Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman
Discussion
covmutley said:
Yes, and, arguably, jobs that at least some, if not many women do not want.
When I think about my own wife, and lots of the other mums in our village, they choose to work part-time, or not alt all, to look after children and 'run the house'. That is what they want to do and there is nothing weak or undermining about that.
Peterston made the point very well- most men wouldn't want the highest paying jobs!
The bold bit: Freudian slip? When I think about my own wife, and lots of the other mums in our village, they choose to work part-time, or not alt all, to look after children and 'run the house'. That is what they want to do and there is nothing weak or undermining about that.
Peterston made the point very well- most men wouldn't want the highest paying jobs!
I'll go a step further and say; damn anyone to Hell who attempts to devalue mothers or fathers who stay at home, at some potential cost to their career and family income, for the sake of seeing their children properly card for and properly socialised during their early development.
While not every family has by any means the income to provide that level of support, it should never be derided as less meaningful when people can and do make that choice for the benefit of their children.
Ari said:
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
To be fair, I did a degree in arty farty 'what promotes innovation and a healthy workplace' studies, and it's basically proven that a well rounded office space leads to better results.If you had an airline which is 50/50 men/women pilots, and where the women were equally as good, then chances are that employee satisfaction would go up, morale etc, all up.
If to get to the point where it requires women to be pushed, then that might have to be the case. After all, your 'expert' male pilots might only be seen to be experts at the start of training because they've been playing computer games, sports etc etc, all of which lead to a heightened sense of confidence in that area.
Some potentially amazing female pilots may have never even considered a piloting role and just need to opportunity presented to them.
But you'd need to start from the basis of proving that women are being unfairly discriminated against, rather than simply being less likely than men to want to be aeroplane pilots.
And I think suggesting that Easyjet are recruiting men simply because they're better at Call Of Duty is probably over simplifying the interview process.
And I think suggesting that Easyjet are recruiting men simply because they're better at Call Of Duty is probably over simplifying the interview process.
Shay HTFC said:
To be fair, I did a degree in arty farty 'what promotes innovation and a healthy workplace' studies, and it's basically proven that a well rounded office space leads to better results.
If you had an airline which is 50/50 men/women pilots, and where the women were equally as good, then chances are that employee satisfaction would go up, morale etc, all up.
If to get to the point where it requires women to be pushed, then that might have to be the case. After all, your 'expert' male pilots might only be seen to be experts at the start of training because they've been playing computer games, sports etc etc, all of which lead to a heightened sense of confidence in that area.
Some potentially amazing female pilots may have never even considered a piloting role and just need to opportunity presented to them.
But that works the other way too. If you had an airline which is 50/50 men/women pilots, and where the women were equally as good, then chances are that employee satisfaction would go up, morale etc, all up.
If to get to the point where it requires women to be pushed, then that might have to be the case. After all, your 'expert' male pilots might only be seen to be experts at the start of training because they've been playing computer games, sports etc etc, all of which lead to a heightened sense of confidence in that area.
Some potentially amazing female pilots may have never even considered a piloting role and just need to opportunity presented to them.
Women dominate in many areas - achieving balance is a two way street.
We cant just apply equality quotas to roles dominated by men (and only desirable roles at that).
If equality of outcome is the a desirable goal - it has to be applied across the board.
There's a further element to this of course.
Given the new propensity for people to choose their genders ad hoc, if you are going to start prioritising women at the interview stage in an attempt to balance the books, any smart man is simply going to claim that he identifies as a woman and therefore demands to be treated as one.
Which brings me neatly back to - perhaps it would be best to drop all this nonsense and go back to the good old fashioned picking people most suited to the role?
Given the new propensity for people to choose their genders ad hoc, if you are going to start prioritising women at the interview stage in an attempt to balance the books, any smart man is simply going to claim that he identifies as a woman and therefore demands to be treated as one.
Which brings me neatly back to - perhaps it would be best to drop all this nonsense and go back to the good old fashioned picking people most suited to the role?
Ari said:
Classic example of how the gender pay gap is portrayed in the media (and this is the FT, I've deliberately not chosen a left wing or tabloid headline).
EasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
I hate to rain on your rant, but E&D gonks generally go fEasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
king mental at what is proposed here (if the report is accurate, of course) for exactly the reason you give. Selecting on quotas rather than merit is discriminatory, the very thing that E&D is intended to eliminate. What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it. Moonhawk said:
Greg66 said:
As you say, no one is saying women can't become pilots; this sort of financial reporting is (at least as I see it) a means of trying to encourage women to aim for higher paid jobs in the first place.
So why is it not pitched that way. Ari said:
There's a further element to this of course.
Given the new propensity for people to choose their genders ad hoc, if you are going to start prioritising women at the interview stage in an attempt to balance the books, any smart man is simply going to claim that he identifies as a woman and therefore demands to be treated as one.
Which brings me neatly back to - perhaps it would be best to drop all this nonsense and go back to the good old fashioned picking people most suited to the role?
Yep - you cant win with SJWs.Given the new propensity for people to choose their genders ad hoc, if you are going to start prioritising women at the interview stage in an attempt to balance the books, any smart man is simply going to claim that he identifies as a woman and therefore demands to be treated as one.
Which brings me neatly back to - perhaps it would be best to drop all this nonsense and go back to the good old fashioned picking people most suited to the role?
On the one hand they claim there is no such thing as gender - that the situation is fluid and people can be free to identify how they like.
Then they complain about a pay gap based on a hard coded binary definition of gender.
Make your f
king mind up Greg66 said:
Ari said:
Classic example of how the gender pay gap is portrayed in the media (and this is the FT, I've deliberately not chosen a left wing or tabloid headline).
EasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
I hate to rain on your rant, but E&D gonks generally go fEasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
king mental at what is proposed here (if the report is accurate, of course) for exactly the reason you give. Selecting on quotas rather than merit is discriminatory, the very thing that E&D is intended to eliminate. What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it. The key is whether women are being prevented from applying and if that's the case then make changes to address it. But if the ratio is only ever 30% women/70% men with no barriers to application then there's nothing you can (or should) do as nothing needs 'correcting'.
Of course, you probably won't get a reply from a woman on that, despite this forum being completely gender neutral.
You would get a reply on the equally gender neutral Mums net.
Kind of proves Petersons point in a nut shell! And no doubt all the far lefties are in a safe space somewhere?
You would get a reply on the equally gender neutral Mums net.
Kind of proves Petersons point in a nut shell! And no doubt all the far lefties are in a safe space somewhere?
Greg66 said:
I hate to rain on your rant, but E&D gonks generally go fking mental at what is proposed here (if the report is accurate, of course) for exactly the reason you give. Selecting on quotas rather than merit is discriminatory, the very thing that E&D is intended to eliminate. What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it.
Because far less women than men are aware that the job of pilot exists..? king mental at what is proposed here (if the report is accurate, of course) for exactly the reason you give. Selecting on quotas rather than merit is discriminatory, the very thing that E&D is intended to eliminate. What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it. 
Funk said:
...which links back nicely to Peterson's point - how many women actually want to be pilots? Do more men want to be pilots than women? This is where equality of opportunity vs. outcome is paramount; it's possible that the pool can't be balanced without forcing women to apply. Perhaps, despite the potential earnings, women just aren't attracted to the stress, unsociable hours, high entry cost of training and whatnot.
Exactly - you can apply the same reasoning to any role.Why do women tend not to apply to be builders or refuse collectors.
It is discrimination? Are these roles not promoted enough to women. Or perhaps more likely - they just have more sense than to apply for jobs that’ll see them working in the pissing rain 6 months of the year.
Funk said:
...which links back nicely to Peterson's point - how many women actually want to be pilots? Do more men want to be pilots than women? This is where equality of opportunity vs. outcome is paramount; it's possible that the pool can't be balanced without forcing women to apply. Perhaps, despite the potential earnings, women just aren't attracted to the stress, unsociable hours, high entry cost of training and whatnot.
The key is whether women are being prevented from applying and if that's the case then make changes to address it. But if the ratio is only ever 30% women/70% men with no barriers to application then there's nothing you can (or should) do as nothing needs 'correcting'.
Precisely! The key is whether women are being prevented from applying and if that's the case then make changes to address it. But if the ratio is only ever 30% women/70% men with no barriers to application then there's nothing you can (or should) do as nothing needs 'correcting'.
Funk said:
Greg66 said:
Ari said:
Classic example of how the gender pay gap is portrayed in the media (and this is the FT, I've deliberately not chosen a left wing or tabloid headline).
EasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
I hate to rain on your rant, but E&D gonks generally go fEasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
king mental at what is proposed here (if the report is accurate, of course) for exactly the reason you give. Selecting on quotas rather than merit is discriminatory, the very thing that E&D is intended to eliminate. What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it. The key is whether women are being prevented from applying and if that's the case then make changes to address it. But if the ratio is only ever 30% women/70% men with no barriers to application then there's nothing you can (or should) do as nothing needs 'correcting'.
If that is his point, it's a bit simplistic. Sure, factors such as stress, unsociable hours and high cost of training may play a factor. But OTOH the hours are the same as cabin crew, which is predominantly female; the high costs of training is offset by the high earnings at the end of it - why would women be more averse to front end costs than men; and stress is stress. I'm not saying there is a "gender winner" for all or any of those points, only that is there another side to the coin.
A further factor is what the profession looks like from the outside looking in in terms of gender balance. If it is strongly male-dominated, it is easy to conclude that the working environment is one that is less receptive to women. Whether that perception is right or wrong doens't necessarily matter - it may be enough to deter an application (the same can be said of professions dominated by a particular ethnic group, often white).
It is by no means unusual to find that if you can encourage applications from a particular demographic subset, you over time increase recruits, and then people in that subset look at you and rather than think "nah, that doesn't look like it's for me", think "maybe I could do that". You build your virtuous circle.
Put it this way. Every F1 pitcrew doing wheel changes during a race I've ever seen has been all male. If you're a woman thinking about getting into that I would think that the chances are you'd conclude that it's probably not going to be for you. Then imagine one Sunday you watched the race and a team had an all female pitcrew (not, not in bikinis, in regular unflattering overalls) who could change a set of wheels at least as fast as the best of the competition. I really do think that the same viewer would have a different view on whether to look further into that as a career. It's a slightly flippant example, but it conveys the point well enough.
StottyGTR said:
I completely agree. I've been longing for a public figure who will defend their position that doesn't follow the current narrative pushed by the media.
You can sort of understand why we have Trump and why I find myself defending him on occasions. Yes Peterson is in a different league to Trump. But if all you had read of him was what you see in the MSM and not looked at the interview for yourself. You may believe the negative character assassination. Yes Trump doesn't have the intellectual attributes and can say things that quite rightly should be criticised. But I do believe he as had massively unfair coverage from most of the press.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff