Absolutely right!
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.

Why would there be a need to do anything about it in the first place? Pilotchute's statement "There just aren't the numbers of women interested to make it a 50/50 split. Nothing to do with ability, they probably just want a different career" is spot on and well backed by pertinent research (both regarding no noteworthy difference in ability and considerable difference in interest on a population level). For anyone interested in a more detailed overview (following the mentioned Google memo): https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ .

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
When I see "diversity" demands for plumbers, electricians, truck drivers etc I will know we will have reached equality nirvana. Until then, it appears to me to be an agenda to cherry pick only the most desirable occupations and positions.

The whole concept is discriminatory in favour of both males and females. What about all those people whose gender falls somewhere in between?

They are not human.:p

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.

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

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!

I knew that document existed. That's the first time I've read it. How very sad.

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 didn't recruit between January 2008 and August 2016. 8 1/2 years hardly constitutes 'decades'.

I agree in part with this. It should more accurately say "The training system must be adaptable to accommodate different learners and learning styles".

When you're only 25 and one of the new guard of the HR empire, 8 1/2 years seems like decades. :p

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.

Oh, how I'd wish I'd spotted that... Attention to detail - NOT!

'Attention to detail' is merely a construct of the cisgendered heteronormative oppressive patriarchy.

You will report immediately for corrective unconscious bias training.

http://i.imgur.com/oPVnouC.jpg


12345678

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?

You're not related to a whale by any chance? If so, CEO material right there.

The air force can do as they please, but are any airlines currently performing positive gender discrimination? My impression, for the ones that pay for the cost of training at least, will have no desire to employ any substandard pilots that will cause unnecessary costs to their business.

I'm sure it can't hurt being female if you are trying to get into Qantas at the moment.
It is rather sad seeing some less than capable females getting in ahead of some very good male operators.
I'm not at all against female pilots, and flown with some great ones, but have seen some shockers who got the nod from QF. Not all that fair really.

dr dre: The social justice warriors will argue that the training standards now required "perpetuate white male privilege".

The standards will be lowered for women "because they have been systematically denied the privileges that allow men to succeed". For the same reason women will get mentored far more than any man and given multiple opportunities to try to pass the (reduced) standards that now apply.

This is very simply organised in a large company by requiring the training group to provide a comprehensive written report justifying why they failed a female candidate, then subjecting that report to independent review, followed by a full blown meeting at just below CEO level with a view to deciding if the fail should be accepted or retesting be required.

After about three of those reviews the training group will get the message, well, at least the new leaders of the training group will know whats expected.

That is apparently what is happening here and overseas.

"Positive gender discrimination". Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you spin it.

Is the expression "affirmative action" not in vogue these days.

Excuse the thread drift, but the RAAF has well and truly let the tail wag the dog WRT the HRC latest efforts. It's creating issues where they are not needed and undoing the good work of years and years of RAAF training methodology and standardisation, all for addressing a gender gap that has been self correcting over time. The bosses are speed bumps in the face of what's coming and the exodus of QFI's and checkies will speak for itself. We all just want to work and commit to getting the job done, and not deal with agendas being driven by external influences. Rant complete :ok:

From The Age article "Time to 'up the ante' to get more female pilots says Qantas boss Alan Joyce" - selected quotes.
Never mind that they may not want to be pilots - we're gonna make 'em fly!

https://www.3aw.com.au/tom-elliott-b...-pilot-target/


Good minute and a half rant from Tom Elliott at 3AW here.

Is there any place or organisation where we can bring up this issue?

I honestly feel discriminated against because i’m a male.

For Christ sake why can’t individuals be assessed on personal merit?

No, there's no organisation that you can bring this up with.
In the words of Chief of Air Force (2013 - when queried on the legalities of the RAAF's policy on female pilot applicants) - "Positive discrimination is LEGAL."

In this day and age, it's probably easier to change your gender, get the job and then change it back.

HR would be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of employing a transgender pilot. You could probably bypass the psychometric and SIM screening entirely if you were one of these lucky minorities...

OMFG,

The whinny white men are out in force again complaining about how they're being discriminated against.

I'd say the female pilots I've flown with, on average, have been of a higher standard than the males.

Good stuff, I'm glad to hear it and have had a similar experience myself with female pilots. But you haven't been reading very closely, exfocx, have you, because this is not an argument about that. This is about people of any gender getting a job based on merit - NOT based on their gender "cause we are going to employ 50% this or that..."
By the way - it's "whiny"...

I think they call them Soy Boys...;)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FTSvLKY7HEk

Nah, you haven't quite gotten the gist of that video - which was pretty funny, thanks for posting.
Soy Boys would actually be the advocates of artificially increasing the percentage representation of female pilots - perhaps like exfocx (unless exfocx IS a "she", in which case she couldn't be a Soy Boy - well, I guess she could, but that's another discussion...)

Irrelevant. This is not about the standards of each gender, this is about artificially inflating the numbers of a particular gender to meet a ridiculous quota thus giving said gender an unfair advantage irrespective of how good they perform as a pilot.

Some elements of the report I agree with. Fighter pilots are arrogant. And there were some spelling mistakes as well.

They probably had a higher standard of literacy than you too. :ugh:

Is having a level playing field where applicants are scored on their performance during assesment day too much to ask?

I’m so sick of this PC crap getting rammed down our throats in Australia.

If you really think about it, it is not politically correct at all. How is discriminating against a gender to meet a quote for the other gender politically correct. Only because it satisfies the feminazis is it seen to be politically correct.


Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Could you imagine the outrage if there was a story where despite 90% of nursing graduates being female, a large hospital (or the public health system) committed itself to ensuring that 50% of new hires were male.


The feminazis would be rioting in the streets and setting fire to cars...