|
One rule. Best person for the job. The end. To drive for gender equality ignores the prime goal of the candidate selection process. The BEST person for the job, no matter what their gender, should be the successful candidate. I'd be happy with all female staff if they were the best candidates, and likewise all male. However, available candidates at a given time will be a mix, and applicants who do not meet the criteria won't be considered. A more even balance carried out professionally over the coming decades might occur...or might not. To settle for less than the best does not provide the best outcome. |
Originally Posted by Orange future
(Post 9856582)
Not difficult to comprehend at all, it’s very much the case that women don’t see airline flying as a viable career of choice. The two questions that arise are firstly why and secondly what can be done about it.
All for removing any barriers for women with sufficient interest and ability and even double-checking before picking a man "out of habit" or because of homophily. But stubbornly negating gender differences and attributing them to pure socialization/discrimination is simply an incorrect premise leading to flawed initiatives. |
Good article, with even coverage of both sides of the argument Armchairflyer.
my bold In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect. Population differences in interest may be part of the explanation for why there are fewer women in the applicant pool, but the women who choose to enter the pool are just as capable as the larger number of men in the pool. This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and discouragement exist and contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed in future generations. |
The whole concept is discriminatory in favour of both males and females. What about all those people whose gender falls somewhere in between?
|
What about all those people whose gender falls somewhere in between |
What about a quota for us &!!##! Tourette's Syndrome victims? I promise I won't swear over the f*#*ing PA.
|
I'm not sure there's anyone, apart from HR, (but they live in a parallel universe totally separated from reality) men or women who think it's a good idea.
Obviously the men are clearly discriminated against on the basis of their gender. The women, on the other hand, who are advantaged by this policy, will always be stigmatised as people who only got the job because of their gender. The sad thing is many of these women would have made it in their chosen profession purely on their own merits and abilities. Sadly, they'll be forever tarred with the same brush. This, and other HR thought bubbles, are a classic example of what happens when academics have free reign. HR parasites spew forth from universities without an iota of real world experience. Everything they know has been taught to them by academics, regurgitated from text books written by other academics. It's a complete farce. Most of them only did HR degrees because they had no drive or ambition to make anything worthwhile of their useless lives anyway. Finished their HSC and their parents told them to get out and get a job or go to uni. HR was the easiest option. Ever want to see what the end game is? Have a look at the public school system in this country. A system run by hard left fruit cake academic women, pushing their leftist ideology where knowing the name of your local aboriginal tribe is more important than learning how to read. That system is a completely unworkable mess. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what will happen in any industry that doesn't realise what harm HR and their lunatic nonsense is doing. |
Jeez calm down mate.
Before we go off on rants and burst our blood vessels, is there any evidence that women are actually being recruited to airlines in higher percentages than there are female pilots in total? Yes I know there are initiatives to encourage more women into aviation, but is JQ or any other company actually giving jobs preferentially to females? A post earlier on in this thread suggests that they aren't? I reckon the amount of new recruits at my company is roughly in proportion to the amount of females vs males I see at flying schools these days. |
dr. dre, "the evidence" will be texts, emails and recordings of conversations within HR to the effect that the KPI to be achieved by HR is 50% gender split in recruited pilot numbers. This information MAY be discovered in a lawsuit.
The way this comes about is Board level conversations: "Hey Bro, wouldn't it be good for our market positioning if we were hip, cool and LGBT friendly starting with pilots and cabin crew? And wouldn't that differentiate us from Qantas?". "Yeah man, and that would make us cool with all that diversity **** going down with government as well". "OK HR Department, take us in that direction"......And shortly you will get a puff piece in the Fairfax press about a couple of girls (Sarah and Julie) piloting a Jetstar B737 with an "incidental" paragraph about their partners (Susan and Elizabeth) and how great everything is. It's called virtue signalling. HR KPI achieved! If you are male, white and your intended employer is talking about "diversity" then don't bother applying for a job. To put that another way, its worse. If you are LGBT you are employable in preference to a heterosexual white male. |
is JQ or any other company actually giving jobs preferentially to females? |
That document is unbelievable. How does anyone swallow that tripe? Unfortunately, I believe Defence has...
FINDING: Female pilots have positive views about the reduced ROSO RECOMMENDATION: Continue to implement the reduced ROSO for all female pilots ROSO = Return of Service Obligation I bet they bloody like it! |
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
(Post 9865743)
It's not the airlines, but have a good look at this (particularly the recommendations pp. 11-20): http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/D..._Documents.pdf
To actually state that they aim to instigate a "no fail" policy for females illustrates just how ridiculous this gender diversity nonsense can get. Instead of reaching a required standard, you're given more flying and are only scrubbed after extensive extra coaching, mentoring and training and then only under exceptional circumstances. What would happen in the hypothetical situation where a female pilot is sent solo, against the wishes of her instructor and after significant additional flying/coaching/mentoring because the instructor is pressured to do so? This hypothetical "pilot" then rolls it into a ball on the threshold and kills herself. Who's responsible? Don't get me wrong. If the women reach the same standard set for the men to achieve then they absolutely deserve to be there. Lowering the hurdles for women only does nothing to help anybody. Including the women involved. |
How accurate can the report be when this is within its introduction.
Qantas is about to recruit pilots into its workforce after decades of a recruitment freeze. The training system must be adapted to accommodate different learners, learning styles and timelines for learning. |
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 9866159)
How accurate can the report be when this is within its introduction.
Quote: Qantas is about to recruit pilots into its workforce after decades of a recruitment freeze. Qantas didn't recruit between January 2008 and August 2016. 8 1/2 years hardly constitutes 'decades'. |
When the Commissioner can't even write 'Air Marshal Davies' without making two mistakes, you can't expect too much in the way of intellectual rigour.
I feel sorry for all the great female pilots out there whose achievements will be demeaned by this, and for the officers who won't be able to speak out against this nonsense without destroying their careers. |
When the Commissioner can't even write 'Air Marshal Davies' without making two mistakes, you can't expect too much in the way of intellectual rigour. |
Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight
(Post 9866285)
Oh, how I'd wish I'd spotted that... Attention to detail - NOT!
You will report immediately for corrective unconscious bias training. |
|
Hi there. I am an indigenous lesbian. I don't have a CPL but I heard there was a direct entry wide-body command available for me?
|
Originally Posted by Frank_The_Tank
(Post 9866413)
Hi there. I am an indigenous lesbian. I don't have a CPL but I heard there was a direct entry wide-body command available for me?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.