~ archived since 2018 ~

GYNOCENTRISM in EDUCATION in policy, funding, public perception

[deleted] · 2020-05-07T10:25:19+00:00

Crosspost "GYNOCENTRISM in EDUCATION in policy, funding, public perception" from /r/mramemes:[deleted]Posted by [deleted] | 7 May 2020 |...

[deleted]

May 7, 2020

9 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	GYNOCENTRISM in EDUCATION in policy, funding, public perception
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	9
Comments	7
Date	May 7, 2020 10:25 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/gf41b9/gynocentrism_in_education_in_policy_funding/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/gynocentrism-in-education-in-policy-funding-public.1198484 https://theredarchive.com/post/1198484

Comments

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellainadiba -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The source (that's the actual source - you posted a link to an article) doesn't match the stats in the picture. Maybe I'm missing something or there's supplementary information that the article is drawing from. Either way, they weren't included in your original submission.

For instance, in the source it says that Agriculture has double the number of men and yet in the pic they added "(and related)" (which means what, exactly?) and with different figures.

The source also doesn't have figures for "social studies" (that's a high school subject - it's called 'social sciences' at the university level), biological sciences or veterinary sciences.

Is there another source this pic is drawing from? I may have missed something.

I have no doubt that women are overrepresented in college and university and in specific programs and that men are being ignored when it comes to programs where they are under-represented. I just don't think it serves our interest to post pics with a lack of sources and (possibly) sensationalist claims.

[–][deleted] 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellainadiba 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You said "all sources below", so I followed the link you gave, which was an article that linked to this source, which wildly differs from the pic you posted.

I googled "IUA Gender at a Glance", which first gave me this link, which is a "Men's Voices Ireland" report and where the picture actually came from. However, that's not the source of the information. The source is supposed the Irish University Association and the report gave this link as a source but it returned a 'page not found' result.

The report also claimed that the statistics were from a 2009 report but they linked to a 2013 report using a broken link.

A search of the Irish University Association's website returns nothing either.

After more searching, I finally did find a 2009 paper from the IUA called "Gender at a Glance" and on page 9 there WAS a table showing the distribution of gender by field

Success! Right? ...No.

The table wildly (yes, wildly) differs from the table in the pic you posted. You can see it here (you don't have to log in, just scroll down).

So still no source.

Are women over-represented in many fields of study? Absolutely. I've not spent the last hour disputing that.

What I do object to is you posting a picture that's a cross-post from another sub with no source, or substance, behind it. This is a trend with your posts in this sub and I don't think you're contributing to the health of this community.

Maybe you should post less often so that you can have the time and attention to add more substance to your posts. Either that or consider the possibility that you and this sub are not a very good fit and your efforts will be better appreciated elsewhere.

[Edit: You edited your comment while I was replying. (You also removed the part where you implied I was thick.)

Unfortunately, you edited it to include a link I already dismissed because it's not a source, it's a document that REFERS to the source. In the Appendix of the document you just linked to, it links to the 2013 study, not the 2009 one that they say the stats come from. A study that I eventually found and whose table on page 9 differs wildly from the picture you posted.]