ComeAllWithin

General Category => Everything not rugby related! => Topic started by: Bolly-Quin on Saturday 15-Jun-2019, 14:55*


Title: Equality Issues
Post by: Bolly-Quin on Saturday 15-Jun-2019, 14:55*
Should you wish to peruse Giageo's equality credentials...

https://www.diageo.com/PR1346/aws/media/7139/261118-gender-pay-report-final.pdf
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinten Poulsen on Saturday 15-Jun-2019, 15:49*
Should you wish to peruse Giageo's equality credentials...

https://www.diageo.com/PR1346/aws/media/7139/261118-gender-pay-report-final.pdf

Please don't trigger me.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Gone on Saturday 15-Jun-2019, 19:12*
If it helps, they have prioritised not referring to women as fat Belfast sluts that they can spitroast ahead of parity of remuneration.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Bolly-Quin on Monday 17-Jun-2019, 17:29*
Please don't trigger me.

What does ďtrigger meĒ mean? At least in this context!
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinten Poulsen on Monday 17-Jun-2019, 17:35*
The phrase 'gender pay gap' makes me all snowflakey.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Bolly-Quin on Monday 17-Jun-2019, 17:44*
Look where the ďmissile gapĒ got us...
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Brown Bottle on Tuesday 18-Jun-2019, 13:07*
Well so is Diageo.

Yeah, but I didn't know anything about them. :)
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Saturday 22-Jun-2019, 07:26*
The phrase 'gender pay gap' makes me all snowflakey.

A spurious belief based upon extrapolation from limited data. I recently discussed the fabled gender pay gap with a female journalist. I am now more convinced than ever that journalism is a euphemism for churning out and rehashing whatever right-on tosh is doing the rounds at the moment.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Saturday 22-Jun-2019, 08:10*
A spurious belief based upon extrapolation from limited data.

So off topic that I wonít go into it. But no
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Monday 24-Jun-2019, 20:22*
So off topic that I wonít go into it. But no

But yes. A set of conclusions based upon salary and gender, failing to acknowledge that there may be other factors involved in deciding remuneration. Seems pretty flawed to me.

So yes.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: deadlyfrom5yardsout on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 09:42*
Is there anybody else in that phone box with you Shrinky?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 11:58*
Is there anybody else in that phone box with you Shrinky?

That's no phone box, that's my office! All of the bigger offices went to women, in the name of equality.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 13:20*
But yes. A set of conclusions based upon salary and gender, failing to acknowledge that there may be other factors involved in deciding remuneration. Seems pretty flawed to me.

So yes.

OK Iíll do this.

The gender pay gap (for those who donít know) is calculated as the average paid to a man in the business compared with the average paid to a woman.

There are therefore two ways the gap can occur: men paid more for the same role or more men in more senior roles. There is plenty of evidence that both have historically occurred - hence the desire for businesses to publish their pay gap.

The result is that businesses (certainly in my industry) are looking to promote more women into senior roles. Why is that not a good thing?

Out of interest, which other factors do you feel should be considered before remuneration get people doing the same role?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Gone on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 17:54*
Brave of you to try to engage.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 18:28*
OK Iíll do this.

The gender pay gap (for those who donít know) is calculated as the average paid to a man in the business compared with the average paid to a woman.

There are therefore two ways the gap can occur: men paid more for the same role or more men in more senior roles. There is plenty of evidence that both have historically occurred - hence the desire for businesses to publish their pay gap.

The result is that businesses (certainly in my industry) are looking to promote more women into senior roles. Why is that not a good thing?

Out of interest, which other factors do you feel should be considered before remuneration get people doing the same role?

Oh let's see... Experience, ability, potential, proven results, aptitude, qualifications...

Tell me, how does being female make anyone necessarily the best person for a job?

The gender pay gap is based upon salary and gender, nothing else. In the real world, there are other factors taken into account when calculating remuneration.

But if you want to be right on and PC, don't complain if you're passed over for a promotion, in favour of a less capable female. Got to keep those numbers up, eh?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 18:44*
Oh let's see... Experience, ability, potential, proven results, aptitude, qualifications...

Tell me, how does being female make anyone necessarily the best person for a job?

The gender pay gap is based upon salary and gender, nothing else. In the real world, there are other factors taken into account when calculating remuneration.

But if you want to be right on and PC, don't complain if you're passed over for a promotion, in favour of a less capable female. Got to keep those numbers up, eh?

Nobody has said that being female has made somebody the best person for the job. But how can it possibly be correct that only 6 of the FTSE 100 have female CEOs? Are there really 15 times as many qualified men as women? Or could it be that being a man has historically been seen as being the best person for the job? Whatís the justification for that?

Why are menís earnings 8% higher than womenís one year after graduation? Thatís not aptitude or experience. Thatís partly because boys are more likely to be interested in higher paying careers like medicine. But why is that happening and why should it?

I could go on but the pay gap is very real and just symptomatic of a number of societal biases.

Oh and I wonít get passed over. I own the business.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 18:51*
I also own my business. I guess the difference is that you think gender is relevant to pay. It isn't.

I don't care what's happened historically, or what conclusions you draw from limited data. I can't change either.

Promotion of women for the sake of numbers is discrimination against men. I don't care if 1% or 99% of CEOs are male or female. It should be the best person who gets the job.

As for men pursuing higher paid carers, so what? Last time I checked, people were free to choose their own career. If that causes pay imbalance because women lean towards lower paid careers, so be it.

Social engineering never works.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinten Poulsen on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 19:33*
Why are men's earnings for part time work 5% lower than women's? Why is there no gender pay gap for people aged between around 20 and 40? Why do people who obsess about the gender pay gap only ever complain about the low number of female CEOs and not the low number of female sewage workers? Why does the gender hours gap never get a mention? And more specifically, why doesn't your industry focus on promoting the best qualified people regardless of their genitalia?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 20:11*
To be clear, I havenít said that women should be promoted because of their gender. I would say that if gender is irrelevant (as we all seem to agree), the gender ratio at the entry level should be continued throughout the industry. If it isnít, there is an issue.

And there is plenty of evidence that the gap starts from early in careers (the 20-25 year olds) and grows.

Yes, people can chose their own career but we are much more likely to copy what we have already seen. If people still look at little girls as future nurses and little boys as future doctors, that becomes the norm. So as they grow up, thatís what they aim for.

Which is the same reason we donít see many female sewage workers.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinten Poulsen on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 20:25*
Quote
the gender ratio at the entry level should be continued throughout the industry.

Why?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 25-Jun-2019, 22:57*
To be clear, I havenít said that women should be promoted because of their gender. I would say that if gender is irrelevant (as we all seem to agree), the gender ratio at the entry level should be continued throughout the industry. If it isnít, there is an issue.

And there is plenty of evidence that the gap starts from early in careers (the 20-25 year olds) and grows.

Yes, people can chose their own career but we are much more likely to copy what we have already seen. If people still look at little girls as future nurses and little boys as future doctors, that becomes the norm. So as they grow up, thatís what they aim for.

Which is the same reason we donít see many female sewage workers.

Or we could stop trying to steer people into career directions. Look at Sweden, recognised as possibly the best country in the world world for equality. Given the choice, most people choosing a career in engineering are male, whilst those choosing nursing are predominantly female. It's the result of free choice.

Ironically my business is in an industry with almost 70%of females. There are campaigns and initiatives to get more females at board level, but no initiatives to get more men into the industry.

I guess equality is selective.

Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: dr_miles on Wednesday 26-Jun-2019, 09:40*
Or we could stop trying to steer people into career directions. Look at Sweden, recognised as possibly the best country in the world world for equality. Given the choice, most people choosing a career in engineering are male, whilst those choosing nursing are predominantly female. It's the result of free choice.

Ironically my business is in an industry with almost 70%of females. There are campaigns and initiatives to get more females at board level, but no initiatives to get more men into the industry.

I guess equality is selective.

Do you accept that all nurses with the same qualifications, experience and abilities should be paid the same regardless of gender, and that all engineers with the same qualifications, experience and abilities should be paid the same regardless of gender?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Fearless Fred on Wednesday 26-Jun-2019, 10:34*
I think this has strayed far off topic into something that should really be on the "Everything not rugby related" board. Can I suggest that this discussion is taken over there?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Wednesday 26-Jun-2019, 10:37*
Why?

Really? You need me to explain this to you?

OK, if there is no bias then everyone has an equal chance of progression - depending purely on their individual talents and qualities. If there is a skew towards one demographic as you rise through the ranks, that either shows that that demographic is inherently better suited to more senior roles or there is a bias.

If you don't believe there is a bias, what is it about men that makes them more suited to being CEOs? Or bankers? Or sewage workers?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: deadlyfrom5yardsout on Wednesday 26-Jun-2019, 10:39*
On the point of social conditioning directing youngsters into predictable pathways I can certainly say from personal experience that this is less so these days. I have 3 daughters, a Doctor, an MD of a £40m gastro pub business and a Biologist currently working for the Environment Agency out in the field (quite literally).

All 3 of them did the little girl things like My Little Pony and Ballet lessons etc but through their own influences and choices have ended up in careers that may have been considered more suitable for men in days of yore.

I still seem to be the one paying for family meals though :(


Sorry Fred you are right of course but you posted that while I was decomposing.....
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinten Poulsen on Wednesday 26-Jun-2019, 11:41*
Yareet, you haven't taken personal choices into account in your reply.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Thursday 27-Jun-2019, 23:22*
Do you accept that all nurses with the same qualifications, experience and abilities should be paid the same regardless of gender, and that all engineers with the same qualifications, experience and abilities should be paid the same regardless of gender?

I think that of all the factors you mention, gender is the only one that shouldn't be considered when deciding upon remuneration.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Friday 05-Jul-2019, 15:27*
There are bigger picture issue here that need to be considered.

In many ways the world of work, and society, is simply more geared up for the benefit of men. The system doesnít deal well enough with women (or men in fact) who need or want to take time away from their careers to have a family, have other responsibilities etc etc

This is changing, but itís very slow. Because of societyís perception of the role of the woman being the primary care giver for children (even in households where roles are more equal), they often have to work harder than men for promotions when they do return to work, or struggle to keep up as there are greater home demands on them than for a corresponding man.

Secondly, women often get knocked down a lot when displaying more typically ďmasculineĒ and aggressive tactics at work in trying to progress. If men display those characteristics they are ambitious, bold, daring. Women are often perceived as vulgar and are bound by the requirement that certain sections of society need them to be ďnurturingĒ ďmaternalĒ ďcaringĒ etc in all they do. Iíve seen good and talented women effectively bullied out of senior positions - an equivalent man would not get treated that way.

I donít have any quick answers and we are in the start of a journey here that we need to go on. Gender pay gap is part of that as it shows the symptom of the problem so that the real issues can start to be addressed.

I get continually exasperated by those calling out this sort of thing as being PC gone mad, or snowflakey, as I suspect those doing so are middle aged white men who have had the benefit of a society geared up for their own success and have never had to experience any of the difficult prejudices that are exhibited against women (or in fact against minorities), nor have had to be primary care giver for children or others and therefore have not had to face up to the very real and difficult choices that others have to.

This is so complex and there is a lot to say on it. I will try and be more succinct in any further contributions!
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Saturday 06-Jul-2019, 18:01*
There are bigger picture issue here that need to be considered.

In many ways the world of work, and society, is simply more geared up for the benefit of men. The system doesnít deal well enough with women (or men in fact) who need or want to take time away from their careers to have a family, have other responsibilities etc etc

This is changing, but itís very slow. Because of societyís perception of the role of the woman being the primary care giver for children (even in households where roles are more equal), they often have to work harder than men for promotions when they do return to work, or struggle to keep up as there are greater home demands on them than for a corresponding man.

Secondly, women often get knocked down a lot when displaying more typically ďmasculineĒ and aggressive tactics at work in trying to progress. If men display those characteristics they are ambitious, bold, daring. Women are often perceived as vulgar and are bound by the requirement that certain sections of society need them to be ďnurturingĒ ďmaternalĒ ďcaringĒ etc in all they do. Iíve seen good and talented women effectively bullied out of senior positions - an equivalent man would not get treated that way.

I donít have any quick answers and we are in the start of a journey here that we need to go on. Gender pay gap is part of that as it shows the symptom of the problem so that the real issues can start to be addressed.

I get continually exasperated by those calling out this sort of thing as being PC gone mad, or snowflakey, as I suspect those doing so are middle aged white men who have had the benefit of a society geared up for their own success and have never had to experience any of the difficult prejudices that are exhibited against women (or in fact against minorities), nor have had to be primary care giver for children or others and therefore have not had to face up to the very real and difficult choices that others have to.

This is so complex and there is a lot to say on it. I will try and be more succinct in any further contributions!


So much tosh in there, it's hard to know where to begin!

But just one point will do for starters:

Quote
the world of work, and society, is simply more geared up for the benefit of men

That would explain why many more men than women die in wars, in coal mines, and are victims of suicide. Why traditionally women retire earlier.  Why women are the recipients of subtle undertones of benefit in everyday life - "give up your seat for a lady", "ladies first", "half price drinks for ladies". Shorter prison sentences than males for identical crimes.  I learned last week that the goals at the women's football world cup are smaller than men's! The vast majority of homeless and rough sleepers are male.

What about the "middle aged white men" who haven't had "the benefit of a society geared up for their own success"? The ones who do jobs that you rarely, if ever, see a woman doing, like street sweeper or coal miner. Perhaps those men are also victims of courts who overwhelmingly award custody of children to the mother in the case of a breakup. Or maybe they are the men who have been falsely accused of ****, whose names have been released, but who were subsequently exonerated... all the while the accuser remains unnamed.

It's funny how the quest for "equality" is so selective.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: dr_miles on Friday 12-Jul-2019, 15:48*
That would explain why many more men than women die in wars

Until recently, women were prevented from serving in the military front line. Possibly there is a connection.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Saturday 13-Jul-2019, 09:54*
Until recently, women were prevented from serving in the military front line. Possibly there is a connection.

The end result is that more men die as a result of wars. Perhaps that's a more relevant way of stating the imbalance.
But if my other points stand up to scrutiny, it suggests that it's not such a male favoured world after all.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Saturday 13-Jul-2019, 12:01*
Surely the military, and military violence, only really exists because of male dominance throughout history? Itís a poor example in any discussion over equality.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Thursday 25-Jul-2019, 08:10*
Surely the military, and military violence, only really exists because of male dominance throughout history? Itís a poor example in any discussion over equality.

Have there been female heads of state of countries at a time when they went to war?

Male dominance through history leads to war... An interesting twist, but utterly ridiculous IMO.

Nice that you appear to accept my other examples though.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: marlowish on Tuesday 30-Jul-2019, 12:02*
Surely the military, and military violence, only really exists because of male dominance throughout history? Itís a poor example in any discussion over equality.

Boadicea like a scrap !
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: marlowish on Tuesday 30-Jul-2019, 12:05*
Really? You need me to explain this to you?

OK, if there is no bias then everyone has an equal chance of progression - depending purely on their individual talents and qualities. If there is a skew towards one demographic as you rise through the ranks, that either shows that that demographic is inherently better suited to more senior roles or there is a bias.

If you don't believe there is a bias, what is it about men that makes them more suited to being CEOs? Or bankers? Or sewage workers?

I will never adhere to any quotas.  I own my own company I have always and will always employ the best person for the job. 
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Gone on Tuesday 30-Jul-2019, 12:36*
It's worth trying again so I'll try.

The gender pay gap has zero to do with paying women a different amount for doing the same job as men - that's illegal already.

The gender pay gap isn't anything to do with women-only shortlists.

The gender pay gap is about opening up career pathways that previously haven't been open to women, have been discouraged for women, women haven't thought about -- for lots and lots of different reasons. Cultural, historical, self-limitation, external limitation, bias, or just choice.

If you think the gender pay gap means you can't pay a man more than a woman. You're wrong.
If you think the gender pay gap means you can't discriminate against women, or black people, or gay people - you're wrong. That's what long-standing legislation does.
If you think the gender pay gap is an argument for choosing someone less capable to do a job, you're also wrong.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 30-Jul-2019, 12:40*
Really? You need me to explain this to you?

OK, if there is no bias then everyone has an equal chance of progression - depending purely on their individual talents and qualities. If there is a skew towards one demographic as you rise through the ranks, that either shows that that demographic is inherently better suited to more senior roles or there is a bias.

If you don't believe there is a bias, what is it about men that makes them more suited to being CEOs? Or bankers? Or sewage workers?


Still waiting...

By the way, you missed out on one other factor - choice. People don't "choose" to become a CEO. They choose to aim to become a CEO, which requires a lot of hard work, sacrifice, selfishness and aptitude. Studies show that females in general are less selfish than men when it come to career matters. Plus of course many women choose to break their career to have children; it's harsh, but naturally any career break of that magnitude will negatively impact on a career path. Having made that choice, many people fall short of their aim to be a CEO. That's men and women. It's not because of their gender, it's a simple statistic.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 30-Jul-2019, 12:43*
It's worth trying again so I'll try.

The gender pay gap has zero to do with paying women a different amount for doing the same job as men - that's illegal already.

The gender pay gap isn't anything to do with women-only shortlists.

The gender pay gap is about opening up career pathways that previously haven't been open to women, have been discouraged for women, women haven't thought about -- for lots and lots of different reasons. Cultural, historical, self-limitation, external limitation, bias, or just choice.

If you think the gender pay gap means you can't pay a man more than a woman. You're wrong.
If you think the gender pay gap means you can't discriminate against women, or black people, or gay people - you're wrong. That's what long-standing legislation does.
If you think the gender pay gap is an argument for choosing someone less capable to do a job, you're also wrong.

Hope that helps.

Statistics can be useful but they aren't 100% proof of anything. The gender pay gap fails to take into account a multitude of factors - age, experience, qualification, track record, and of course luck. There may also be other factors in individual cases.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Gone on Monday 12-Aug-2019, 21:43*
Statistics can be useful but they aren't 100% proof of anything. The gender pay gap fails to take into account a multitude of factors - age, experience, qualification, track record, and of course luck. There may also be other factors in individual cases.

Statistics are literal 100% proof of a great many things. Thatís why they are statistics not just a guess.

The whole point of them in this case is that they support exactly the point of your argument.

In order to work out why women arenít getting into top jobs odd necessary to establish that it is in fact the case that they arenít.

All your points are what follows - why arenít they. The answer could be any one of the things you list on an individual basis.

But more potently one of those reasons may not be as uncontrollable as luck.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Saturday 17-Aug-2019, 17:29*
Still waiting...

By the way, you missed out on one other factor - choice. People don't "choose" to become a CEO. They choose to aim to become a CEO, which requires a lot of hard work, sacrifice, selfishness and aptitude. Studies show that females in general are less selfish than men when it come to career matters. Plus of course many women choose to break their career to have children; it's harsh, but naturally any career break of that magnitude will negatively impact on a career path. Having made that choice, many people fall short of their aim to be a CEO. That's men and women. It's not because of their gender, it's a simple statistic.


Apologies I rarely stray from the rugby section so only just seen this.

In what world do people not choose to be a CEO? I hadnít realised that they were all forced at gun point to accept the position.

As to your second point, surely you can see how you are undermining your own argument?

If women are generally less selfish than men, what is it about the respective biologies that makes that happen? And if itís not biological, Iíd argue itís social conditioning which perpetuates the cycle.

And studies also show that men would also like to break their career to look after children but again social conditioning says this is a womanís job - so both genders lose out; men in the family life, women in their careers.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Sunday 18-Aug-2019, 09:59*

Apologies I rarely stray from the rugby section so only just seen this.

In what world do people not choose to be a CEO? I hadnít realised that they were all forced at gun point to accept the position.

As to your second point, surely you can see how you are undermining your own argument?

If women are generally less selfish than men, what is it about the respective biologies that makes that happen? And if itís not biological, Iíd argue itís social conditioning which perpetuates the cycle.

And studies also show that men would also like to break their career to look after children but again social conditioning says this is a womanís job - so both genders lose out; men in the family life, women in their careers.

Women are generally different psychologically/hormonally, for a start. It's nature, not social conditioning. We live in an age when there is less conditioning than ever before.

Many people don't want to be a CEO. It can mean years of struggle and sacrifice, as well as dealing with corporate politics and more, all to deal with huge pressure and the risk of having to carry the can when others mess up. It's not for everyone.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Sunday 18-Aug-2019, 11:24*
Women are generally different psychologically/hormonally, for a start. It's nature, not social conditioning. We live in an age when there is less conditioning than ever before.

Many people don't want to be a CEO. It can mean years of struggle and sacrifice, as well as dealing with corporate politics and more, all to deal with huge pressure and the risk of having to carry the can when others mess up. It's not for everyone.

Just so Iím clear, are you claiming that it is differences in biology that mean that fewer women want to have the top job?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Sunday 18-Aug-2019, 11:35*
Sometimes on here it feels like a parallel universe where the social progression and equality movements of the last 30 years just didnít happen.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 20-Aug-2019, 09:56*
Just so Iím clear, are you claiming that it is differences in biology that mean that fewer women want to have the top job?

No.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 20-Aug-2019, 09:58*
Sometimes on here it feels like a parallel universe where the social progression and equality movements of the last 30 years just didnít happen.

Ah yes, equality. It's funny how people who preach equality often want to achieve it by enforcing inequality.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 16:08*
No.

OK because the way your two points are written, it came across to me that you are linking the biological differences between the genders with the fact that not everybody wants to be CEO.

So what do you believe is the reason only a small %age of FTSE CEOs are women?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 16:23*
OK because the way your two points are written, it came across to me that you are linking the biological differences between the genders with the fact that not everybody wants to be CEO.

So what do you believe is the reason only a small %age of FTSE CEOs are women?

Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are FTSE CEOs. Gender doesn't qualify anyone for the job. I don't have statistics, but I believe that more men than women have long, uninterrupted careers, which is certainly helpful when climbing the corporate ladder. Perhaps less women than men actually want the top jobs, who knows? It really isn't everyone's dream.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 17:32*
Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people are FTSE CEOs. Gender doesn't qualify anyone for the job. I don't have statistics, but I believe that more men than women have long, uninterrupted careers, which is certainly helpful when climbing the corporate ladder. Perhaps less women than men actually want the top jobs, who knows? It really isn't everyone's dream.

Forgive me, I'm trying to piece together what you have been saying across several posts/days. Am I right that you believe that:

There is no gender inequality
Women have just as much opportunity to reach the top of their profession as men
Anyone (whatever gender) who doesn't reach the highest level possible to them has chosen not to do so
More men want the top job than women (in the case of the FTSE, that would be 13x as many men)




Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Thursday 22-Aug-2019, 20:45*
Forgive me, I'm trying to piece together what you have been saying across several posts/days. Am I right that you believe that:

There is no gender inequality
Women have just as much opportunity to reach the top of their profession as men
Anyone (whatever gender) who doesn't reach the highest level possible to them has chosen not to do so
More men want the top job than women (in the case of the FTSE, that would be 13x as many men)






You're doing an interesting job of adding snippets and filling in gaps to try and summarise a position... and getting it wrong.

Let's make this easier - what is it that you think you want me to say? Then you can attack that position and feel like you've won a victory. I'll then see what point you're trying to make and see if I can agree with it, in whole or in part, or totally debunk it.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Friday 23-Aug-2019, 07:23*
You're doing an interesting job of adding snippets and filling in gaps to try and summarise a position... and getting it wrong.

Let's make this easier - what is it that you think you want me to say? Then you can attack that position and feel like you've won a victory. I'll then see what point you're trying to make and see if I can agree with it, in whole or in part, or totally debunk it.

And thatís exactly why I wanted to clarify. Not so that I can attack but to understand your point of view.

If I remember correctly, this conversation all began because we disagree as to whether there is a gender pay gap.

I think there is but am also aware that this belief is shaped by the information I (choose to) receive - some of which Iíve cited and youíve refuted.

Given my world view, it is hard for me to see how anybody wouldnít accept that there is a gap so I would appreciate you explaining how you came to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Friday 23-Aug-2019, 14:21*
And thatís exactly why I wanted to clarify. Not so that I can attack but to understand your point of view.

If I remember correctly, this conversation all began because we disagree as to whether there is a gender pay gap.

I think there is but am also aware that this belief is shaped by the information I (choose to) receive - some of which Iíve cited and youíve refuted.

Given my world view, it is hard for me to see how anybody wouldnít accept that there is a gap so I would appreciate you explaining how you came to that conclusion.

My view is that the data used to substantiate a gender pay gap is overly simplified. In essence, gender and pay. It fails to factor in such variables as age, experience, qualification, track record, aptitude etc. In some cases cited elsewhere on this board, there is also mention of marketability (celebrities, sports stars, media personalities). In essence, it's very difficult to find two people who match exactly but have different genders.

It's easy to say that a woman doing X job earns less than a man doing X job. That fails to take into account any of the variables above. It also fails to take into account that - perish the thought - one person might be better than the other, regardless of gender. What happens if two women do the same job and are paid differently? Would a man be able to demand the same pay as a woman if he really wasn't very good at a job, and the woman was excellent?

And here's another element to look at: people rush to highlight cases where men are believed to be earning more than women, but the silence when you see the reverse is astonishing. Surveys show that there are companies where statistics show men being paid less than women, but there is no criticism levelled there.

In fact, quick Google search shows just how misrepresentative some data is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-show-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more-than-women

This doesn't even take into account the jobs that people are doing, just the gender and the hourly rate of pay! As one company states, "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

To summarise, I agree that there is a pay gap between different people, and I believe there should be. I don't believe gender is a factor in this.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Friday 23-Aug-2019, 16:03*
My view is that the data used to substantiate a gender pay gap is overly simplified. In essence, gender and pay. It fails to factor in such variables as age, experience, qualification, track record, aptitude etc. In some cases cited elsewhere on this board, there is also mention of marketability (celebrities, sports stars, media personalities). In essence, it's very difficult to find two people who match exactly but have different genders.

It's easy to say that a woman doing X job earns less than a man doing X job. That fails to take into account any of the variables above. It also fails to take into account that - perish the thought - one person might be better than the other, regardless of gender. What happens if two women do the same job and are paid differently? Would a man be able to demand the same pay as a woman if he really wasn't very good at a job, and the woman was excellent?

And here's another element to look at: people rush to highlight cases where men are believed to be earning more than women, but the silence when you see the reverse is astonishing. Surveys show that there are companies where statistics show men being paid less than women, but there is no criticism levelled there.

In fact, quick Google search shows just how misrepresentative some data is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-show-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more-than-women

This doesn't even take into account the jobs that people are doing, just the gender and the hourly rate of pay! As one company states, "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

To summarise, I agree that there is a pay gap between different people, and I believe there should be. I don't believe gender is a factor in this.

I think we agree on your last paragraph. Nobody has advocated for pay rises based purely on gender. However where I believe there is an issue (again based on the information I've been given) is that "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

On a micro level, I agree that we have hopefully advanced somewhat from "she can't do that job" in most cases but nevertheless in my opinion it is wrong that these (higher salaried) roles are weighted so heavily towards men. On paper there is equal opportunity but for whatever reason there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics. And this starts early - way before careers are chosen.

In the same vein, in the thread about Ugo, there has never been anything stopping people from BAME backgrounds from playing rugby but it is much harder to plough a new furrow. If we don't see BAME players at the top of the game (or female CEOs or male nannies) then it is less likely that these options will be considered.

Somebody has to buck the trend somewhere to achieve the ideal goal we both seem to aim for - complete impartial selection. For me, the pay gap is a symptom of the problem and requires a long term solution. Just promoting people to balance the books (whether women into leadership roles or BAME players into a world cup squad) solves the short-term issue but is counter-productive. If they fail, they add more weight to the arguments against trying again.

On a final point, neither age, experience nor qualification should ever be used to set somebody's pay/level. Track record (i.e. performance) and aptitude should be the only measures. Just because somebody is older, holds more qualifications or has been doing a job longer doesn't automatically make them better.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Friday 23-Aug-2019, 16:48*
I think we agree on your last paragraph. Nobody has advocated for pay rises based purely on gender. However where I believe there is an issue (again based on the information I've been given) is that "81% of male employees were directors, doctors or in IT, most of whom fell into the upper salary quartile".

On a micro level, I agree that we have hopefully advanced somewhat from "she can't do that job" in most cases but nevertheless in my opinion it is wrong that these (higher salaried) roles are weighted so heavily towards men. On paper there is equal opportunity but for whatever reason there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics. And this starts early - way before careers are chosen.

In the same vein, in the thread about Ugo, there has never been anything stopping people from BAME backgrounds from playing rugby but it is much harder to plough a new furrow. If we don't see BAME players at the top of the game (or female CEOs or male nannies) then it is less likely that these options will be considered.

Somebody has to buck the trend somewhere to achieve the ideal goal we both seem to aim for - complete impartial selection. For me, the pay gap is a symptom of the problem and requires a long term solution. Just promoting people to balance the books (whether women into leadership roles or BAME players into a world cup squad) solves the short-term issue but is counter-productive. If they fail, they add more weight to the arguments against trying again.

On a final point, neither age, experience nor qualification should ever be used to set somebody's pay/level. Track record (i.e. performance) and aptitude should be the only measures. Just because somebody is older, holds more qualifications or has been doing a job longer doesn't automatically make them better.

I agree with your final point. I believe these are as relevant (in most cases) as gender. There are exceptions of course - certain professions (examples off the top my head - law, medicine, structural engineering) MAY see a benefit from higher qualifications.

The first example you quote is one company, and the example was quoted to see how easily the statistics can be skewed. In that particular company they also state another interesting statistic: "However, of Careís highest paid quartile, 70% are female, suggesting that women are able to progress their careers to our most senior roles." So, most of the higher earners are women - does that hint at men having a lack of opportunities? No. It's purely the way the dice has rolled for that company.

You mention that "there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics". I recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's comments in relation to Sweden. It's said to be the world's most advanced country in terms of equality and they really push freedom of choice. The outcome is that women and men do opt towards what might be considered typical male and female careers. That's without peer pressure or any kind of social conditioning. But let's face it, as much as SJWs call for more female CEOs' you will never hear them calling for more female coal miners or sewage workers. It seems their version of "equality" is only for the nicer things.

On the subject of BAME players in rugby, why do you think there are hardly any players in the Premiership from Asian/Indian backgrounds? I grew up in an area of extremely high Asian population, and very few of my schoolfriends from that demographic wanted to play rugby. They absolutely (in the main) loved hockey and cricket, and were the mainstay of the school teams. When offered the chance, they simply didn't want to play rugby. Personally I never tried hockey and was useless at cricket, so I chose rugby. I could easily have said that it was harder for me to play cricket as it was primarily Asian boys playing it, but that wouldn't be true. It's all about choice.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Friday 23-Aug-2019, 19:21*
I agree with your final point. I believe these are as relevant (in most cases) as gender. There are exceptions of course - certain professions (examples off the top my head - law, medicine, structural engineering) MAY see a benefit from higher qualifications.

<<Sorry but no. The qualifications mean that those people *should* be better at their job (especially if the qualification is achieved through practical rather than academic routes) but canít in and of themselves mean that somebody *is* better at their job (and therefore worthy of greater pay).>>

The first example you quote is one company, and the example was quoted to see how easily the statistics can be skewed. In that particular company they also state another interesting statistic: "However, of Careís highest paid quartile, 70% are female, suggesting that women are able to progress their careers to our most senior roles." So, most of the higher earners are women - does that hint at men having a lack of opportunities? No. It's purely the way the dice has rolled for that company.

<<In one company yes it is possible for stats to be skewed but the pay gap stats are aggregated and show an average. Iíd believe that to be a more accurate picture. I have used the FTSE100 as an example but in reality it is too small a sample size. Last I heard however there were more people called Dave who were CEO of a FTSE business than there were women.>>

You mention that "there are still roles which are stereotypically biased towards certain demographics". I recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's comments in relation to Sweden. It's said to be the world's most advanced country in terms of equality and they really push freedom of choice. The outcome is that women and men do opt towards what might be considered typical male and female careers. That's without peer pressure or any kind of social conditioning.

<<Sorry but there is no such thing as ďno social conditioningĒ. Unless they are banning most Disney films from before Toy Story for starters.>>

But let's face it, as much as SJWs call for more female CEOs' you will never hear them calling for more female coal miners or sewage workers. It seems their version of "equality" is only for the nicer things.

<<Not at all. There is a push for women to be allowed on the front line - hardly a ďniceĒ job.

On the subject of BAME players in rugby, why do you think there are hardly any players in the Premiership from Asian/Indian backgrounds? I grew up in an area of extremely high Asian population, and very few of my schoolfriends from that demographic wanted to play rugby. They absolutely (in the main) loved hockey and cricket, and were the mainstay of the school teams. When offered the chance, they simply didn't want to play rugby. Personally I never tried hockey and was useless at cricket, so I chose rugby. I could easily have said that it was harder for me to play cricket as it was primarily Asian boys playing it, but that wouldn't be true. It's all about choice.

<<Likewise I grew up in a very heavily S Asian area (as in all the council signage was in English, Urdu and Gujarati) and I agree I donít think Iíve ever played with an S Asian teammate. There was also a large Jewish population at my school and I donít remember those boys playing rugby either.

But that supports my point. With no role models to emulate, it was a bigger step to be the unusual member of that demographic who bucked the trend. Easier just to do what everybody else in your community does.

You call that choice. I say that choice is shaped by the world around you.


Which is why I never became the primo ballerino I was clearly born to be 🤣>>

Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Tuesday 27-Aug-2019, 13:32*


Some interesting points, not least that you "could" have been the next Billy Elliott! :)

Iwon't go into the whole qualifications issue - that's another topic that can go on!

I think it's over-analysed whether women are CEOs of FTSE100 companies. There may well be a whole load of women who are capable but don't get the top jobs; there are also men who are capable that also don't get the top jobs. At present there are more men than women, but the landscape changes and evolves - the likelihood is that most CEOs will have worked their way to the top (as they should) and women now have the same opportunities as men to do so - that's enshrined in law. What should be noted is that simply being a woman doesn't make a person more or less capable of being a CEO, so the gender factor is irrelevant. Unless there is proof that a woman has been turned down for a CEO position BECAUSE she's a woman, it's just supposition and conspiracy theory at best, and a weak excuse at worst. It smacks of an Ali G type approach. Or worse, and Ali Desai approach (worth Googling).

Being on the front line clearly does appeal to some people.But again, I'm yet to see or hear of a feminist pushing for more females in coal mines, or cleaning sewers. Or scaffolding - when did you last see a female scaffolder, let alone a team of scaffolders with 50% females.

I think you make an interesting point about role models, but I think you give it too much weight. I doubt whether Asian kids turn there nose up at football because Beckham or Ronaldo or whoever is not Asian; in the same way I don't believe that many Korean kids suddenly took up football when there emerged a few well-known Korean footballers. More likely the attraction with football is the perceived fame, stardom, wealth etc.

The community influence is more of an issue. I remember some Asian friends inviting me to the local hockey club (they did a great curry) and nearly everyone there was Asian. But I think the community influence is more to push kids towards a specific sport, rather than away from a specific sport. That's my take on it.

My point remains - anyone can play rugby, they just have to want to.

Good luck with the pas de deux and the pliets :)
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Wednesday 28-Aug-2019, 10:10*
Some interesting points, not least that you "could" have been the next Billy Elliott! :)

Iwon't go into the whole qualifications issue - that's another topic that can go on!

I think it's over-analysed whether women are CEOs of FTSE100 companies. There may well be a whole load of women who are capable but don't get the top jobs; there are also men who are capable that also don't get the top jobs.

<<I guess using the CEOs of FTSE companies is an easy shorthand for the wider picture; not least as the fact there are 100 makes calculating percentages very easy!

As things stand however, there are more Daves who are CEOs of FTSE100 companies than there are women. What is about the name Dave that makes you a better CEO than c.50% of the population?!?>>

At present there are more men than women, but the landscape changes and evolves - the likelihood is that most CEOs will have worked their way to the top (as they should) and women now have the same opportunities as men to do so - that's enshrined in law.

<<By and large, people have a tendency to hire (and promote) clones of themselves so a vicious circle is created where the same types of people consistently make it to the top. Hence the rise of blind profiling for job applicants and training in unconscious bias.>>

What should be noted is that simply being a woman doesn't make a person more or less capable of being a CEO, so the gender factor is irrelevant.

Unless there is proof that a woman has been turned down for a CEO position BECAUSE she's a woman, it's just supposition and conspiracy theory at best, and a weak excuse at worst. It smacks of an Ali G type approach. Or worse, and Ali Desai approach (worth Googling).

<<Freakonomics ran a series of podcasts last year about CEOs and one episode looked at the lack of females in the role. What I took from that was that women are more likely to be offered a CEO role when a company is in trouble Ė basically a last roll of the dice when all other options fail.>>

Being on the front line clearly does appeal to some people.But again, I'm yet to see or hear of a feminist pushing for more females in coal mines, or cleaning sewers. Or scaffolding - when did you last see a female scaffolder, let alone a team of scaffolders with 50% females.

<<I would say that the lack of female scaffolders merely proves my point Ė you canít be what you canít see. Exactly the same for the lack of male nannies or primary school teachers (my kidsí school has no male teachers Ė except the HeadÖ)>>

I think you make an interesting point about role models, but I think you give it too much weight. I doubt whether Asian kids turn there nose up at football because Beckham or Ronaldo or whoever is not Asian; in the same way I don't believe that many Korean kids suddenly took up football when there emerged a few well-known Korean footballers. More likely the attraction with football is the perceived fame, stardom, wealth etc.

The community influence is more of an issue. I remember some Asian friends inviting me to the local hockey club (they did a great curry) and nearly everyone there was Asian. But I think the community influence is more to push kids towards a specific sport, rather than away from a specific sport. That's my take on it.

<<ďRole modelsĒ is perhaps the wrong phrase as that has connotations of behaviour. ďExamplesĒ would be more accurate. If football is attractive because of the possibility of fame, wealth, etc, I would guess that would appeal to all demographics Ė certainly I canít think of a group that actively avoids those possibilities.

Despite this, I canít think of a British-Asian player making to a Premier League team. I would however guess that Tiger Woods made golf more engaging for the black community. Likewise, Lewis Hamilton for motor racing.

Put it this way. Think of two blokes, both went to public school. One is 196cm, 110kg. The other is 195cm, 115kg.

Which one plays rugby to an international level and which one rows in the Olympics? From that information, most would struggle to know.

The first guy is white, the second black.

Now, most people would (I would suggest) guess that the white guy rows. Whoís ever heard of a black rower?

Theyíre Pinsent and Itoje, by the way. I reckon with his size and athleticism, Maro would have been a decent oarsman.>>

My point remains - anyone can play rugby, they just have to want to.

<<They also have to have rugby (rowing, nannying, scaffolding, being CEO, whatever) presented as a possible option.>>

Good luck with the pas de deux and the pliets :)

Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Thursday 29-Aug-2019, 13:09*
The difficulty with taking a snapshot is that it's only relative at that point in time. Too many Daves as CEOs? How many should there be? The most popular boy's name in England is (apparently) Mohammed - should there be more Mo's than Daves as CEOs? Or should we look at how they work as opposed to what their parents called them?

I don't buy into the whole "people hire others who look like them". That's been said in my industry, where the claim is there are "too many" male directors (yes, that again), although the industry is over 70% female. Funny old clones these men have been hiring.

What I take from your quote about Freakonomics is that women are being offered jobs as CEOs. The question is, do they accept those jobs? If they don't and a man subsequently gets offered the job and takes it, that rather tips the whole "bias" argument on its head.

I can't think of any British Asian (what exactly does that mean?) player in a premier league team. I would suggest that there are a disproportionate number of British Asians working as doctors, dentists, solicitors etc. Now, my own tale on this from school days is that whilst the rest of us kids were messing around, couldn't wait to get out of school ad hang around with our mates, man of the Asian kids went home and their parents had them working hard on schoolwork. The reason explained to me was that the parents came to the UK and did low paid, less pleasant jobs, and they wanted better for their kids. And how it worked!Most of the Asian kids at my school went into well paid, professional careers, and good luck to them. However, if this situation were reversed, I imagine it would be deemed as evidence that Asian kids had less opportunities.

Maro Itoje is an interesting example. I'd say he could also have been a great decathlete, or maybe chef, or maybe accountant, or surgeon, or panel beater - but he chose rugby, and only he knows why. Maro is a strong character and a phenomenal athlete - I sense he'd have taken up rowing if he'd wanted to.  Matt Pinsent also played rugby I believe, at Marlow RFC. By all accounts he was a pretty useful number 8.

I was at a school with a few athletes who achieved great things in their chosen sports. One was a hammer thrower. I never had the opportunity to throw the hammer. Or rather, I never had it presented to me on a plate, but then I also didn't go out to find the opportunity. I didn't want to - that's all that stopped me trying. Of all the people I ever knew, only one threw the hammer. How would statistics portray that?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Thursday 29-Aug-2019, 17:29*
With respect, I didnít say that there are too many Daves. I said that there are more CEOs called Dave than there are female CEOs. And yes if there is no discrimination (whether conscious or unconscious) then there should be more CEOs (and indeed everything else) called Mohammed than there are Dave; simply by virtue of the available pool being larger.

Again, what I said was ďhire (and promote) clones of themselvesĒ. If your industry is 70% female, I would hope that there is a similar ratio of female directors to male. My suspicion given you talk of too many male directors is that there are more male directors than female.

That can only suggest that something has either encouraged women not to go for the director roles, prevented them from getting the director roles or made them unsuitable for the director roles.

You have argued itís all down to their choice and for some it will be. However, I donít believe that womenís choices alone can turn a 70:30 ratio of all employees into a greater than 50:50 ratio in favour of male directors.

The take out from the Freakonimics show was that women were being Ö essentially set up to fail. You can read transcript or listen yourself at http://freakonomics.com/podcast/glass-cliff/ - better yet, subscribe. They have some good stuff.

But yes if a woman is finally given the opportunity to interview for a CEO role and is (unusually) offered it and then turns the offer down, then a man accepting the role would unfairly look like bias.

On the one hand, youíre claiming that any perceived bias is actually the result of choices the individual makes. On the other youíre saying that the kids in your own school were encouraged to follow one path or another. Thatís exactly my point! Their ďchoicesĒ are totally shaped by what they see on both a micro (what your parents tell you to do) and macro (what you see in the world at large) level.

So kids of Asian ethnicity are growing up in your school being told to shun sport in favour of academic work. As they get older you saw those within the Asian community who wanted to play sport took up cricket and hockey Ė not because anybody told them to do so but (I would argue) because those were the sports they saw other similar people (both locally and in the media) playing.

Likewise, poorer black kids from Battersea or Bristol havenít naturally gravitated to rugby Ė itís a game for private school and (until recently) mainly white boys. Messrs Sinckler and Genge show that those boys can get to the top of the game so I (and Ugo it seems) would hope that drives participation.
Think of football. In 1978 Viv Anderson was the first black man to win a senior England cap. The current squad of 25 has 13 black/mixed race players. It would be much harder for those guys to see a path to playing for England (and indeed for the coaches to select them) had others not forged the path over the last 40 years.

My point wasnít that Maro chose not to row, nor that Pinsent did. Itís that both have the physical attributes to do it, and the opportunity. They had similar education yet I (and Iíd guess most people) would be surprised to see Maro in a boat. If he had chosen than route and ended up in the Boat Race or Olympics, Iím fairly sure there would have been a lot of media coverage purely because of his ethnicity.

With regard to you throwing the hammer, again I think youíre agreeing with me. Although you had a friend who enjoyed the sport, ďonly one threw the hammerĒ so by definition it was an unusual pastime Ė Iím assuming you had more than one friend in total!

If the sport wasnít ďpresented to [you] on a plateĒ it is unlikely that you (or anybody) would ďgo out to find the opportunityĒ. Somebody has to normalise the decision (be that a sport/hobby or a career/promotion choice) by being the person bold enough to go first.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Friday 30-Aug-2019, 13:07*
I think one big problem is the very definition of "equality". Whilst you make some good points, you seem to be looking at statistics and focusing very much on the law of averages (esp the Dave/Mohammed point). I'd suggest that many people who aspire to be, and achieve the goal of becoming a CEO are not average people. Similarly, the UK is not made up of 50% black / mixed race people, so surely the statistic regarding the England football team with more than 50% from this demographic should also be questioned? Sadly, the general media approach to such things is to celebrate it as an achievement, whilst criticising it if the balance if it's the other way. I say "sadly" because it detracts totally from the skill and hard work put in by the players in question.

I believe that in the modern age businesses can't get away with simply promoting people that they like or know, there's simply too much scrutiny. Yes, there will be exceptions, but not at a FTSE100 company. These businesses have shareholders to placate and they rely upon results, so the best person has to be hired. That's not to say they always get it right, but then some people thought The Beatles would come to nothing.

My industry is 70%+ female, but there are more males than females at board level - at the moment. That's because it's a young industry and many companies are still being run by the founders. What does interest me though is that the people who are calling for more female board members (in the interests of "equality") are doing absolutely nothing to recruit more males at any level; it seems "equality" only works one way.

You mention women being offered roles where they're set up to fail; if that role is subsequently taken by a man, the same applies. This skews the occasionally mentioned statistic that companies with women on the board tend to be more successful than those without. Is it OK to say that's because women don't take on the more difficult roles? I don't think so, but you see how such statistics can be twisted to suit a narrative. No CEO role is easy - that's why there are less people seeking them.

Back to the question of "equality". What does it mean to you? It's not a trick question; more an interest which may explain our different opinions on some aspects of this issue.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Friday 30-Aug-2019, 16:25*
Not so much using stats but certainly I do have a habit of using examples to back up my point.

I agree that CEOs (or team captains or an leaders) are a particular type of person but that still comes back to the question of why that is more likely to be a man. Likewise, why are the founders of the businesses in your industry all men?

I (have been led to) believe that it is largely because society has encouraged men to lead while women should be meek and mild. Moreover, the narrative would continue that this arrangement is detrimental to everybody.

I do see your point about the football team and would agree that in a perfect world any cohort of a sufficient size should exactly match the total population. That would show that there are no barriers to entry/progression so to answer your later question that is my idea of true equality.

I fully appreciate that this is an unlikely ideal but where there are glaring differences, I think we as a society should work to close the gaps.

A squad of 25 is probably too small to be representative but we can look at why we have historically had so few black goalkeepers playing for England. Or apparently so few gay sportsmen. Perhaps there truly is some unseen inverse correlation between the ability to kick a ball and being gay <<sarcasm>>.

I wish I shared your view that favouritism doesnít happen but working in recruitment I can tell you it certainly does. Ageism is rife (both ways). Until recently, men asking for flexibility to look after children were seen as ridiculous. Women returning from a break for childcare are (thankfully now less) ignored. There is no way (at any level) that the best person is always hired.

Not sure if you read/listened to the Freakonomics show but the crux was that women are no just brought in as CEO when a company is failing but that they are not given the time/support to fix the issues that a man would be given. As a result, companies can say they tried a woman but it didnít work so the (unconscious) bias is perpetuated.

I donít believe that there is a correlation per say between appointing female Board members and success. However, I do believe that having as many diverse voices allows companies to make more rounded decisions. Also a company which regularly includes minority groups in their decision making is probably more progressive and open-minded which can lead to more innovative thinking.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Saturday 31-Aug-2019, 08:54*
Again, some interesting points, some of which I can see the validity of and some which I wouldn't agree with.

Seeking an equal balance (as the football example follows) is, in my opinion, unrealistic and detrimental. It totally overrides the elements of choice and luck. I have no idea why there have been so few black goalkeepers, but I think we both agree that there are no barriers to black players in football. I'd say it's choice, and luck (for the players who have the skill and aptitude to play in goal).

Let's turn this on its head. Why are there less white basketball players? Or sprinters? I recall studies suggesting that black muscle mass leans towards more fast twitch muscle fibres, which may be a factor, if it's true. But the only thing that should matter is ability and performance. How would standards drop if there had to be equal representation?

Looking at my industry, some of the most powerful figures are women. There isn't equal representation but what would it achieve if, for example, extremely capable people were replaced with less capable people, just to balance numbers?

Why are there more male business owners? It's just the way that the cookie crumbled, but it's also changing. Many females are starting businesses, but it takes time to grow, establish, and reach the top tier. Maybe historically men have been bigger risk takers, but history can't be changed and to try and forcefully fix the landscape now would be dangerous. Evolution is how change should happen, otherwise who decides when the balance is right? And why should there be an exact balance?

I'd suggest listening to the talks given by Jordan Peterson on this, and and other aspects of equality. He soundly debunks the feminist agenda and in so doing offers a wholly different perspective on equality, citing research and examples.

By the way, it's good to have a civil discussion and to exchange opposing opinions without the usual escalation into abuse and vitriol. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Saturday 31-Aug-2019, 11:35*
Again, some interesting points, some of which I can see the validity of and some which I wouldn't agree with.

Seeking an equal balance (as the football example follows) is, in my opinion, unrealistic and detrimental. It totally overrides the elements of choice and luck. I have no idea why there have been so few black goalkeepers, but I think we both agree that there are no barriers to black players in football. I'd say it's choice, and luck (for the players who have the skill and aptitude to play in goal).

Let's turn this on its head. Why are there less white basketball players? Or sprinters? I recall studies suggesting that black muscle mass leans towards more fast twitch muscle fibres, which may be a factor, if it's true. But the only thing that should matter is ability and performance. How would standards drop if there had to be equal representation?

Looking at my industry, some of the most powerful figures are women. There isn't equal representation but what would it achieve if, for example, extremely capable people were replaced with less capable people, just to balance numbers?

Why are there more male business owners? It's just the way that the cookie crumbled, but it's also changing. Many females are starting businesses, but it takes time to grow, establish, and reach the top tier. Maybe historically men have been bigger risk takers, but history can't be changed and to try and forcefully fix the landscape now would be dangerous. Evolution is how change should happen, otherwise who decides when the balance is right? And why should there be an exact balance?

I'd suggest listening to the talks given by Jordan Peterson on this, and and other aspects of equality. He soundly debunks the feminist agenda and in so doing offers a wholly different perspective on equality, citing research and examples.

By the way, it's good to have a civil discussion and to exchange opposing opinions without the usual escalation into abuse and vitriol. Thanks for that.

Just so Iím 100% clear, I am no advocate of quota systems or artificially altering demographics. For any role, a competent person has to be selected.

Iíve long been an advocate that you change the demographic at the top by changing it at the bottom and letting that change filter through.

I would also reiterate that any choice we make is shaped by the world we live in.

I share your belief that there are some biological reasons why certain demographics excel in certain fields (such as the fast twitch fibres helping sprinters and low oxygen levels helping distance runners). But I canít see a biological reason why men would take greater risks.

I *can* see a societal norm that men are risk takers and women are meant to be more risk averse.

Iíve read a couple of interviews with Peterson and to be frank found him abhorrent. Fully prepared to see however that thatís probably because he challenged my world view. And also those of the magazines the interviews featured in.

Iíd also add that we arenít just discussing the feminist agenda. Most of the subjects we have discussed impacts all minorities negatively.

I think we can both agree that weíre not going to change one anotherís mind but a good debate is always fun!
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Thursday 05-Sep-2019, 07:02*
So hereís a real life example that may or may not concern the ďPC Gone MadĒ brigade.

We were flying back to London yesterday and my 3 year old saw 3 airline crew standing by the door as we were leaving the plane. He pointed at the man and said ďthatís the captainĒ.

My wife talked to him about it when we left the plane and said why did he think one of the women wasnít the captain - and he was dead sure - only the man could be the captain/pilot.

Where does this come from? Not us for sure...But somewhere ingrained.

It made me think about the importance to f equal representation on TV and childrenís books and that perhaps it all isnít such a trivial matter after all.  Food for thought...
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Friday 06-Sep-2019, 06:43*
So hereís a real life example that may or may not concern the ďPC Gone MadĒ brigade.

We were flying back to London yesterday and my 3 year old saw 3 airline crew standing by the door as we were leaving the plane. He pointed at the man and said ďthatís the captainĒ.

My wife talked to him about it when we left the plane and said why did he think one of the women wasnít the captain - and he was dead sure - only the man could be the captain/pilot.

Where does this come from? Not us for sure...But somewhere ingrained.

It made me think about the importance to f equal representation on TV and childrenís books and that perhaps it all isnít such a trivial matter after all.  Food for thought...

Equal representation is not a great idea, in my opinion. There could be many reasons for thinking the man is the pilot. Three year old kids might not be able to articulate very well that a captain has a different uniform, or that they only saw females serving drinks, or any other reason apart from gender.

A far bigger problem is automatically assuming it was gender, as opposed to appreciating that your son was right.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Friday 06-Sep-2019, 08:56*
Equal representation is not a great idea, in my opinion. There could be many reasons for thinking the man is the pilot. Three year old kids might not be able to articulate very well that a captain has a different uniform, or that they only saw females serving drinks, or any other reason apart from gender.

A far bigger problem is automatically assuming it was gender, as opposed to appreciating that your son was right.

Garbage. He was wrong. The man was also a flight attendant agreeing the same style of uniform as the women. It was all about gender and what has been assimilated from nursery and books. Little girls of the same age have openly said they can be nurses but not doctors. Itís the same situation.

I donít know how into childrenís literature you are but itís a big problem. Read books of 20-30 plus years ago and the everyday sexism is awful and cringe worthy. Modern day books are a lot better but itís still there. And thatís only about gender. Try race, disability etc etc.

This about kids, not adults that should know better. Society should not impose such prejudices and life limiting things in them from such an early age.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Friday 06-Sep-2019, 13:57*
Garbage. He was wrong. The man was also a flight attendant agreeing the same style of uniform as the women. It was all about gender and what has been assimilated from nursery and books. Little girls of the same age have openly said they can be nurses but not doctors. Itís the same situation.

I donít know how into childrenís literature you are but itís a big problem. Read books of 20-30 plus years ago and the everyday sexism is awful and cringe worthy. Modern day books are a lot better but itís still there. And thatís only about gender. Try race, disability etc etc.

This about kids, not adults that should know better. Society should not impose such prejudices and life limiting things in them from such an early age.

Garbage? Great discussion technique.

I suppose your three year old looked you in the eye and said "pater, don't be obtuse. Of course the man is the captain, because women should know their place, and they're lucky to be allowed out to do do menial tasks. Vive le patriarchy."

Maybe your analysis itself is garbage.

Maybe your initial little anecdote is itself garbage.

We'll never know.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: guest257 on Friday 06-Sep-2019, 18:06*
You incorrectly imposed your own views and assumptions on the situation I described. Thatís the garbage.

I donít have the imagination to make such a thing up, so youíll all have to take my word that these events really have happened in the world I share with young children.

It is your choice whether or not you accept the implications of bigoted/racist/sexist representations, albeit in some cases subtle, on the outlook and behaviour of children. I see it more first hand because of my family situation, and what I see does concern me a bit. If you choose to have a different view or interpret the evidence differently, thatís fine - Iím just calling out what I see and experience, as relevant to this discussion.
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Yareet on Saturday 07-Sep-2019, 09:58*
You incorrectly imposed your own views and assumptions on the situation I described. Thatís the garbage.

I donít have the imagination to make such a thing up, so youíll all have to take my word that these events really have happened in the world I share with young children.

It is your choice whether or not you accept the implications of bigoted/racist/sexist representations, albeit in some cases subtle, on the outlook and behaviour of children. I see it more first hand because of my family situation, and what I see does concern me a bit. If you choose to have a different view or interpret the evidence differently, thatís fine - Iím just calling out what I see and experience, as relevant to this discussion.

Alex, in Quinksí defence, your original post didnít clarify that it was three cabin crew - just three airline crew.

I can see why somebody could assume that the man *may* be dressed differently (and therefore more obviously a pilot).
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Monday 09-Sep-2019, 14:26*
Alex, in Quinksí defence, your original post didnít clarify that it was three cabin crew - just three airline crew.

I can see why somebody could assume that the man *may* be dressed differently (and therefore more obviously a pilot).

I always find that you can tell what type of person you're trying to have a discussion with, by howthey deal with opposing views.

There are those who read your points, may not agree with them, and go on to offer a counter-argument or alternative viewpoint; they also open one's mind to things that one might not be aware of.

Then there are those who shout "GARBAGE!!" They're the type who have socially and politically aware three year olds who can discuss ingrained concepts of gender superiority, when most three year olds are still trying to eat crayons. Allegedly.

Incidentally, I always laugh when "Garbage" (or some other such comment) is immediately followed by other "new" details that conveniently counter whatever has just been said. Something like "Garbage! My three year old happens to have studied airline uniforms since he was an embryo".

To those who believe in reincarnation, did you ever wonder what happened to Hans Christian Andersen?
Title: Re: Equality Issues
Post by: Quinky on Monday 09-Sep-2019, 14:40*
Just so Iím 100% clear, I am no advocate of quota systems or artificially altering demographics. For any role, a competent person has to be selected.

Iíve long been an advocate that you change the demographic at the top by changing it at the bottom and letting that change filter through.

I would also reiterate that any choice we make is shaped by the world we live in.

I share your belief that there are some biological reasons why certain demographics excel in certain fields (such as the fast twitch fibres helping sprinters and low oxygen levels helping distance runners). But I canít see a biological reason why men would take greater risks.

I *can* see a societal norm that men are risk takers and women are meant to be more risk averse.

Iíve read a couple of interviews with Peterson and to be frank found him abhorrent. Fully prepared to see however that thatís probably because he challenged my world view. And also those of the magazines the interviews featured in.

Iíd also add that we arenít just discussing the feminist agenda. Most of the subjects we have discussed impacts all minorities negatively.

I think we can both agree that weíre not going to change one anotherís mind but a good debate is always fun!

I don't think people should try to change the minds of others; it's better to open people's minds and give them a wider perspective, then see if new views and opinions formulate. Trying to forcefully change someone's mind never works, and usually has the opposite effect.

My mind hasn't changed, but I have gleaned some new points and views which have made me look at things in a different light. Also, we seem to agree on some fundamental points, and that's very important.

At least we didn't try to shut each other down by shouting "GARBAGE!!!"!