BBC Womens pay gap

[bazza white]

Shes not very agreeable is she.

[Moonhawk]

bazza white said:

Shes not very agreeable is she.

Which illustrates his point quite nicely

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th January 13:53

[bazza white]

Moonhawk said:

bazza white said:

Shes not very agreeable is she.

Which illustrates his point quite nicely

Indeed, maybe shes lacking the intelligence part to see it.

[Moonhawk]

bazza white said:

Moonhawk said:

bazza white said:

Shes not very agreeable is she.

Which illustrates his point quite nicely

Indeed, maybe shes lacking the intelligence part to see it.

It does show how shallow her arguments were. At one point she argues that perhaps companies should move away from promoting people with behaviors like 'disagreeableness' etc and move towards more feminine traits.

What she failed to consider is that, although this may make it easier for 'agreeable' women to get into top jobs - it also opens the doors for 'agreeable' men too, thereby increasing the potential competition for those jobs.

Short of making it easier for women - it could well make it even harder.........the law of unintended consequences?

[saaby93]

Has anyone mentioned Alex Jones yet?
The top paid presenter on the One show by a fair margin
or is that picking on unusual cases?

[Goaty Bill 2]

Moonhawk said:

bazza white said:

Moonhawk said:

bazza white said:

Shes not very agreeable is she.

Which illustrates his point quite nicely

Indeed, maybe shes lacking the intelligence part to see it.

It does show how shallow her arguments were. At one point she argues that perhaps companies should move away from promoting people with behaviors like 'disagreeableness' etc and move towards more feminine traits.

What she failed to consider is that, although this may make it easier for 'agreeable' women to get into top jobs - it also opens the doors for 'agreeable' men too, thereby increasing the potential competition for those jobs.

Short of making it easier for women - it could well make it even harder.........the law of unintended consequences?

To borrow a Peterson phrase, she is likely at least somewhat 'ideologically possessed', not necessarily lacking in sufficient intelligence.
Allowing deeply held beliefs to 'die' or again to paraphrase Peterson "allow your bad ideas to die, rather than your physical self", is a painful experience for anyone.
Most of us have had to face this, probably many times each, in our lives. It is an unpleasant, yet necessary, part of growing up, or just growing as a person.

She was offered a solution to the 'more feminine traits in a business' argument - "go out and create one, see how it goes".

Huffington Post seems to be run by women.
I may dislike their overarching feminist agenda, but the business appears to be working after its own fashion.
I doubt though that most people would describe Arianna Huffington as being particularly 'agreeable

[hyphen]

wc98 said:

Pesty said:

Too late. Seems she’s become a meme

brilliant ! no one to blame but herself.

Just came across this interview so looked to see if a thread existed

What a stupid woman Cathy Newman came across as, totally out ofher depth and not fit to do the job she has landed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

[Moonhawk]

Interesting list of the gender split as a function of profession/occupation (US based - although i'm sure the figures are broadly applicable here in the UK).

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart...

Of particular interest are the extremes of the list.

[voyds9]

The number of times Newman said 'that's a vast generalisation'

I wonder what she thinks the gender pay gap is?

[Donbot]

ash73 said:

An interesting evaluation of Peterson's trans pronoun objection by someone who did their homework, Cathy take note...

http://alexanderofford.com/the-intellectual-fraudu...

It's a shame that the author was reduced to identity politics and drawing ridiculous racial parallels such as 'black people aren't human'. Calling clinical psychology unscientific, and that it was the goal of this lifetime fraudulent person to get fame from this. The author's replies in the comment section are also telling.

The problem is that C-16 is widely open to interpretation. Look at what happened when similar rules were applied to Lindsay Shepherd.

[Goaty Bill 2]

ash73 said:

Donbot said:

ash73 said:

An interesting evaluation of Peterson's trans pronoun objection by someone who did their homework, Cathy take note...

http://alexanderofford.com/the-intellectual-fraudu...

It's a shame that the author was reduced to identity politics and drawing ridiculous racial parallels such as 'black people aren't human'. Calling clinical psychology unscientific, and that it was the goal of this lifetime fraudulent person to get fame from this. The author's replies in the comment section are also telling.

The problem is that C-16 is widely open to interpretation. Look at what happened when similar rules were applied to Lindsay Shepherd.

If the Ontario Human Rights Code includes a person's chosen gender and pronoun, and Wilfrid Laurier university is in Ontario, I'm not sure why she was putting it up for debate. Amusing to hear Peterson compared to Hitler in the recording, though.

To present both side of an argument?
She did say she did not agree with Peterson, but that she felt that as the subject was being discussed, both sides of the discussion should be put forward.

Or, given the Hitler reference made by the Laurier professor, like allowing students to read Mien Kampf?
But maybe they ban the reading and discussion of that too?

[Ian Geary]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

To borrow a Peterson phrase, she is likely at least somewhat 'ideologically possessed', not necessarily lacking in sufficient intelligence.
Allowing deeply held beliefs to 'die' or again to paraphrase Peterson "allow your bad ideas to die, rather than your physical self", is a painful experience for anyone.
Most of us have had to face this, probably many times each, in our lives. It is an unpleasant, yet necessary, part of growing up, or just growing as a person.

In my workplace I'm often faced with people displaying a victim mentality. No matter how much you rationalise with them that actually they're not a victim, it is just perceived as further victimisation.

It's actually a pretty perfect stance to take in any given situation, because the underlying issues can be substituted for "why are you victimising me". Especially when an "ism" is thrown in.

As for the whole gender inequality issue, my gut feel is that there is some level of discrimination. Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

And, even if we do the bestest piece of multivariate non-biased piece of research known to person-kind to understand the issues causing inequalty (agreeableness whatever), would we still be happy to accept them?

I'm more of an equality of opportunity person than outcome, but then I've made a fair effort with the opportunities I've been give. Is it fair for me to judge someone who didn't have those opportunities?

Ian

[Goaty Bill 2]

Donbot said:

It's a shame that the author was reduced to identity politics and drawing ridiculous racial parallels such as 'black people aren't human'. Calling clinical psychology unscientific, and that it was the goal of this lifetime fraudulent person to get fame from this. The author's replies in the comment section are also telling.

The problem is that C-16 is widely open to interpretation. Look at what happened when similar rules were applied to Lindsay Shepherd.

Agreed Don.
His work, and therefore opinions in contains are clearly not without prejudice, and should be taken with a large grain of salt.
As lengthy as it is, he skips or glosses over some critical details that only people who were following at the time may be aware of, and were certainly not all that clear at the time even.

[Dr Jekyll]

Ian Geary said:

As for the whole gender inequality issue, my gut feel is that there is some level of discrimination. Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

Women tend to be promoted faster than men. The point is that a lot of women waste time (sometimes years) on maternity leave so their career slows down.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Ian Geary said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

To borrow a Peterson phrase, she is likely at least somewhat 'ideologically possessed', not necessarily lacking in sufficient intelligence.
Allowing deeply held beliefs to 'die' or again to paraphrase Peterson "allow your bad ideas to die, rather than your physical self", is a painful experience for anyone.
Most of us have had to face this, probably many times each, in our lives. It is an unpleasant, yet necessary, part of growing up, or just growing as a person.

In my workplace I'm often faced with people displaying a victim mentality. No matter how much you rationalise with them that actually they're not a victim, it is just perceived as further victimisation.

It's actually a pretty perfect stance to take in any given situation, because the underlying issues can be substituted for "why are you victimising me". Especially when an "ism" is thrown in.

As for the whole gender inequality issue, my gut feel is that there is some level of discrimination. Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

And, even if we do the bestest piece of multivariate non-biased piece of research known to person-kind to understand the issues causing inequalty (agreeableness whatever), would we still be happy to accept them?

I'm more of an equality of opportunity person than outcome, but then I've made a fair effort with the opportunities I've been give. Is it fair for me to judge someone who didn't have those opportunities?

Ian

Ian, I will be the last person to disagree that inequalities of opportunity still exist.

I think more even results will emerge over time. Without legislative interference or social engineering, both of which could be disastrous.

Baby boomers, of which category I fall into the later section of, were really the first young generation to begin to take on the ideas of fully equal opportunities for men, women, and races.

My daughter is to graduate from university this year.
Others will have had children a bit earlier, and are taking advantage of their parents (hopefully) more enlightened parenting than we had. And so on, and so on.

Will the results ever be fully equal? Only time will tell. But I think trying to force them into place will inevitably produce results and issues that no one could / would predict and may take longer to self-correct than they took to create.

Equalise the opportunity and encouragement, and the natural results will follow in time.
If society keeps telling people, in this case women. that they are victims, many will invariably behave as victims, and be resentful of it, without achieving their potential.

[Donbot]

ash73 said:

The article's assertion is that Peterson was incorrect to conflate federal criminal law and provincial civil law, and the author has backed it up with relevant quotes of the legislation. It would not help your credibility to dismiss it just because it doesn't suit your agenda, deal with the facts.

That's fair, and there is a distinction between the two. I'm finding it difficult to see that behind the rhetoric though.

I'll admit that I do have an agenda, and see all this as the thin end of the wedge.

[Moonhawk]

Ian Geary said:

Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

To get to the top jobs takes absolute dedication, massive input of time and sacrifice of pretty much all work life balance.

The simple fact is - men (on average) are more willing and more able to do this, and do it in greater numbers at each level of management. There are many factors that lead to this - one of them being biology, and in some cases it comes down to women's choices. Surveys consistently show that women (on average) prioritise work life balance over pay/progression.

Of the women that do get the opportunity to get anywhere near the top due to dedication, input of hours etc - the chances are, due to the factors above, they are likely to have quite a few men as direct competition. Out of a pool of candidates including one woman and multiple men - the chances of a man being chosen to do the job is greater - it's just a matter of statistics.

To illustrate - if we assume a company has 1000 male employees and 1000 female employees on the bottom rung. For each level of promotion there will be an attrition rate that is likely to differ between men and women due to various factors (taking time out to have kids or prioritising work life balance after having them is likely to be a big one).

If for the sake of argument we assume the attrition rate at each promotion is 70% for men and 60% for women - then we can work out the proportion of men and women making it to each level.

As you can see by the 15th stage of promotion (the 16th stage would be CEO) - men now outnumber women 7 to 1. You only need a relatively small disparity in attrition rates at each level to end up with quite a large imbalance of the CEO candidate pool.

1000 1000
700 600
490 360
343 216
240 130
168 78
118 47
82 28
58 17
40 10
28 6
20 4
14 2
10 1
7 1

Are women that get near the top statistically less likely to be chosen given the gender makeup of the candidate pool?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th January 21:09

[Goaty Bill 2]

ash73 said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Donbot said:

It's a shame that the author was reduced to identity politics and drawing ridiculous racial parallels such as 'black people aren't human'. Calling clinical psychology unscientific, and that it was the goal of this lifetime fraudulent person to get fame from this. The author's replies in the comment section are also telling.

The problem is that C-16 is widely open to interpretation. Look at what happened when similar rules were applied to Lindsay Shepherd.

Agreed Don.
His work, and therefore opinions in contains are clearly not without prejudice, and should be taken with a large grain of salt.
As lengthy as it is, he skips or glosses over some critical details that only people who were following at the time may be aware of, and were certainly not all that clear at the time even.

The article's assertion is that Peterson was incorrect to conflate federal criminal law and provincial civil law, and the author has backed it up with relevant quotes of the legislation. It would not help your credibility to dismiss it just because it doesn't suit your agenda, deal with the facts.

I do not have an agenda at all, though I do firmly believe people will benefit from listening to and reading Peterson's work. I make no secret that I admire his intellect and reasoning.

I was already working my way through Peterson's lectures on line when he made his first two (very ropey) videos on the subject of Bill C-16.
I watched and followed the subject very carefully at the time as I fully intend to retire home to Canada when the time comes.

The article is either factually incorrect or intentionally misleading on the points of the definitions of gender identity and gender expression.

At the time Peterson originally read the new bill the Canadian Department of Justice website referred people directly to, and only to, the Ontario legislation and definition of gender identity.


I can quote it to you here from the copy I downloaded near the time.

"Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act."

"Date modified: 2016-10-18"

There is a considerable history to this and it would substantially diverge from the main purpose of the thread.
One further simple example however, is that his employer (University of Toronto) warned him in writing, after seeking legal advice, that he may be in breach of Ontario law for even discussing the issue and that he should immediately desist from doing so.


ETA
I will be unavailable for comment until tomorrow. The consumption of alcohol is scheduled to begin immediately.
I really do hope that Peterson was wrong about Bill C-16.

Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Saturday 20th January 21:11

[Funk]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Ian Geary said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

To borrow a Peterson phrase, she is likely at least somewhat 'ideologically possessed', not necessarily lacking in sufficient intelligence. Allowing deeply held beliefs to 'die' or again to paraphrase Peterson "allow your bad ideas to die, rather than your physical self", is a painful experience for anyone.

Most of us have had to face this, probably many times each, in our lives. It is an unpleasant, yet necessary, part of growing up, or just growing as a person.

In my workplace I'm often faced with people displaying a victim mentality. No matter how much you rationalise with them that actually they're not a victim, it is just perceived as further victimisation.

It's actually a pretty perfect stance to take in any given situation, because the underlying issues can be substituted for "why are you victimising me". Especially when an "ism" is thrown in.

As for the whole gender inequality issue, my gut feel is that there is some level of discrimination. Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

And, even if we do the bestest piece of multivariate non-biased piece of research known to person-kind to understand the issues causing inequalty (agreeableness whatever), would we still be happy to accept them?

I'm more of an equality of opportunity person than outcome, but then I've made a fair effort with the opportunities I've been give. Is it fair for me to judge someone who didn't have those opportunities?

Ian, I will be the last person to disagree that inequalities of opportunity still exist. I think more even results will emerge over time. Without legislative interference or social engineering, both of which could be disastrous.

Baby boomers, of which category I fall into the later section of, were really the first young generation to begin to take on the ideas of fully equal opportunities for men, women, and races.

My daughter is to graduate from university this year. Others will have had children a bit earlier, and are taking advantage of their parents (hopefully) more enlightened parenting than we had. And so on, and so on.

Will the results ever be fully equal? Only time will tell. But I think trying to force them into place will inevitably produce results and issues that no one could / would predict and may take longer to self-correct than they took to create.

Equalise the opportunity and encouragement, and the natural results will follow in time.
If society keeps telling people, in this case women. that they are victims, many will invariably behave as victims, and be resentful of it, without achieving their potential.

What was interesting though was Peterson's comment about the Scandinavian countries which have tried this and the outcome was that you still end up, he says, with a ~20/1 ratio of women to men in nursing/medicine and similar inverse result in engineering with 20/1 men-to-women ratio for example. Given equality of opportunity, the results seem to show that men and women just seem to like different jobs better, even where those roles don't, on average, pay equally. The only way to produce equality of outcome would be tyranny and forcing people into fields in which they don't tend to want to work.

Moonhawk said:

Ian Geary said:

Why is it fewer women are able to progress to top jobs? It's not just chance.

To get to the top jobs takes absolute dedication, massive input of time and sacrifice of pretty much all work life balance.

The simple fact is - men (on average) are more willing and more able to do this, and do it in greater numbers. There are many factors that lead to this - one of them being biology, and in some cases it comes down to women's choices. Surveys consistently show that women (on average) prioritise work life balance over pay.

Of the women that do get the opportunity to get anywhere near the top due to dedication, input of hours etc - the chances are, due to the factors above, they are likely to have quite a few men as direct competition. Out of a pool of candidates including one woman and multiple men - the chances of a man being chosen to do the job is greater - it's just a matter of statistics.

It's also very unwise to base opinions on such a small and narrow group of people. To use 100 people in the FTSE100 as a sample is absurd - they will, by very definition, be a poor sample (in fact a sceptical person might even say that they were chosen because they support an argument).

If I were a woman, I would hate to think I'd only been given a position as a 'token' or to meet a quota rather than succeeding on merit.

[Moonhawk]

Funk said:

It's also very unwise to base opinions on such a small and narrow group of people. To use 100 people in the FTSE100 as a sample is absurd - they will, by very definition, be a poor sample (in fact a sceptical person might even say that they were chosen because they support an argument).

Indeed - the "gender equality" argument always seems to focus on the very top jobs. As another poster said - around 99.9995% of the population (myself included) will never get to be CEO of a FTSE 100 company. 99.999% of the population will probably never get to be a presenter on the BBC or Channel 4.

It seems rather foolish to point at the top 0.0001% of jobs and say "look - gender inequality".

The simple fact is, for the vast majority of people in work - what you get paid is more a reflection of your job selection, skills, education, performance on the job, what you are prepared to negotiate for and what you are prepared to put up with - than your gender. That shows in the fact that women in their 20s - who are now more highly educated (on average) than men of the same age - also earn more (on average) than their male peers. This trend only stalls once women reach their 30s and start taking time out to have kids.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th January 21:23