Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

[anonymous-user]

Ari said:

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..?

"Fewer".

Otherwise, I assume that's an attempt at humour.

[Halb]

[MDMetal]

Greg66 said:

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.

That's fine but what is the benefit of it? If it's found that women do the job better and faster great then there's a business case, a market case for doing so, if they're just equal then the cost and time to setup this little show is worthless and your now falling behind the other teams. If however as we all know women can do the job just as well and the team was to pick a man over the woman then that's very wrong.

[Funk]

Greg66 said:

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 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.

...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'.

I don't see that it links back to his point at all, unless EJ are already targeting the recruitment of women as pilots and finding it to be a completely futile exercise.

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.

Then let's find out whether women know that they can apply to be pilots if they so choose...I'm sure they're already well aware of what a pilot is and that they could, should they so wish, apply to become one - is a 'recruitment drive' needed? To say that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane is actually insulting to women. It may just be one of those roles that, on the whole, doesn't appeal to women.

Why aren't more women long-distance truck drivers? Why aren't more women crane operators, getting to sit hundreds of feet up in the air, looking out over city skylines? Why aren't more driving trains? I'd suggest that, ultimately, they '..just don't want to..' and would prefer to do things like HR roles for example.

Should we see recruitment drives for men to teach in primary schools? It's an area dominated by women. Do men not know that they could, if they so choose, be teaching 4 and 5 year olds how to learn phonics and write their names? Men, on the whole, just aren't attracted to that sort of role (and I think that's a shame as young children could do with both male and female role models in a learning environment). Even if you doubled the pay I, as a man, don't have a desire to go and do that job. Should I be made to do it in order to 'balance the pool'? Of course not.

Men and women are different. We're drawn to different roles. And that's OK, as long as men and women doing the same role (with the same experience, qualifications and skill-set) are paid the same.

[anonymous-user]

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

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.

That's fine but what is the benefit of it? If it's found that women do the job better and faster great then there's a business case, a market case for doing so, if they're just equal then the cost and time to setup this little show is worthless and your now falling behind the other teams. If however as we all know women can do the job just as well and the team was to pick a man over the woman then that's very wrong.

First bold: how do you ever find that out, as a team principal.

Second bold: lets save each other a dozen increasingly heated posts and agree now to disagree on that one.

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

That's the one!

[anonymous-user]

Funk said:

Greg66 said:

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 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.

...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'.

I don't see that it links back to his point at all, unless EJ are already targeting the recruitment of women as pilots and finding it to be a completely futile exercise.

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.

Then let's find out whether women know that they can apply to be pilots if they so choose...I'm sure they're already well aware of what a pilot is and that they could, should they so wish, apply to become one - is a 'recruitment drive' needed? To say that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane is actually insulting to women.

Good job no one has said that then.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Greg66 said:

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.

But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will bet the best group of men? It's called science and biology.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

[V8mate]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Greg66 said:

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.

But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will be the best group of men? It's called science and biology.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

Why are we arguing in terms of single-sex teams? Using extremes rarely solves anything.

Anyway - this is well off-topic. I thought twice, and then twice again about whether even to post in N,P&E. So happy when this thread turned out to be civil and intellectually promising. Let's not have a fall-out over hypotheticals, eh?

[Ari]

Greg66 said:

Ari said:

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..?

"Fewer".

Otherwise, I assume that's an attempt at humour.

Oooh, slight grammatical error - well done, you've won the whole argument.






FFS.

[Janluke]

Mothersruin said:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3141642...

Just skimmed that thread and its not too far from some of the comments on this one ie Peterson made some good points, posters agreed with some of what he said but questioned some of it, Newman didnt do a great job

[MDMetal]

Greg66 said:

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

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.

That's fine but what is the benefit of it? If it's found that women do the job better and faster great then there's a business case, a market case for doing so, if they're just equal then the cost and time to setup this little show is worthless and your now falling behind the other teams. If however as we all know women can do the job just as well and the team was to pick a man over the woman then that's very wrong.

First bold: how do you ever find that out, as a team principal.

Second bold: lets save each other a dozen increasingly heated posts and agree now to disagree on that one.

lets not, lets debate how from a business POV you justify spending money that doesn't in some way improve the business? If you argued even as equals it meant to you had a better chance of hiring good candidates then fine but if you assume that there's no shortage of people to train for the role then balancing the genders has no benefit. It's exactly the same as saying you should spend 3 times as much on the pit crews outfits, if it has no tangable benefit it's money that's not sensibly invested.

On the first point you don't need a full team to assess if the point is true or not.

Basically your F1 pit crew example doesn't work and it's important to point out why so that people don't see it as some prejudice but actually just common sense.

[V8mate]

Janluke said:

Mothersruin said:

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3141642...

Just skimmed that thread and its not too far from some of the comments on this one ie Peterson made some good points, posters agreed with some of what he said but questioned some of it, Newman didnt do a great job

Several respondents deigned to agree with him on most things but 'he is completely wrong about feminism'. Not sure any of them explained why?

Why do feminist think he's wrong on (or misunderstands) feminism?

Or do feminists just feel they have to say that? (hopefully this isn't the case; they seem to be having a reasonably reasonable discussion)

[motco]

I can almost hear him saying "it all depends on what you mean by feminism exactly".

[Ari]

A wise men once said to me:

If it's true that women are exactly equal in performance, ability, dedication and every other metric in a job, and if it's true that they earn, on balance, 9% less, why is't every business only employing women?

What company wouldn't want to get the exact same performance for a 9% reduction on staffing overhead?

[Dr Jekyll]

Not-The-Messiah said:

But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will bet the best group of men? It's called science and biology.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

Channel swimming?

[Aphex]

Not-The-Messiah said:

But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will bet the best group of men? It's called science and biology.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

Courtney Dauwalter won the crazy moab race of 238 miles on foot. That doesn't translate to this discussion really but it is quite an achievement.

Link if anyones interested, she was on Joe Rogan's podcast too:

https://gearjunkie.com/courtney-dauwalter-moab-200...

[anonymous-user]

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

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.

That's fine but what is the benefit of it? If it's found that women do the job better and faster great then there's a business case, a market case for doing so, if they're just equal then the cost and time to setup this little show is worthless and your now falling behind the other teams. If however as we all know women can do the job just as well and the team was to pick a man over the woman then that's very wrong.

First bold: how do you ever find that out, as a team principal.

Second bold: lets save each other a dozen increasingly heated posts and agree now to disagree on that one.

lets not, lets debate how from a business POV you justify spending money that doesn't in some way improve the business? If you argued even as equals it meant to you had a better chance of hiring good candidates then fine but if you assume that there's no shortage of people to train for the role then balancing the genders has no benefit. It's exactly the same as saying you should spend 3 times as much on the pit crews outfits, if it has no tangable benefit it's money that's not sensibly invested.

On the first point you don't need a full team to assess if the point is true or not.

Basically your F1 pit crew example doesn't work and it's important to point out why so that people don't see it as some prejudice but actually just common sense.

No, let's not. Because if you won't accept that a more diverse workforce is of itself an improvement of a business, we will be wasting each other's time.

"Common sense" is often the proxy for "my opinion" in these arguments. No exception here.

[MDMetal]

Greg66 said:

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

MDMetal said:

Greg66 said:

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.

That's fine but what is the benefit of it? If it's found that women do the job better and faster great then there's a business case, a market case for doing so, if they're just equal then the cost and time to setup this little show is worthless and your now falling behind the other teams. If however as we all know women can do the job just as well and the team was to pick a man over the woman then that's very wrong.

First bold: how do you ever find that out, as a team principal.

Second bold: lets save each other a dozen increasingly heated posts and agree now to disagree on that one.

lets not, lets debate how from a business POV you justify spending money that doesn't in some way improve the business? If you argued even as equals it meant to you had a better chance of hiring good candidates then fine but if you assume that there's no shortage of people to train for the role then balancing the genders has no benefit. It's exactly the same as saying you should spend 3 times as much on the pit crews outfits, if it has no tangable benefit it's money that's not sensibly invested.

On the first point you don't need a full team to assess if the point is true or not.

Basically your F1 pit crew example doesn't work and it's important to point out why so that people don't see it as some prejudice but actually just common sense.

No, let's not. Because if you won't accept that a more diverse workforce is of itself an improvement of a business, we will be wasting each other's time.

"Common sense" is often the proxy for "my opinion" in these arguments. No exception here.

Show that diversity is a benefit in your example? It's not there are other examples that are but a pit crew has a very simple streamlined job, diversity is of no benefit to improving the times. It's fine to say diversity is a benefit when it is but it's silly to pretend any job or action requires diversity.

[Not-The-Messiah]

V8mate said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Greg66 said:

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.

But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will be the best group of men? It's called science and biology.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

Why are we arguing in terms of single-sex teams? Using extremes rarely solves anything.

Anyway - this is well off-topic. I thought twice, and then twice again about whether even to post in N,P&E. So happy when this thread turned out to be civil and intellectually promising. Let's not have a fall-out over hypotheticals, eh?

Im in no way falling out with anyone just making a point.

One of the key points of the interview for me was the that we now seem to have a large number of people who clime to be rational and believe in logic, facts and science. But when in fact they are not and are actually intellectually dishonest when the facts doesn't match their ideology. Just because a fact is uncomfortable don't make it not true.