Audi US shoots itself in the foot

[vonuber]

Moonhawk said:

One could argue that historically - women have been viewed as much more valuable, if not via material wealth, then certainly for their societal role.

Who traditionally got first dibs on lifeboats when a ship went down. Who was drafted as expendable canon fodder during the world wars. Who does the most dangerous jobs and gets killed most often at work.

Men have been 'expendable' for much of history and it's still true to a lesser extent even today.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 8th February 14:43

That's purely down to childbearing though.
You only need a few men, but lots of women, to carry on the species.

[anonymous-user]

Vocal Minority said:

It's not just joking (that was an easy example off the top of my head - but the first place they go is would I/wouldn't I shag them, regardless of the reason they are noteworthy),

I think it's naive to think sexual attraction/indifference/revulsion isn't everyones first impression of the sex you're attracted to. Whether or not it is appropriate to express that thought is another matter to which the answer is 'why not?' to 'certainly not!' and everything in between.

Vocal Minority said:

I have seen men valuing women less than other men in action in the work place.

A lot of male grads who think it somehow makes them look like king big dick, to belittle women (not jokingly) and refuse to do some aspects of the job because its 'women's work'. The morons even do it in ear shot of female directors.

People who are as5holes are a5sholes, what can I say?

Vocal Minority said:

Seriously, if you don't think that exists you are either in denial, or are very sweet and very naïve.

Maybe I'm naive, but I've never witnesed it. The best hire I ever made in my career in investment banking was a girl/woman who would rip the limbs clean off someone behaving as you described previously.

Vocal Minority said:

You say its patently non-sense and then rely exclusively on non evidence based reasoning, because all the reasonably discoverable evidence contradicts your theory!

All reasonably discoverable evidence contradicts my theory? My theory is that women are not "valued less than every man they will ever meet" to quote Audi. Valued less than every man they will ever meet! WTF? Do you think the majority of men are complete and utter as5holes to believe this? It's not the middle ages. I'll tell you this; my daughter won't grow up thinking she's a victim like Audi thinks she is, although as she wants to be a racing driver maybe they can put their money where their mouth is and sponsor her!

[Moonhawk]

vonuber said:

That's purely down to childbearing though.
You only need a few men, but lots of women, to carry on the species.

I don't get that rationale.

As a species - we are hardly in a position where we require rules like that to be in place to assure our survival.

If we were down to the last few thousand people - I could understand it - but with billions of us on the planet, losing a few hundred or even a few hundred thousand is unlikely to make a dent in the grand scheme of things.

[Pesty]

Another company ran an advert during the same match. 84 lumber. (And a massive u turn almost immediately)

Here their advert has a rebuttal using speeches by hillery and obama. Who knew those two were so racist. Funny how they never had riots at Berkeley etc.

The girl and mother getting in the truck is from the advert 84 lumber showed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKok45j12vrSrb...

[Mr Snrub]

Pesty said:

Another company ran an advert during the same match. 84 lumber. (And a massive u turn almost immediately)

Here their advert has a rebuttal using speeches by hillery and obama. Who knew those two were so racist. Funny how they never had riots at Berkeley etc.

The girl and mother getting in the truck is from the advert 84 lumber showed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKok45j12vrSrb...

When someone first described it to me I honestly thought it was a parody. Still, I bet a lot of the construction trade loves illegal immigration - a cheap, plentiful and easily exploitable workforce so they can increase their profits

[wc98]

Vocal Minority said:

fblm said:

You think because men joke about who they would and wouldn't shag they value women less than every man as Audi claims society does? .

It's not just joking (that was an easy example off the top of my head - but the first place they go is would I/wouldn't I shag them, regardless of the reason they are noteworthy),

I have seen men valuing women less than other men in action in the work place.

A lot of male grads who think it somehow makes them look like king big dick, to belittle women (not jokingly) and refuse to do some aspects of the job because its 'women's work'. The morons even do it in ear shot of female directors.

Seriously, if you don't think that exists you are either in denial, or are very sweet and very naïve.

I'm not caliming its universal - but its certainly not non-existant. You say its patently non-sense and then rely exclusively on non evidence based reasoning, because all the reasonably discoverable evidence contradicts your theory!

i think you should let us know where you work, just so people know where not to apply for a job. i find it hard to believe any female, director or not, would put up with that sort of crap once, never mind on a regular basis.

[Kawasicki]

I've worked in automotive engineering for twenty odd years, for three companies. I have witnessed zero negativity towards women. I think there might even be a slight bias in favour of women, which is a little unfair I suppose.

[Yipper]

Pay is related to height.

Not gender.

The taller you are -- male or female -- the more you get paid.

[Rich_W]

Kawasicki said:

I've worked in automotive engineering for twenty odd years, for three companies. I have witnessed zero negativity towards women. I think there might even be a slight bias in favour of women, which is a little unfair I suppose.

Similar amount of time in another male dominated industry.

I have seen negativity towards women. BUT with the precursor that it was due to performance or attitude NOT their sex. Of course in one case she only got the TWO promotions because she shagged someone...

And I guarantee that several wanted to believe it was their genitals and not cause they were cack that they got "feedback"


3 of the best paid people in other industries I know are Women. One has started her own business, 1 has risen to the top and been head hunted by various other companies. (Now a Director of that company) And another was brought in very early to a start up that now turns over Hundreds of Millions!

I'm sure they've had setbacks on their way to the top. But unlike others they didn't decide that there was a wage gap and give up. They worked as hard as others do and achieved it. That's how the world works as a rule.

[cymtriks]

RDMcG said:

The correct choice is the best qualified person of course.

However, we do need to have more representative people in senior positions. This is NOT tokenism...I would not want to appoint someone who was not properly qualified. However, to make meaningful progress we should have proper representation of women at senior levels, and there is a shortage. I cannot be convinced that with the vast majority of CEOs being men we are there yet, for instance.

So you want the best qualified person but that person has to be a woman because everyone is equal and to ensure equality you are going keep not making progress filling your vacancy in the name of progress.

Have you considered just employing a man?

RDMcG said:

I am not some kind of ardent campaigner, but I do think there is something a bit strange that if half the population of the world is female, that this would not be a similar face of company leadership. If I had daughters I would certainly want them to have an equal chance at success.

Daughters have an equal chance at success, they just appear not to be taking the chances that your vacancy represents.

You seem to be missing the possibility that the differences between men and women might actually be a bit more noticeable when you go to an extreme, a long way from average where the tail end of any distribution of ability has a more pronounced effect. You also might want to consider that many women don't want to have the same lives as men, they have different priorities like family, and that depletes the number that consider your vacancy.

It would be a mistake to define equality as everyone conforming to your expectations of what a man is. It would also be a mistake to assume that everyone who has priorities other than applying for your vacancy is somehow a victim and needs "progress" to correct that situation.

I doubt that my daughter would hesitate in telling you that.

[TheGuru]

jonnyb said:

I wonder how many of those female lawyers become partners in top law firms?

The converse can be said about the fashion industry, nursing, midwifery, buyers for department stores, grid girls etc

[jonnyb]

TheGuru said:

jonnyb said:

I wonder how many of those female lawyers become partners in top law firms?

The converse can be said about the fashion industry, nursing, midwifery, buyers for department stores, grid girls etc

Shall we compare pay in the respective industries?

[vonuber]

I've seen plenty of sexism in my industry.

[Derek Smith]

Vocal Minority said:

I'm not saying women don't.

However it is much more commonplace with men. I find fellow professional females entirely more serious about stuff.

I've worked with women over the years. I've never thought of myself as sexist but I prefer supervising a female 2 i/c. I've had three female supervisors and all have been tremendously committed, have taken instruction and come up with some brilliant ideas. Two of them had superb management skills generally and I learnt a lot from them.

On the other hand, I much prefer having males at the workface. Much easier to manage.

Sexist I know, but that's experience for you.

[Moonhawk]

RDMcG said:

I am not some kind of ardent campaigner, but I do think there is something a bit strange that if half the population of the world is female, that this would not be a similar face of company leadership.

But that same argument applies to other roles too though.

Why do we expect to have a 50:50 gender split in leadership positions 'because thats how the world is made up' yet we dont expect the same in refuse collection, mining, primary school teaching etc?

I see very few (if any) equality campaigns arguing for equality in stty roles where men dominate - or in desirable roles where women do.

Is a 50:50 slit even realistic without some sort of affirmative action. The fact of the matter is that men are on average prepared to work longer hours, sacrifice more work life balance, take fewer career breaks etc than women are - all of these things are traits that seem to be required to get to top management in a lot of cases.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 9th February 12:46

[sidicks]

vonuber said:

I've seen plenty of sexism in my industry.

What did you do about it?

[anonymous-user]

vonuber said:

I've seen plenty of sexism in my industry.

Engineering? That's not sexism it's curiosity.

[myvision]

Tideway are aiming to employ more women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/w...

https://www.tideway.london/media/2580/tideway-ar16...

[Moonhawk]

myvision said:

Tideway are aiming to employ more women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/w...

https://www.tideway.london/media/2580/tideway-ar16...

Given the disparity in terms of men vs women going into contruction or taking engineering as a subject at university - the only way they will achieve gender parity is through 'positive discrimination'

Surely this is the antithesis of 'equality'.

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

[FredClogs]

Moonhawk said:

myvision said:

Tideway are aiming to employ more women.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/w...

https://www.tideway.london/media/2580/tideway-ar16...

Given the disparity in terms of men vs women going into contruction or taking engineering as a subject at university - the only way they will achieve gender parity is through 'positive discrimination'

Surely this is the antithesis of 'equality'.

We need equality of opporunity not 'equality' of outcome.

We need equity. Which means giving people what they need to be succesful.

And yes if that means taking something away from someone else then so be it, it's for the greater good. That's civilisation brother.