I picked footballer, popstar, moviestar etc. as an example of a difficult to achieve role.
Engineering may not be "more difficult" simply because an individual is female, as you say there have been many brilliant female engineers/scientists etc. but it is a far less probable recommendation for a successful outcome given the current biases in sheer numbers of male candidates.
I do think that is a BAD situation and I wish there was more equality, particularly in engineering and science but it is what it is and we have to have difficult conversations (like this!) if we want to find a way forwards or try to understand each other. Don't forget, I have NO IDEA what it is like to be a girl any more than you know how amazing it is to be a man <joke>.
It's all very well trying to ignore the difference between the sexes or pretend they don't exist but in reality, men are as different from women as cats are from dogs. The very WORST thing we could do is force sexual equity in all roles. Promoting equality of opportunity is a big yes, enforcing equality of outcome would be a disaster.
