By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
John Humphreys has always advocated equality in journalism and equal pay for equal work.
It is called meritocracy.
Ultimately we will be left with only female presenters on the news, sports, chat shows, sitcoms, weather, stand up, reality shows, because all the guys are too scared to open their mouths in case they are categorised as devious sexist pigs.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 06:23 - Jan 19 by Mo_Wives
Feminists/SJW: Women in the west are oppressed.. Person B: No they're not Feminist/SJW: Why do you think women are picking on you?
I have a skin as thick as a rhino, H, but maybe some young boys and men do not. If what Dr Peterson and others are are saying (that 40 or 50 years of feminism shaping our society to suit girls has led to young men becoming disenfranchised, killing themselves in record numbers, dropping out of education etc) is correct, then do you not agree this is a problem? Do you think we should investigate it's truth? Or are you just gonna post pithy comments suggesting anyone who does is weak? Like I say, I am doing fine but if young men are in a position where they need people to speak out for them, then like the feminists of yesterday, I am willing to do that. And if you want, like the sexist who tried to block their attempts, you carry on trying to ridicule...
Look Hump, you like to imply I hate women or think women are shit. I don't...some women are shit (Myra Hindley) and some are fantastic (Sian Massey). Nearly all women I come across in life I have a fantastic relationship with. Here, look, this is how I interact with them...
(Please note, they are also 'women of colour')
What I am criticising is feminist ideology. Criticising feminists and what they believe is not criticising all women. Feminism and women are not the same thing. Have a look around and you will see many videos by women explaining why they are not feminist and why they reject it. In my life I meet women who are far more capable than myself. This does not intimidate me...I say go girls. A few decades ago I would have been agreeing with feminist, but today we have equality.
Unfortunately, feminists don't understand the difference between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome'. We should have equal opportunity...people should be free to choose whatever profession they want, regardless of their sex (or colour/sexuality). And if people are FREE to choose we will not end up with equal male/female representation. The only way to get that is to force women to take jobs they would not choose. Choose equality (of outcome) or choose freedom.
And btw the people crying about the 'Gender pay gap' will next week be telling us how there's no difference between the genders. There are no differences between the genders...so how can there be a 'gender pay gap'? Checkmate dummies
[Post edited 19 Jan 2018 6:33]
"40 or 50 years of feminism shaping our society to suit girls has led to young men becoming disenfranchised, killing themselves in record numbers, dropping out of education etc) is correct, then do you not agree this is a problem?"
Hahahahahahahaha...REALLY!?
You, my friend are deluded. Any disenfranchisement (if any at all ) of of young men is not down to feminism. It's quite a funny statement from you as you normally love " a snowflake" perhaps that is their problem, they are missing a safe space!
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 05:00 - Jan 21 with 2271 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 22:42 - Jan 20 by DJack
"40 or 50 years of feminism shaping our society to suit girls has led to young men becoming disenfranchised, killing themselves in record numbers, dropping out of education etc) is correct, then do you not agree this is a problem?"
Hahahahahahahaha...REALLY!?
You, my friend are deluded. Any disenfranchisement (if any at all ) of of young men is not down to feminism. It's quite a funny statement from you as you normally love " a snowflake" perhaps that is their problem, they are missing a safe space!
Hey, D (for dunce) Jack, did you see the bit just before that where I said this is what Dr Peterson was saying? and the bit after it where I said should we investigate it? Yeah...this is not my belief, this is not what I'm saying. This is what a clinical psychologist is saying. Now if there's a chance he may be correct and this may help us understand the problem or if the problem exists maybe we should look into it. If you think researching a 9% pay difference between the genders (that don't exist) is a worthy thing to research, then surely the reason why boys dropping out of education and killing themselves would also be a good thing to research. And btw, we accept or dismiss the answers at the end of the research, not before. If you had your thinking cap on instead of your propeller hat you may have realised I said "...but today we have equality".
Oh, so close yet so far. Now get your pointy hat and go and stand in the corner...you w@nker
[Post edited 21 Jan 2018 10:40]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:04 - Jan 21 with 2202 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 05:00 - Jan 21 by Mo_Wives
Hey, D (for dunce) Jack, did you see the bit just before that where I said this is what Dr Peterson was saying? and the bit after it where I said should we investigate it? Yeah...this is not my belief, this is not what I'm saying. This is what a clinical psychologist is saying. Now if there's a chance he may be correct and this may help us understand the problem or if the problem exists maybe we should look into it. If you think researching a 9% pay difference between the genders (that don't exist) is a worthy thing to research, then surely the reason why boys dropping out of education and killing themselves would also be a good thing to research. And btw, we accept or dismiss the answers at the end of the research, not before. If you had your thinking cap on instead of your propeller hat you may have realised I said "...but today we have equality".
Oh, so close yet so far. Now get your pointy hat and go and stand in the corner...you w@nker
[Post edited 21 Jan 2018 10:40]
Hi Mo (for moron maybe ). The majority of clinical psychologists are not saying what he is (or it would be generally accepted) you decided to use him to promote an anti feminist agenda. The Dr in question may turn out to be correct, but at the moment I doubt it particularly as a list of possible reasons has been postulated before now...e.g. low social strata, poverty, poor education/parenting, no role models that they can associate with and many many more reasons.
Then you once again made a statement of dubious veracity "...but today we have equality". In general terms we have equality but as it has been demonstrated by the gender pay gap, Harvey Weinstein controversy etc we aren't really an equal society.
You weren't even close. I'm in the corner chuckling to myself without a pointy hat...but yes I am a w@nker.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:09 - Jan 21 with 2201 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 05:31 - Jan 19 by Mo_Wives
I did catch that last night, Brynnie. Here's the actual debate...
As usual with Dr Peterson they try to twist his words and claim he's saying things he didn't say. I suspect the left wing press were hoping for the story of how Cathy Newman exposed 'Alt-right hate preacher' Jordan Peterson. Since he dismantled her and her arguments I'm expecting them to take the focus off the debate she lost and make the story 'Cathy Newman attacked by on line trolls who hate strong, independent women and follow 'Alt-right hate preacher' Jordan Peterson.
Edit - Video didn't post. Can be found on channel 4 you tube account (Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap...)
[Post edited 19 Jan 2018 7:49]
"I suspect the left wing press were hoping for the story of how Cathy Newman exposed 'Alt-right hate preacher' Jordan Peterson. Since he dismantled her and her arguments I'm expecting them to take the focus off the debate she lost and make the story 'Cathy Newman attacked by on line trolls..."
Here we go Bryn, as predicted. God bless those on line trolls...where would the victim narrative be without them?.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:04 - Jan 21 by DJack
Hi Mo (for moron maybe ). The majority of clinical psychologists are not saying what he is (or it would be generally accepted) you decided to use him to promote an anti feminist agenda. The Dr in question may turn out to be correct, but at the moment I doubt it particularly as a list of possible reasons has been postulated before now...e.g. low social strata, poverty, poor education/parenting, no role models that they can associate with and many many more reasons.
Then you once again made a statement of dubious veracity "...but today we have equality". In general terms we have equality but as it has been demonstrated by the gender pay gap, Harvey Weinstein controversy etc we aren't really an equal society.
You weren't even close. I'm in the corner chuckling to myself without a pointy hat...but yes I am a w@nker.
I think you mean "Oh yes, sorry that was not YOUR position"
"The Dr in question may well be right". Yes, so best not to dismiss his opinion before looking into it...as I said.
We have equality in law (apart from, I think, men not being able to opt out of being a parent like women can and maybe genital mutilation allowed on boys but not girls). The gender pay gap being due to sexism is a f*cking nonsense (Honestly, go and watch the debate between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman I tried to post) but even then you're talking about equality of outcome. People are different, men and women are different, they choose different things. Why does anyone think it is at all likely or desirable to end up with 50/50 representation of men and women across society. If people are free to choose what they want, you will never get 50/50 representation. They only way to get it is to FORCE men and women do things they don't want to do.
For example, imagine a playground full of an equal number of boys and girls. In the playground any child can choose to play on anything they want. There are no rules saying 'No girls on the football pitch' or 'No boys on the swings'....that is equality (of opportunity). Now if some asshole turned up saying "wait, there are more boys than girls on the football pitch...we must fix this...get more girls on the football pitch" This asshole would be trying to get equality of outcome...and should instead get a punch in the chops. The girls have made their choice, leave them alone. Choose freedom or choose equality of outcome.
And Harvey Weinstein? Do you honestly think male actors have never had to suck cock to get a job?
And finally children 'D' is for... Dunce, Dullard, Dolt, Doughnut, Doughboy, Dick head And, of course, Dat w@nker with the swan in his avatar
Good luck, Mr Cooper
1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:51 - Jan 21 with 2178 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:04 - Jan 21 by DJack
Hi Mo (for moron maybe ). The majority of clinical psychologists are not saying what he is (or it would be generally accepted) you decided to use him to promote an anti feminist agenda. The Dr in question may turn out to be correct, but at the moment I doubt it particularly as a list of possible reasons has been postulated before now...e.g. low social strata, poverty, poor education/parenting, no role models that they can associate with and many many more reasons.
Then you once again made a statement of dubious veracity "...but today we have equality". In general terms we have equality but as it has been demonstrated by the gender pay gap, Harvey Weinstein controversy etc we aren't really an equal society.
You weren't even close. I'm in the corner chuckling to myself without a pointy hat...but yes I am a w@nker.
I'd also like to add that you think a 9% gap in pay is evidence of women not having equality, how would you explain the sentencing gender gap...
"The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts. Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
And also the death at work gender gap, where males count for over 90% of work place deaths.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:42 - Jan 21 by Mo_Wives
I think you mean "Oh yes, sorry that was not YOUR position"
"The Dr in question may well be right". Yes, so best not to dismiss his opinion before looking into it...as I said.
We have equality in law (apart from, I think, men not being able to opt out of being a parent like women can and maybe genital mutilation allowed on boys but not girls). The gender pay gap being due to sexism is a f*cking nonsense (Honestly, go and watch the debate between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman I tried to post) but even then you're talking about equality of outcome. People are different, men and women are different, they choose different things. Why does anyone think it is at all likely or desirable to end up with 50/50 representation of men and women across society. If people are free to choose what they want, you will never get 50/50 representation. They only way to get it is to FORCE men and women do things they don't want to do.
For example, imagine a playground full of an equal number of boys and girls. In the playground any child can choose to play on anything they want. There are no rules saying 'No girls on the football pitch' or 'No boys on the swings'....that is equality (of opportunity). Now if some asshole turned up saying "wait, there are more boys than girls on the football pitch...we must fix this...get more girls on the football pitch" This asshole would be trying to get equality of outcome...and should instead get a punch in the chops. The girls have made their choice, leave them alone. Choose freedom or choose equality of outcome.
And Harvey Weinstein? Do you honestly think male actors have never had to suck cock to get a job?
And finally children 'D' is for... Dunce, Dullard, Dolt, Doughnut, Doughboy, Dick head And, of course, Dat w@nker with the swan in his avatar
I think you'll find that the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for men to opt out of being a parent Mo.
The gender pay gap exists.
Peterson claims that it is not due to sexism, but his arguments are flawed (as is your analogy by the way). The fact that Cathy Newman is a poor interviewer doesn't make him right.
As an example, (based on a 'non sexist' reason he gave himself in the interview). He said that one contributing factor is that people being 'agreeable' means they tend to get less far in the workplace. He also stated that women are, in general more 'agreeable' than men. He also said that people being more 'agressive' led to them getting further (a trait he said was more generally prevalent in men).
He stated that these were examples of reasons for the existence of a pay differential that weren't based on sexism. But of course they are. They're based on a notion that traditionally male personality traits are better in work than traditionally female traits. And yet, the is no substance for that belief. There is no empirical economic research that shows that business outcomes are better with a more aggressive management style rather than a more agreeable management style. It's the way it is because more aggressive males at the top of organisations will tend to recruit and promote in their own image. It's the way it is because sexism has been built into society for many generations.
Peterson admitted himself in the interview that women who display more traditionally male personality traits will do better. He extrapolated from this that it meant that getting on was not due to gender. But he's missed the whole point. The sexism isn't as direct as saying 'you're a woman, you can't do well' but it is saying 'if you display traditionally male personality traits you will do better'. For no reason other than society valuing male personality traits more than female. That's why his argument is flawed.
Another example, which he didn't use but is along the same lines, is height. There's research that shows that tall men are generally more senior than shorter men. The average height of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 is taller than the average height of the male population. There are far more 6 ft plus men in those positions than there are in the general population. What does that say for the chances of women, who are, on average, 4 or 5 inches shorter than men? It's not, in itself, a sexist differential - there are women who will taller, but in general (and the pay gap is about generalisation), it adversely affects women. Again, it's not the case that tall people are better at their job. It comes back to aggressiveness again. It's easier for someone to be more intimidating if they are taller than the average. But being intimidating doesn't lead to better performance. It's the result of the same flawed judgment on what traits are valuable.
Your analogy is correct in so far as it may be true that boys will tend to play football more than girls. But what that ignores is any societal reasons for boys and girls being conditioned into believing it's a 'boys thing' to do. It obviously has an impact, as more girls play football now than used to as society changes. Is there a basis for saying that playing with a ball is a more instinctively male behaviour? There doesn't appear to be any reason to think so other than conditioning from the moment you're born.
Where I do agree, is that every position shouldn't be viewed as failing unless it's 50:50 - that will never happen. There are all sorts of personalities male and female, and they won't all make the same choices.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 17:31 - Jan 21 by londonlisa2001
I think you'll find that the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for men to opt out of being a parent Mo.
The gender pay gap exists.
Peterson claims that it is not due to sexism, but his arguments are flawed (as is your analogy by the way). The fact that Cathy Newman is a poor interviewer doesn't make him right.
As an example, (based on a 'non sexist' reason he gave himself in the interview). He said that one contributing factor is that people being 'agreeable' means they tend to get less far in the workplace. He also stated that women are, in general more 'agreeable' than men. He also said that people being more 'agressive' led to them getting further (a trait he said was more generally prevalent in men).
He stated that these were examples of reasons for the existence of a pay differential that weren't based on sexism. But of course they are. They're based on a notion that traditionally male personality traits are better in work than traditionally female traits. And yet, the is no substance for that belief. There is no empirical economic research that shows that business outcomes are better with a more aggressive management style rather than a more agreeable management style. It's the way it is because more aggressive males at the top of organisations will tend to recruit and promote in their own image. It's the way it is because sexism has been built into society for many generations.
Peterson admitted himself in the interview that women who display more traditionally male personality traits will do better. He extrapolated from this that it meant that getting on was not due to gender. But he's missed the whole point. The sexism isn't as direct as saying 'you're a woman, you can't do well' but it is saying 'if you display traditionally male personality traits you will do better'. For no reason other than society valuing male personality traits more than female. That's why his argument is flawed.
Another example, which he didn't use but is along the same lines, is height. There's research that shows that tall men are generally more senior than shorter men. The average height of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 is taller than the average height of the male population. There are far more 6 ft plus men in those positions than there are in the general population. What does that say for the chances of women, who are, on average, 4 or 5 inches shorter than men? It's not, in itself, a sexist differential - there are women who will taller, but in general (and the pay gap is about generalisation), it adversely affects women. Again, it's not the case that tall people are better at their job. It comes back to aggressiveness again. It's easier for someone to be more intimidating if they are taller than the average. But being intimidating doesn't lead to better performance. It's the result of the same flawed judgment on what traits are valuable.
Your analogy is correct in so far as it may be true that boys will tend to play football more than girls. But what that ignores is any societal reasons for boys and girls being conditioned into believing it's a 'boys thing' to do. It obviously has an impact, as more girls play football now than used to as society changes. Is there a basis for saying that playing with a ball is a more instinctively male behaviour? There doesn't appear to be any reason to think so other than conditioning from the moment you're born.
Where I do agree, is that every position shouldn't be viewed as failing unless it's 50:50 - that will never happen. There are all sorts of personalities male and female, and they won't all make the same choices.
Well, if your business has a CEO, then it will never be 50-50. Statistically improbable, if not impossible.
A couple of companies have reported a 0% pay gap. This was questioned, and one "reviewed" and there was a 30% pay gap. They then reviewed again after questioning, and they reported a 7% gap. It can be complicated. Think somebody will be getting fired.
The major issue is the general population of your business. More women need to be in middle - senior roles. There will almost always be a pay gap one way or another.
Ill tell you another thing, for those women already in senior positions, in the likes of FS sector particularly, there is a massive premium on your heads and will only get bigger going forward (the premium, not your head obv ;)) as there just isnt enough of you. That will take decades to change in certain sectors.
"Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper."
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 17:31 - Jan 21 by londonlisa2001
I think you'll find that the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for men to opt out of being a parent Mo.
The gender pay gap exists.
Peterson claims that it is not due to sexism, but his arguments are flawed (as is your analogy by the way). The fact that Cathy Newman is a poor interviewer doesn't make him right.
As an example, (based on a 'non sexist' reason he gave himself in the interview). He said that one contributing factor is that people being 'agreeable' means they tend to get less far in the workplace. He also stated that women are, in general more 'agreeable' than men. He also said that people being more 'agressive' led to them getting further (a trait he said was more generally prevalent in men).
He stated that these were examples of reasons for the existence of a pay differential that weren't based on sexism. But of course they are. They're based on a notion that traditionally male personality traits are better in work than traditionally female traits. And yet, the is no substance for that belief. There is no empirical economic research that shows that business outcomes are better with a more aggressive management style rather than a more agreeable management style. It's the way it is because more aggressive males at the top of organisations will tend to recruit and promote in their own image. It's the way it is because sexism has been built into society for many generations.
Peterson admitted himself in the interview that women who display more traditionally male personality traits will do better. He extrapolated from this that it meant that getting on was not due to gender. But he's missed the whole point. The sexism isn't as direct as saying 'you're a woman, you can't do well' but it is saying 'if you display traditionally male personality traits you will do better'. For no reason other than society valuing male personality traits more than female. That's why his argument is flawed.
Another example, which he didn't use but is along the same lines, is height. There's research that shows that tall men are generally more senior than shorter men. The average height of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 is taller than the average height of the male population. There are far more 6 ft plus men in those positions than there are in the general population. What does that say for the chances of women, who are, on average, 4 or 5 inches shorter than men? It's not, in itself, a sexist differential - there are women who will taller, but in general (and the pay gap is about generalisation), it adversely affects women. Again, it's not the case that tall people are better at their job. It comes back to aggressiveness again. It's easier for someone to be more intimidating if they are taller than the average. But being intimidating doesn't lead to better performance. It's the result of the same flawed judgment on what traits are valuable.
Your analogy is correct in so far as it may be true that boys will tend to play football more than girls. But what that ignores is any societal reasons for boys and girls being conditioned into believing it's a 'boys thing' to do. It obviously has an impact, as more girls play football now than used to as society changes. Is there a basis for saying that playing with a ball is a more instinctively male behaviour? There doesn't appear to be any reason to think so other than conditioning from the moment you're born.
Where I do agree, is that every position shouldn't be viewed as failing unless it's 50:50 - that will never happen. There are all sorts of personalities male and female, and they won't all make the same choices.
TBH, Lisa, I'm pushed for time so I will read that properly and reply when I get home in the morning but I will reply to your first line
Women can also buy condoms. Women can also chose not to have sex. So according to you women should not need abortions because the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for women to opt out of being a parent.
If a man slips up (as young people do) we can tell him "You should have kept it in your pants, sonny Jim" You try telling a girl she can't have an abortion because she should have kept her legs together...there would be f*cking up roar.
If a girl and boy both act stupid and she gets pregnant... If she thinks she can't afford it or cope with it, she can have an abortion, give the baby up for adoption or even choose to have the baby and the state will force him to pay for it If he thinks he can't afford it he has no choice. He can't opt out of paying for it...the state will force him. These youngsters made the same mistake. She can opt out of being a parent, he can't. I'm not complaining about it, I was just pointing out it exists.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
-1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:03 - Jan 21 with 2123 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 17:52 - Jan 21 by Mo_Wives
TBH, Lisa, I'm pushed for time so I will read that properly and reply when I get home in the morning but I will reply to your first line
Women can also buy condoms. Women can also chose not to have sex. So according to you women should not need abortions because the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for women to opt out of being a parent.
If a man slips up (as young people do) we can tell him "You should have kept it in your pants, sonny Jim" You try telling a girl she can't have an abortion because she should have kept her legs together...there would be f*cking up roar.
If a girl and boy both act stupid and she gets pregnant... If she thinks she can't afford it or cope with it, she can have an abortion, give the baby up for adoption or even choose to have the baby and the state will force him to pay for it If he thinks he can't afford it he has no choice. He can't opt out of paying for it...the state will force him. These youngsters made the same mistake. She can opt out of being a parent, he can't. I'm not complaining about it, I was just pointing out it exists.
I didn't say any of that. You said a man couldn't legally opt out of being a parent and I pointed out he can.
You meant something different as you meant 'once pregnancy has occured' which is different.
But you didn't say that.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 20:26 - Jan 21 with 2092 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 17:31 - Jan 21 by londonlisa2001
I think you'll find that the advent of condoms make it relatively straightforward for men to opt out of being a parent Mo.
The gender pay gap exists.
Peterson claims that it is not due to sexism, but his arguments are flawed (as is your analogy by the way). The fact that Cathy Newman is a poor interviewer doesn't make him right.
As an example, (based on a 'non sexist' reason he gave himself in the interview). He said that one contributing factor is that people being 'agreeable' means they tend to get less far in the workplace. He also stated that women are, in general more 'agreeable' than men. He also said that people being more 'agressive' led to them getting further (a trait he said was more generally prevalent in men).
He stated that these were examples of reasons for the existence of a pay differential that weren't based on sexism. But of course they are. They're based on a notion that traditionally male personality traits are better in work than traditionally female traits. And yet, the is no substance for that belief. There is no empirical economic research that shows that business outcomes are better with a more aggressive management style rather than a more agreeable management style. It's the way it is because more aggressive males at the top of organisations will tend to recruit and promote in their own image. It's the way it is because sexism has been built into society for many generations.
Peterson admitted himself in the interview that women who display more traditionally male personality traits will do better. He extrapolated from this that it meant that getting on was not due to gender. But he's missed the whole point. The sexism isn't as direct as saying 'you're a woman, you can't do well' but it is saying 'if you display traditionally male personality traits you will do better'. For no reason other than society valuing male personality traits more than female. That's why his argument is flawed.
Another example, which he didn't use but is along the same lines, is height. There's research that shows that tall men are generally more senior than shorter men. The average height of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 is taller than the average height of the male population. There are far more 6 ft plus men in those positions than there are in the general population. What does that say for the chances of women, who are, on average, 4 or 5 inches shorter than men? It's not, in itself, a sexist differential - there are women who will taller, but in general (and the pay gap is about generalisation), it adversely affects women. Again, it's not the case that tall people are better at their job. It comes back to aggressiveness again. It's easier for someone to be more intimidating if they are taller than the average. But being intimidating doesn't lead to better performance. It's the result of the same flawed judgment on what traits are valuable.
Your analogy is correct in so far as it may be true that boys will tend to play football more than girls. But what that ignores is any societal reasons for boys and girls being conditioned into believing it's a 'boys thing' to do. It obviously has an impact, as more girls play football now than used to as society changes. Is there a basis for saying that playing with a ball is a more instinctively male behaviour? There doesn't appear to be any reason to think so other than conditioning from the moment you're born.
Where I do agree, is that every position shouldn't be viewed as failing unless it's 50:50 - that will never happen. There are all sorts of personalities male and female, and they won't all make the same choices.
My analogy was not trying to explain the wage gap. It was trying to explain the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It was not about boys liking football more than girls. Forget I said football and instead imagine I said roundabout. The point is, as long as no one is telling the kids they can play on X or Y because of their sex, then that is fine. Leave them be. Stop thinking everything has to tally up.
Now, I fear you have lost sight of the objectives. Are people being discriminated against? that is all that matters. You assume aggressive males hire in their image, maybe I can suggest an alternative theory. Males in hiring positions get benefits from the company performing well. The company performs well when their employees perform well It is in the interest of said males and company to promote the best performers The best performers tend to be aggressive and competitive (whether male or female) So aggressive and competitive people get hired. Aggressive and competitive people get promoted...and end up in positions where they do the hiring and promoting So people best suited for the job have the same attributes as people who have already been successful in said job and are now the ones giving promotions.
As long as the best person for the job is getting hired why do you care if it's a woman? As long as there is no discrimination happening it shouldn't matter how many men or women are there. The best nurses have feminine qualities (empathy, caring) so more nurses are female. Should we give the job to the best person suited for that role or demand we hire aggressive, competitive people because nursing is sexist against men? Should we demand that the 100 meters sprint should have an 80 meter finish line for white guys and a 70 for Asians? (no offence to any fans of Ki reading this) Or should the Swans not buy people good at football but hire the best talkers so that women can get in the team? I'm sorry but I remember when feminists told us "give us a chance to prove we can do as good and better than the men" now you're insisting we lower the standards.
If the person who has performed the best at the job is a woman but you give the job to a man who performed half as good, then you have a case. You can say men hire in their image, but like Milo not being gay, you have to show us evidence. You can't just go around accusing people of sexist discrimination without evidence.
You and any other feminist is welcome to start a business that promotes people with feminine attributes. But please don't stamp your feet and demand other people reshape their businesses to make feminists feel better (check your privilege). They only have a duty to their own profits/performance. As long as they are not discriminating, who cares?
BTW, one woman tried the feminine business model, didn't work out as she hoped...
Oh, and one more thing, if St Karl of Marx answered your prayers of equality and we reshaped business to hire feminine qualities. When the stats show that men are earing 10, 15% less then women...are we going to reshape it back for equalities sake? No, of course not, what was I thinking
[Post edited 21 Jan 2018 20:40]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 21:03 - Jan 21 with 2068 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 20:26 - Jan 21 by Mo_Wives
My analogy was not trying to explain the wage gap. It was trying to explain the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It was not about boys liking football more than girls. Forget I said football and instead imagine I said roundabout. The point is, as long as no one is telling the kids they can play on X or Y because of their sex, then that is fine. Leave them be. Stop thinking everything has to tally up.
Now, I fear you have lost sight of the objectives. Are people being discriminated against? that is all that matters. You assume aggressive males hire in their image, maybe I can suggest an alternative theory. Males in hiring positions get benefits from the company performing well. The company performs well when their employees perform well It is in the interest of said males and company to promote the best performers The best performers tend to be aggressive and competitive (whether male or female) So aggressive and competitive people get hired. Aggressive and competitive people get promoted...and end up in positions where they do the hiring and promoting So people best suited for the job have the same attributes as people who have already been successful in said job and are now the ones giving promotions.
As long as the best person for the job is getting hired why do you care if it's a woman? As long as there is no discrimination happening it shouldn't matter how many men or women are there. The best nurses have feminine qualities (empathy, caring) so more nurses are female. Should we give the job to the best person suited for that role or demand we hire aggressive, competitive people because nursing is sexist against men? Should we demand that the 100 meters sprint should have an 80 meter finish line for white guys and a 70 for Asians? (no offence to any fans of Ki reading this) Or should the Swans not buy people good at football but hire the best talkers so that women can get in the team? I'm sorry but I remember when feminists told us "give us a chance to prove we can do as good and better than the men" now you're insisting we lower the standards.
If the person who has performed the best at the job is a woman but you give the job to a man who performed half as good, then you have a case. You can say men hire in their image, but like Milo not being gay, you have to show us evidence. You can't just go around accusing people of sexist discrimination without evidence.
You and any other feminist is welcome to start a business that promotes people with feminine attributes. But please don't stamp your feet and demand other people reshape their businesses to make feminists feel better (check your privilege). They only have a duty to their own profits/performance. As long as they are not discriminating, who cares?
BTW, one woman tried the feminine business model, didn't work out as she hoped...
Oh, and one more thing, if St Karl of Marx answered your prayers of equality and we reshaped business to hire feminine qualities. When the stats show that men are earing 10, 15% less then women...are we going to reshape it back for equalities sake? No, of course not, what was I thinking
[Post edited 21 Jan 2018 20:40]
Firstly, your analogy is wrong unless you explore all aspects of equality of opportunity (including societal influences since birth) not just one. Which was the point i was making.
Secondly - I agree with your list until you got to 'the best performers tend to be agressive'. That's the point - the evidence doesn't exist that that is the case. It's an assumption made because male aggressive behaviour has them hiring their clones.
The people who are already successful and are hiring got there when there was overt discrimination. Hiring in their own image means the discrimination continues although now illegal.
I agree that the best person should get the job. I disagree with positive discrimination. And I'm not remotely suggesting anyone lowers standards. Why are feminine characteristics seen by you as lowering standards? They're different qualities, not lesser qualities. A mixture suits businesses best.
And it's not about me.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 04:54 - Jan 22 with 1998 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 21:03 - Jan 21 by londonlisa2001
Firstly, your analogy is wrong unless you explore all aspects of equality of opportunity (including societal influences since birth) not just one. Which was the point i was making.
Secondly - I agree with your list until you got to 'the best performers tend to be agressive'. That's the point - the evidence doesn't exist that that is the case. It's an assumption made because male aggressive behaviour has them hiring their clones.
The people who are already successful and are hiring got there when there was overt discrimination. Hiring in their own image means the discrimination continues although now illegal.
I agree that the best person should get the job. I disagree with positive discrimination. And I'm not remotely suggesting anyone lowers standards. Why are feminine characteristics seen by you as lowering standards? They're different qualities, not lesser qualities. A mixture suits businesses best.
And it's not about me.
Lisa, people tend to want to do well in their careers. So if you were hiring people you pick the best because that will ultimately reflect well on you.
If people with feminine qualities (or a mix) were better at a particular field they would perform better than the others with masculine qualities. The boss would then promote them due to their performance and not because he's thinking Sue has feminine qualities. Or even think "Well Sue sells ten times more than anyone else...but she's a bit too nice. So I'll promote Mary who hardly makes any sales, but she's a disagreeable cow, like me"
"Hiring in their own image means the discrimination continues although now illegal." THIS IS NOT DISCRIMINATION, LISA, STOP THROWING AROUND ACCUSATIONS. This is people hiring who they believe to be best suited for the job. Sometimes it's women they hire. Why do you want people to hire who YOU think is best for the job? It's not your job on the line. When it is your job on the line then feel free to run your experiment and hire who you want. This man/woman doing the hiring has bills to pay and kids to feed. They have no duty to make feminists feel better about themselves. Do you think business are more interested in profit or keeping women down? And if someone wanting to hire people (men or women) with typically male characteristics is sexual discrimination. Then your suggestion of hiring people with feminine characteristics is also sexual discrimination (funny how you never notice it against men)
And like I said, you have equal opportunity Lisa. You or any other feminist can go and start this business model you speak of. You can take the risk to prove YOUR point. Why the hell should any other business take the risk to make your point. If and when this business of yours starts out performing the others, people will start to follow your ideas. Be the change you want to see in the world, Lisa, don't stand around moaning and nagging others to change their worlds to suit you
Edit- BTW, when I was saying 'aggressive' I meant disagreeable (following on from Jordan Peterson debate),
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 6:37]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
-1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 08:38 - Jan 22 with 1953 views
I am ONLY interested in stopping discrimination. As long as people are being given positions because they are seen as the best person to do that job, I don't care. If awarding the best person leads to an all female work place, I don't care. If it leads to an all male or a mix, I don't care. As long as people are not being turned down for jobs due to their sex, race etc. and are instead being judged on performance, I don't care.
Now, Lisa, you are interested in closing these gender gaps. You can say promote feminine qualities, but if all the people you pick, with feminine qualities, are male, then you are not closing the gender gaps. The only way to do this is to promote/hire women BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. You are now awarding jobs based on someone's sex rather than their performance. THIS IS SEXISM!
BTW, I believe if we hire the best person for the job we will end up with a mix of genders...because I am not a massive sexist.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 9:01]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 08:54 - Jan 22 with 1946 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 08:38 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
Let me try and put this as simply as I can.
I am ONLY interested in stopping discrimination. As long as people are being given positions because they are seen as the best person to do that job, I don't care. If awarding the best person leads to an all female work place, I don't care. If it leads to an all male or a mix, I don't care. As long as people are not being turned down for jobs due to their sex, race etc. and are instead being judged on performance, I don't care.
Now, Lisa, you are interested in closing these gender gaps. You can say promote feminine qualities, but if all the people you pick, with feminine qualities, are male, then you are not closing the gender gaps. The only way to do this is to promote/hire women BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. You are now awarding jobs based on someone's sex rather than their performance. THIS IS SEXISM!
BTW, I believe if we hire the best person for the job we will end up with a mix of genders...because I am not a massive sexist.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 9:01]
You could just ask half the workforce to identify as male, and half as female. Gender equality attained. Or get one or two of the top CEO's/management to identify as female and equality is obtained False quotas sorted.
Edit: Can see a problem, I identify as a circa 1993 Matsui 14" coloured (screen) teletext TV, and until the gap between my gender identification and others is zero (in spite of term of service, education level, job description, overtime pay) then this is a problem that will never dissipate.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 08:54 - Jan 22 by swanjackal
You could just ask half the workforce to identify as male, and half as female. Gender equality attained. Or get one or two of the top CEO's/management to identify as female and equality is obtained False quotas sorted.
Edit: Can see a problem, I identify as a circa 1993 Matsui 14" coloured (screen) teletext TV, and until the gap between my gender identification and others is zero (in spite of term of service, education level, job description, overtime pay) then this is a problem that will never dissipate.
Perfect.
Amazing how gender differences pop in and out of existence depending on which debate you're having.
Anyway, I have a new crusade...the ear gap. We need to fix the 'ear gap'. You know, that big empty space between the ears of a feminist.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
-1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 09:07 - Jan 22 with 1934 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 08:59 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
Perfect.
Amazing how gender differences pop in and out of existence depending on which debate you're having.
Anyway, I have a new crusade...the ear gap. We need to fix the 'ear gap'. You know, that big empty space between the ears of a feminist.
"We need to fix the 'ear gap'. You know, that big empty space between the ears of a feminist. "
They are going to be upset that you think that the unicorns and rainbows they believe occupy that space are not real. Like below only reality becomes dreams both in and outside the head.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 09:07 - Jan 22 by swanjackal
"We need to fix the 'ear gap'. You know, that big empty space between the ears of a feminist. "
They are going to be upset that you think that the unicorns and rainbows they believe occupy that space are not real. Like below only reality becomes dreams both in and outside the head.
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 9:07]
I know that priest. Showed me his pecker when I was doing my conformation.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
-1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 09:16 - Jan 22 with 1924 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 09:13 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
I know that priest. Showed me his pecker when I was doing my conformation.
I unfortunately learned not quick enough that communion wine wasn't actually white in colour and thick of texture, and a goblet wasn't actually fleshy and cylindrical.
Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws.
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 05:26 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
Lisa, people tend to want to do well in their careers. So if you were hiring people you pick the best because that will ultimately reflect well on you.
If people with feminine qualities (or a mix) were better at a particular field they would perform better than the others with masculine qualities. The boss would then promote them due to their performance and not because he's thinking Sue has feminine qualities. Or even think "Well Sue sells ten times more than anyone else...but she's a bit too nice. So I'll promote Mary who hardly makes any sales, but she's a disagreeable cow, like me"
"Hiring in their own image means the discrimination continues although now illegal." THIS IS NOT DISCRIMINATION, LISA, STOP THROWING AROUND ACCUSATIONS. This is people hiring who they believe to be best suited for the job. Sometimes it's women they hire. Why do you want people to hire who YOU think is best for the job? It's not your job on the line. When it is your job on the line then feel free to run your experiment and hire who you want. This man/woman doing the hiring has bills to pay and kids to feed. They have no duty to make feminists feel better about themselves. Do you think business are more interested in profit or keeping women down? And if someone wanting to hire people (men or women) with typically male characteristics is sexual discrimination. Then your suggestion of hiring people with feminine characteristics is also sexual discrimination (funny how you never notice it against men)
And like I said, you have equal opportunity Lisa. You or any other feminist can go and start this business model you speak of. You can take the risk to prove YOUR point. Why the hell should any other business take the risk to make your point. If and when this business of yours starts out performing the others, people will start to follow your ideas. Be the change you want to see in the world, Lisa, don't stand around moaning and nagging others to change their worlds to suit you
Edit- BTW, when I was saying 'aggressive' I meant disagreeable (following on from Jordan Peterson debate),
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 6:37]
You continue to miss the point.
I was pointing out the flaws in Peterson's argument. It was he who said in that interview that people with traditionally masculine qualities get on better not me. He then said that wasn't gender discrimination, which is nonsense. It is, just couched in different terms,
I then gave an example based on height. Which shows the same thing.
Your example about sales in a bad one, because an area like sales, which is completely measurable, shows less geneder bias than other more measurable areas.
The biggest reason for gender inequality around pay is lack of women in senior roles. Not sales staff or similar. Numbers of men and women at more junior levels is pretty consistent, and pay is pretty consistent. The issue is far further up in organisations. Where there aren't such easily measurable 'who is better' factors. And it's there that the discrimination continues due to the men in situ promoting in their own image.
It's known as unconscious bias. People tend to promote those that are most similar to themselves. It's what leads to the whole notion of 'old school tie'. It's what leads to Japanese firms almost invariably having all their very senior staff being Japanese, even in London. Or old banks having a disproportionate number of Jewish people at the top.
All of those things are not allowed 'in law'. But the processes aren't overtly discriminatory. They arise because people promote people like themselves. And it happens with women.
I don't speak of any feminist business model. I don't even know why you throw the term feminist around in that way, since all feminist means is someone who wants equality of the sexes.
There are many example of women running very successful businesses very successfully. Look at Sheryl Sandberg, or Marissa Mayer (Facebook and yahoo respectively). Or even look at Mary Barra who is CEO of General Motors or the woman who runs PepsiCo (whise name escapes me). But there are just 32 companies of the 500 biggest companies in America that are run by women. You cannot say with hand on heart that you think that in 468 instances out of 500 men were objectively better than women. It's due to there being bias throughout the junior, middle and senior management of these companies. Bias that has had an effect for decades, leading to less opportunity throughout the organisation.
As for the 'don't stand around moaning' bit - as I said, it's not about me, I sit on the board of FTSE companies Mo, and sat on the board of global companies when I was an exec. That's why I know what happens. What's your experience of this, outside watching YouTube videos? When have you been senior enough to understand the factors at play here? Because big companies now recognise the issue and are working really hard to try to do something about it. To redress the impact that decades of this sort of bias have caused. Because they know damn well (as they can see it happen) that mixed genders at senior levels lead to companies performing better.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 13:09 - Jan 22 with 1859 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 12:32 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
You continue to miss the point.
I was pointing out the flaws in Peterson's argument. It was he who said in that interview that people with traditionally masculine qualities get on better not me. He then said that wasn't gender discrimination, which is nonsense. It is, just couched in different terms,
I then gave an example based on height. Which shows the same thing.
Your example about sales in a bad one, because an area like sales, which is completely measurable, shows less geneder bias than other more measurable areas.
The biggest reason for gender inequality around pay is lack of women in senior roles. Not sales staff or similar. Numbers of men and women at more junior levels is pretty consistent, and pay is pretty consistent. The issue is far further up in organisations. Where there aren't such easily measurable 'who is better' factors. And it's there that the discrimination continues due to the men in situ promoting in their own image.
It's known as unconscious bias. People tend to promote those that are most similar to themselves. It's what leads to the whole notion of 'old school tie'. It's what leads to Japanese firms almost invariably having all their very senior staff being Japanese, even in London. Or old banks having a disproportionate number of Jewish people at the top.
All of those things are not allowed 'in law'. But the processes aren't overtly discriminatory. They arise because people promote people like themselves. And it happens with women.
I don't speak of any feminist business model. I don't even know why you throw the term feminist around in that way, since all feminist means is someone who wants equality of the sexes.
There are many example of women running very successful businesses very successfully. Look at Sheryl Sandberg, or Marissa Mayer (Facebook and yahoo respectively). Or even look at Mary Barra who is CEO of General Motors or the woman who runs PepsiCo (whise name escapes me). But there are just 32 companies of the 500 biggest companies in America that are run by women. You cannot say with hand on heart that you think that in 468 instances out of 500 men were objectively better than women. It's due to there being bias throughout the junior, middle and senior management of these companies. Bias that has had an effect for decades, leading to less opportunity throughout the organisation.
As for the 'don't stand around moaning' bit - as I said, it's not about me, I sit on the board of FTSE companies Mo, and sat on the board of global companies when I was an exec. That's why I know what happens. What's your experience of this, outside watching YouTube videos? When have you been senior enough to understand the factors at play here? Because big companies now recognise the issue and are working really hard to try to do something about it. To redress the impact that decades of this sort of bias have caused. Because they know damn well (as they can see it happen) that mixed genders at senior levels lead to companies performing better.
...It's known as unconscious bias.
At the risk of stating the baldly obvious Isn't that just 'natural instinct' by another name, Lisa.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
). The majority of clinical psychologists are not saying what he is (or it would be generally accepted) you decided to use him to promote an anti feminist agenda. The Dr in question may turn out to be correct, but at the moment I doubt it particularly as a list of possible reasons has been postulated before now...e.g. low social strata, poverty, poor education/parenting, no role models that they can associate with and many many more reasons. 
