Hacker News Reader

Comment by _1qd4 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

I hardly think that particular case (abhorrent and indefensible though it is) is indicative of the statu quo.

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.

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.

>"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com