I find it quite interesting that a similar number of 50% of men who enter the teacher profession also leaves while the number for women is about half. In stark contrast however, the quote text, the theory on why men drops out of female dominated professions share nothing in common with the theories on why women leave male dominated.
In a 2009 report by the Swedish national agency, they argue that the reason why people drop out at a higher rate compared to the dominating gender is that the work culture integrate gender identity when there is unequal gender ratios, and the more a individual work and study, the more are they forced to either assimilate into that culture or quit. Compared to the argument about "lower chance of being promoted", a hostile culture seems much more likely as a root cause to high drop rate, and I would be surprised if culture crashes had no correlation with promotion rates.
In Ontario, male teachers are not allowed to take children to the washroom, even if the child is a boy. This is a problem because if a child with a disability needs to use the washroom, he needs to wait until a female staff member is available.
I understand why men would drop out of the school system. Before you even start, you're already considered a predator.
This is simply an insane case of workplace sexism. Most ambitious people will steer clear of careers that have such blatant gender discrimination. Ontario is really shooting itself in the foot here, by providing a strong disincentive for male teachers to join the profession.
There was an anonymous Japanese post by a preschool teacher that echoed similar sentiments. The main reason he quit was because the parents treated him with suspicion for having deviant tendencies.
Any reason for that? I mean, it's anecdotal evidence, sure, but it's not the first time I've heard such a story about how men are treated in the teaching profession. It's only one data point, but even a single data point is superior to the no data points you've countered with.
Well, all of the schools that do not enforce such a ridiculous rule are my data points. So unless you suggest there are more schools enforcing that rule than not, then I have more data points, so I win. Right?
The truth is that that anecdote brings no value whatsoever to the discussion.
It brings a little value, in the form of a single data point. Not "none" otherwise no one could talk about their experiences ever, without being accused of wasting everyone's time.
Also, there need not be more than 50% of schools enforcing this policy, for it to discourage men from entering the profession. Even 10% would be a lot.
>"Also, there need not be more than 50% of schools enforcing this policy, for it to discourage men from entering the profession. Even 10% would be a lot."
Unless they're quick to "take a hint", then only a handful of examples could have a huge impact.
I'm not in that profession, and judging from the state of society at the moment, I too wouldn't want to work in a profession that functions near children. I could post links to a few articles, but a general search about it will yield multiple examples of parents being hostile/suspicious of male teachers around children. Recently read about an airline that forbid male passengers from sitting next to unaccompanied minors. We as a society have deep problems with gender, but meanwhile we're busy focusing on just one.
My point is that your single anecdote (or "data point" or whatever you want to call it) isn't indicative of the statu quo. Does it mean there are places where men are discriminated against? Yes. Does it mean the statu quo is discrimination against men? No.
The "status quo" can be discrimination against men even if a small minority of schools actually implement this policy. If one tech company out of one hundred had a policy in place whereby female employees were required to come to work early in order to make coffee, we'd likely be talking about regressive culture at all tech companies, not just complaining about a shitty policy enforced by a few outliers.
We would do so because one company out of one hundred implementing such a policy would be highly likely to indicate some shitty attitudes everywhere, even if the shitty attitudes didn't always translate to that particular shitty policy. Likewise, even if most schools do not have this policy, even a few percent of schools implementing a policy which amounts to "men are to be considered sexual predators until proven otherwise, and even then" is probably enough to indicate we have some fucked-up culture going on even in schools that don't actually have this policy.
In other words, the fact that this rule isn't slapped the fuck down for the insane bullshit that it is, same as if the school had a strict "no lesbians" policy, even if it is the only school on the planet to implement this particular policy (which it isn't), already indicates an unacceptable tolerance for this kind of sexism at a societal level.
Moreover reminder you're the one who brought up "status quo" in the first place. The rest of us are talking about what keeps people out of a profession. Status quo may indeed not be assuming that all men are sexual predators, yet the likelihood of same may still be high enough to keep men out of the profession.
Yes, it can be. And it can not be. You have NO data to say either way. A single event is statistical noise. Come back to me with actual data and we can continue this discussion.
Actually that single data point does a lot. It shows an example of something important. In the absence of more data points, it is not reasonable to assume this is an isolated case. Unless you have statistics or evidence to support your position that discrimination against men is negligible, we have data to support that there is discrimination, and no data to support the countervailing position - only your assertion.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. A single anecdote (which in true "data engineer" fashion you insist on calling a "data point") does not demonstrate _anything_. Otherwise the face that there has been one rape this year demonstrates the existence of rape culture, the fact that someehere someone was fired for being an immigrant demonstrates a climate of xenophobia, etc. I repeat, a single anecdote is not enough to draw any conclusion, and the fact that you can't recognise this one simple fact boggles the mind.
Nobody is suggesting that a single rape demonstrates the existence of rape culture. However it does mean that you cannot rule out rape culture, whereas if there were no anecdotes you could reasonably claim that there was no evidence.
The fact that you have to use extremist examples and insults, suggests strongly that you know you can't make your case.
Anecdotal, but my cousin was a primary school teacher and faced an incredible amount of hostility because of his gender from parents and colleagues and left for construction after 2 years.
Westerners seem to have a serious distrust in men when it comes to young children. A woman talking to kids in a park is most obviously a mom. A man talking to kids in a park is most obviously a paedophile.
If I see a random child and they look at me, I used to ignore them. Not because I don't think it's hilarious to stick my tongue out or make a face - but because I was worried what someone might think. And, hell, I'm only 30 - it will only get worse as I get older.
I decided that I would not bow to that absurdity, and now I choose to say hello, or run away, or say "boo" or whatever takes my fancy in interacting with said child. Because it's amusing getting a response, watching them process the event and make a decision on how to react. I'd still be nervous if I saw a child without obvious supervision though. To try and help, or not to try and help...
'Most trans men I spoke to also identified another commonality: Once they transitioned [from female to male], walking became easier, but talking became harder. To be more specific: walking home after dark felt easier, casually talking to babies, strangers and friends felt harder.
“I have to be very careful to not be staring at kids,” says Gardner. “I can look at a mom and her baby, but I can’t look for too long. I miss being seen as not a threat.” Ditto for kids on the playground and puppies, multiple guys said.'
On a similar note, I heard a story from one trans guy who was disturbed by the reaction when he accidentally bumped into somebody on the street. The other guy recoiled back, threw his hands up, and started profusely apologizing while sounding like he was in a panic. It took the trans guy a few seconds to realize that the other guy was afraid of him and thought he'd beat him up for bumping into him by accident.
That's very odd. I can see why parents want to be protective, but immediately shielding a kid if a male interacts playfully with them seems an overreaction.
It's very common. I have a friend who got the cops called on him when he took his 3-year old daughter to the park one day. He said it took a while to prove that he was a) the father and b) he hadn't abducted the daughter.
Where did that happen? I'm not doubting you in the slightest -- just interested in data points (my gut says maybe somewhere in the South, if this is the US, or somewhere rural?) Also, any factors he thinks might have contributed -- e.g., daughter crying, or does he have a big bushy beard, or was there a crazy parent who had a bad interaction with him, or...? That sort of reaction from authorities is just absolutely chilling, no matter the case.
This is completely anecdotal, but I've noticed that gender ratios in groups in general create pretty harmonouus groups if they fall in ranges of 40% - 60% or <10%. Like put 4 women and 6 men in a group, they come along. Or put one man and 9 women in a group, they come along. Put 3 guys and 7 women into a group and there is constant power struggle. This seems to be more true for kids.
Small minority is likely to adapt or leave. Close to 50/50 ratio genders balance each other out. With strong minority the minority tries to have balanced group, but the majority wants to engage in "guy talk" or girl talk". The way men interact with other men and how women interact with other women seem to be one of the most distinct differences between genders.
Rapport 2009:7 R, Swedish national agency of higher education.
A start would be to read page 18 and down, but the conclusions on page 31 and 56 is what most of my comment is based on. To translate a section with title "why do men drop out":
"Our conclusion, somewhat simplified, are three main root causes. First, men who start studying to become a teacher can be less convinced in their decision, because they are walking outside societies norms and are not doing a typical male job, and thus the decision to become a teacher is questioned from the beginning. The second reason is that men are faced with a traditional feminine culture which they either have to assimilate or rebel to, both which makes life more difficult. Thirdly, there are few male role models compare to female role models."
But do give any indications that these are the real causes, or are they also just speculating as so many others do when it comes to explaining those phenomena? Did they study the causes at all? Or did they just note "50% drop out" and then jump to the conclusion that it must be because x?
In a 2009 report by the Swedish national agency, they argue that the reason why people drop out at a higher rate compared to the dominating gender is that the work culture integrate gender identity when there is unequal gender ratios, and the more a individual work and study, the more are they forced to either assimilate into that culture or quit. Compared to the argument about "lower chance of being promoted", a hostile culture seems much more likely as a root cause to high drop rate, and I would be surprised if culture crashes had no correlation with promotion rates.