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 13:09 - Jan 22 by Lohengrin
...It's known as unconscious bias.
At the risk of stating the baldly obvious Isn't that just 'natural instinct' by another name, Lisa.
I've stated a few times on this thread 'Choose freedom or choose equality of outcome' this is Lisa admitting I am right, whether she knows it on not. You do not have to be sexist or racist anymore it's just that your thoughts are wrong. You need to go to the re-education camp. If it stands in the way of their perfectly equal utopia they are not going to let you be free to think your own thoughts anymore.
Off to your unconscious bias training...
This is why systems like Communism that strive for equality of outcome tends to lead to authoritarian nightmares. When they can't reach their perfect state, some do-gooding asshat say's "they have unconscious bias...we must rearrange their thinking patterns"
These people are dangerous.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 14:52 - Jan 22 with 1786 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.
Let's try and slim this down.
"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."
A- So what do you want? re-education camps to make people think the correct way?
"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."
A- You and feminist claim that business will be successful if they hire people with feminine qualities. I say go and prove it. You open a business and put YOUR MONEY where YOUR MOUTH is. No, you'd rather we re-educate people on how they are sexist without knowing it, FFS.
"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 "
A- who said there wasn't? what are you talking about?
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.
A- I will not say anything until I have seen an in depth review and case to case study. You can't just accuse people of discrimination without evidence, Lisa. And you may be happy to go with your ham-fisted approach of 'There are lots more men than women, therefore...sexism' but I'm not. You see, Lisa, you are looking at this and seeing sexism but you may be suffering from this thing called 'unconscious bias'...
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."
A-
I am just a lowly janitor, Lisa, but so was Good Will Hunting..."How d'you like those apples?"
And yes, of course company's are saying "how high?" when the feminist lobby say "Jump". Feminism/progressivism is the establishment now, they hold a lot of power. Being accused of sexist discrimination can be really bad for business. I've talked before of how the Nazis used 'gleichschaltung' (a form of political correctness) to force all companies to get in line with their ideology (I bet they'd have loved 'unconscious bias' training). Maybe we can sort out our difference, over a nice potato, in a work camp one day. Maybe we'll fall in love. Maybe I will write a best seller called 'I left my heart in Treblinka' about our time together...sorry, I'm waffling now.
So, to finish up... It is against the law to discriminate against women when hiring/promoting It is against the law to pay women less for the same/equal work There is a small pay gap which if sexism has anything to with, it's people who are being unconsciously sexist. But companies are going out of there way to fix this.
Right, so really the 'gender gap' debate shows we are in fact doing everything we can for women and it's really not any kind of evidence of oppression or societies hatred of women. Excellent. Now, equality warriors, when can we talk about the 'death at work gap' and the 'Jail sentencing gap'?
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 15:42]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
2
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 15:47 - Jan 22 with 1742 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 14:52 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
Let's try and slim this down.
"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."
A- So what do you want? re-education camps to make people think the correct way?
"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."
A- You and feminist claim that business will be successful if they hire people with feminine qualities. I say go and prove it. You open a business and put YOUR MONEY where YOUR MOUTH is. No, you'd rather we re-educate people on how they are sexist without knowing it, FFS.
"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 "
A- who said there wasn't? what are you talking about?
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.
A- I will not say anything until I have seen an in depth review and case to case study. You can't just accuse people of discrimination without evidence, Lisa. And you may be happy to go with your ham-fisted approach of 'There are lots more men than women, therefore...sexism' but I'm not. You see, Lisa, you are looking at this and seeing sexism but you may be suffering from this thing called 'unconscious bias'...
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."
A-
I am just a lowly janitor, Lisa, but so was Good Will Hunting..."How d'you like those apples?"
And yes, of course company's are saying "how high?" when the feminist lobby say "Jump". Feminism/progressivism is the establishment now, they hold a lot of power. Being accused of sexist discrimination can be really bad for business. I've talked before of how the Nazis used 'gleichschaltung' (a form of political correctness) to force all companies to get in line with their ideology (I bet they'd have loved 'unconscious bias' training). Maybe we can sort out our difference, over a nice potato, in a work camp one day. Maybe we'll fall in love. Maybe I will write a best seller called 'I left my heart in Treblinka' about our time together...sorry, I'm waffling now.
So, to finish up... It is against the law to discriminate against women when hiring/promoting It is against the law to pay women less for the same/equal work There is a small pay gap which if sexism has anything to with, it's people who are being unconsciously sexist. But companies are going out of there way to fix this.
Right, so really the 'gender gap' debate shows we are in fact doing everything we can for women and it's really not any kind of evidence of oppression or societies hatred of women. Excellent. Now, equality warriors, when can we talk about the 'death at work gap' and the 'Jail sentencing gap'?
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 15:42]
I always love a 'summary' that distorts the facts.
I'll do one instead.
January 2018 ONS figures just released show a gender gap of full time workers in the UK of 15.9% for the private sector and 13.1% for the public sector.
Overt discrimination is illegal but the gap still exists since women are still unfairly disadvantaged in the workplace when it comes to advancement. It's more pronounced at the top of organisations where it's often harder to objectively measure performance so the bias of those making decisions plays a bigger part in the process. This leads to a gender pay gap in the top decile of 54.9%.
Summary done.
Oh, and it's nothing to do with being 'smart' - it's to do with having actual experience and knowledge rather than relying on YouTube clips.
So the correct response to my question, rather than creating memes and trying to crack 'jokes' about feminists being stupid and telling me to like it or lump it, is 'no, Lisa, I haven't any actual knowledge or experience outside what I watch on YouTube'.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:23 - Jan 22 with 1701 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:11 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
I always love a 'summary' that distorts the facts.
I'll do one instead.
January 2018 ONS figures just released show a gender gap of full time workers in the UK of 15.9% for the private sector and 13.1% for the public sector.
Overt discrimination is illegal but the gap still exists since women are still unfairly disadvantaged in the workplace when it comes to advancement. It's more pronounced at the top of organisations where it's often harder to objectively measure performance so the bias of those making decisions plays a bigger part in the process. This leads to a gender pay gap in the top decile of 54.9%.
Summary done.
Oh, and it's nothing to do with being 'smart' - it's to do with having actual experience and knowledge rather than relying on YouTube clips.
So the correct response to my question, rather than creating memes and trying to crack 'jokes' about feminists being stupid and telling me to like it or lump it, is 'no, Lisa, I haven't any actual knowledge or experience outside what I watch on YouTube'.
I preferred to walk you around by the nose until you admitted that it's not conscious bias and that we are doing everything to stamp it out...therefore we as a society do not treat women as second class or do we oppress them.
You carry on telling the people how smart you are, Lisa and I'll stick to showing them
BTW, I can hear the steam coming out of your ears
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 16:33]
Good luck, Mr Cooper
1
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:36 - Jan 22 with 1686 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:23 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
I preferred to walk you around by the nose until you admitted that it's not conscious bias and that we are doing everything to stamp it out...therefore we as a society do not treat women as second class or do we oppress them.
You carry on telling the people how smart you are, Lisa and I'll stick to showing them
BTW, I can hear the steam coming out of your ears
[Post edited 22 Jan 2018 16:33]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I started by saying that there was gender bias. I then pointed out why Peterson's arguments were bollox.
You now attempting to twist that into being exactly what you said, when you quite clearly said there was no gender pay gap due to sexism, is nonsense.
Overt, covert, it really doesn't matter. For reasons I won't repeat as you seemingly can't understand them even with your giant brain.
And there's no steam Mo. Any more than Pep Guardiola would have steam coming out of his ears when discussing the football business with someone whose knowledge extends to playing football manager. I find it amusing.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:44 - Jan 22 with 1681 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:36 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
I have no idea what you're talking about. I started by saying that there was gender bias. I then pointed out why Peterson's arguments were bollox.
You now attempting to twist that into being exactly what you said, when you quite clearly said there was no gender pay gap due to sexism, is nonsense.
Overt, covert, it really doesn't matter. For reasons I won't repeat as you seemingly can't understand them even with your giant brain.
And there's no steam Mo. Any more than Pep Guardiola would have steam coming out of his ears when discussing the football business with someone whose knowledge extends to playing football manager. I find it amusing.
Just jumping in here, I haven't read the whole thread.
If You're referring to the recent interview between Mr Petersen and Cathy Newman on Channel 4, I'm pretty certain he said that outright sexism was one reason for the gender pay gap but it was a percentile of the explanation - in other words that there were many other reasons that explain it (eg what he calls agreeableness / lifestyle choices)
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:44 - Jan 22 by westwalesed
Just jumping in here, I haven't read the whole thread.
If You're referring to the recent interview between Mr Petersen and Cathy Newman on Channel 4, I'm pretty certain he said that outright sexism was one reason for the gender pay gap but it was a percentile of the explanation - in other words that there were many other reasons that explain it (eg what he calls agreeableness / lifestyle choices)
He did say that. That's the the whole point. I was explaining to Mo (who thought the interview proved there was no sexism) why many of Peterson's 'other reasons' also boil down to sexism so his argument was spurious crap irrespective of the interviewer being rubbish.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 17:14 - Jan 22 with 1652 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 16:44 - Jan 22 by westwalesed
Just jumping in here, I haven't read the whole thread.
If You're referring to the recent interview between Mr Petersen and Cathy Newman on Channel 4, I'm pretty certain he said that outright sexism was one reason for the gender pay gap but it was a percentile of the explanation - in other words that there were many other reasons that explain it (eg what he calls agreeableness / lifestyle choices)
Define "Sexism".
If a woman and a man both start similar jobs at the same time and have similar levels of performance over the course of their tenure. The role advertises salary of between £100k-£120k and on offer, the woman accepts the first offer of £100k, but the bloke pushes his luck and gets the £120k, whos 'fault' is that? Cant blame men for that scenario (but it happens often). Instantly you have a pay gap of 20% and that will multiply over the course of tenure.
Just an example. But im sorry, blaming sexism for everything is rubbish. There are sooo many variables.
"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 16:56 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
He did say that. That's the the whole point. I was explaining to Mo (who thought the interview proved there was no sexism) why many of Peterson's 'other reasons' also boil down to sexism so his argument was spurious crap irrespective of the interviewer being rubbish.
No, Lisa, You believe the gap is due to sexism. Me and Jordan Peterson believe it is due to many factors...prejudice being one (a tiny amount). Of course there are going to be prejudice people around. If you remove this tiny amount, then you still have a gap almost the same size...hence, the gap is not due to sexism.
He only gave one or two of his reasons (out of about 20) and you claim "many of his other reasons boil down to sexism". So please, list his other reasons and explain which ones boil down to sexism and why. I'll read them in the morning.
Good luck, Mr Cooper
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:44 - Jan 22 with 1570 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:21 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
No, Lisa, You believe the gap is due to sexism. Me and Jordan Peterson believe it is due to many factors...prejudice being one (a tiny amount). Of course there are going to be prejudice people around. If you remove this tiny amount, then you still have a gap almost the same size...hence, the gap is not due to sexism.
He only gave one or two of his reasons (out of about 20) and you claim "many of his other reasons boil down to sexism". So please, list his other reasons and explain which ones boil down to sexism and why. I'll read them in the morning.
Nope, I've already given examples you didn't understand.
Giving you more would simply confuse you further which would be unfair of me.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:56 - Jan 22 with 1555 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:44 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
Nope, I've already given examples you didn't understand.
Giving you more would simply confuse you further which would be unfair of me.
OK, Lisa, that's fine.
Could you do me a favour an explain to Neath Jack that I challenged you to back up your claim that many of Dr Petersons reason boil down to sexism and you bottled it. The empty headed cockwomble probably thinks you just 'Put me to bed'
Good luck, Mr Cooper
2
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 19:17 - Jan 22 with 1541 views
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 18:56 - Jan 22 by Mo_Wives
OK, Lisa, that's fine.
Could you do me a favour an explain to Neath Jack that I challenged you to back up your claim that many of Dr Petersons reason boil down to sexism and you bottled it. The empty headed cockwomble probably thinks you just 'Put me to bed'
I'm sure he read what I'd written before in explanation and understood it Mo. So thinks it's a waste of my time explaining it 'once more with feeling' to you?
It's like when the Canadian Bar Association tried explaining to Dr Peterson over and over again that the proposed law on discrimination against transgender people he was so publicly opposing didn't actually do what he was saying it did, he just didn't understand it properly, and still he went on. And on. And still does. There came a point at which they just said 'this guy just doesn't understand even though we've tried to tell him as simply and straightforwardly as we can'.
That's the point I've reached with you. No matter. We tried didn't we.
0
PC bollo*cks gone mad with John Humphreys on 19:48 - Jan 22 with 1525 views
The ONS also explains why there is a pay gap, which generally explains why it's more choice based over any actual sexism, as most sensible people would agree.
The only way it will ever be neutral, would be if certain lower level, less dangerous jobs, and part time work is paid more, or women stop having children altogether, which makes little sense.
So in effect, women, generally in non entertainment professions, that have entered the same job, with the same experience/qualifications, will be paid the same as their male counterparts, as by law. Which for me should be the crux of the argument. If hourly rate is equal, and hours of work offered, for the same job with comparable experience, then there really isn't an issue. Comparing different roles/professions with each other is just a false premise from the start. Earnings/pay is even less relevant too when not factoring in multi components.
Also, despite more financial schemes set up to encourage women into STEM fields (grants) and preferred placements based on their sex (seems a little gender unbalanced to me), the uptake of women into these fields, and the high drop out rate during courses, don't seem to improve the desired outcome viably, despite these golden sweeteners.
Seems a bit odd that you see very few complaints of far too few women in sanitation, building, heavy industry.
I've seen such a shift in goalposts when actually debating this through the years. Aggregating all people in an organisation, or work field (even a nation), will always see a significant difference in men and womens pay, due to numerous factors. As mentioned, unless there is an agreement to pay historically lower payed jobs more, part time work increases, sterilisation of women, or the outright paying a higher hourly rate to women, there will never be parity.
Instead of looking at comparative hourly rates in identical jobs (a fair assessment of gender equality pay), studies focus on "bucket statistics". Is there sexism in role selection in a business/workplace? Probably. Does this factor in the wage (hourly rate, not earnings, which are padded by other factors) they make once in the role? Not seen any evidence of it, but if there was I would hope they would seek legal advice.
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 19:17 - Jan 22 by londonlisa2001
I'm sure he read what I'd written before in explanation and understood it Mo. So thinks it's a waste of my time explaining it 'once more with feeling' to you?
It's like when the Canadian Bar Association tried explaining to Dr Peterson over and over again that the proposed law on discrimination against transgender people he was so publicly opposing didn't actually do what he was saying it did, he just didn't understand it properly, and still he went on. And on. And still does. There came a point at which they just said 'this guy just doesn't understand even though we've tried to tell him as simply and straightforwardly as we can'.
That's the point I've reached with you. No matter. We tried didn't we.
BTW, Pep, this belief you have of this all powerful, conscious and unconscious sexual discrimination conspiracy holding down all women, really shows you to be some kind of superwoman, since you got past it. It must be wonderful to have such a high opinion of yourself. Could you tell us how it feels to know you are a superwoman...how it feels to be better than 95% of the normal women. I bet it's very comforting.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
