-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Giardiasis said:
then he should have said that. saying it doesnt exist fullstop as he did is quite different than saying it doesnt exist in a particular context.
and what context do you mean?
jb03 said:
thanks. i think. but again perhaps you can explain what he meant that he did not say? (at least around the 5 min mark.)
Yeah I guess, to prevent a pedantic refutation of his argument by taking it for granted that people would exercise some basic common sense. He clarified his position if you bothered to listen.Brodders17 said:
The context that the gender pay gap exists because women are oppressed by men. You know, the standard cultural Marxist position that journalists hold.
jb03 said:
got sucked in and watched it. Terrible. Worse than I thought. Her interviewing is fine, only problem is when she has him on the back foot she lets him squirm out of it. Probably being too 'agreeable'
Lets look at this in 2 ways, Style and substance.
Style.
Pretty clunky in terms of the tricks. If he has data to back up a point, he gets forthright and emphatic, states his point clearly and cites stats. If he doesn't he gets evasive, says things like "I'm led to believe' and 'so they tell me'. The vibe of how he talk you have to be taking notice to delineate this, I guess if you buy what he selling you'd walk away thinking 'wow, knows his stuff and backs it up'. If you're not, like me, you'd say 'evades on the big points, only backs up some non-core points, master craftsman of half truths'. Actually, after watching, I'll downgrade him to 'craftsman of half truths'.
I'll look at substance later. He is FOS.
Substance
He starts off badly, 'I DON"T THINK young men hear words of encouragement, some of them never in their entire lives, thats what they tell me, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL'. This is one plank of his argument, and its a wafer-thin balsa wood plank. That middle class white men have it tough, poor little guys. So firstly he doesn't back it up with any stats, apparently he has spoken to a few young men ('for their entire lives'?), and they haven't been encouraged. Secondly, does anyone buy this? Am I the only man around who is one of JP's outliers? I was encouraged, most of my friends thoughout my entire life were encouraged (I can't think of one who wasn't), I encourage young men, all parents and male role models I know encourage young men, all the young men I know were and are encouraged. Do I need to go on? I refute his anecdotal evidence with my own, and I'll back mine all day long.
Here is the main, core substantive argument, that its natural that women don't get into positions of power and seniority because they have certain female traits, the main one being 'agreeableness'. Or being nice. Women need to be bigger *smile*s, or 'tough' like men according to JP, that's the way it is and the way it should be. The interviewer correctly pins him on this, women say men run the show (easily supported) so they place a premium on 'tough' and discount 'agreeable', also that 'tough' or pushy men plough and harangue their way to the top while women just have to keep doing their job really well for a long time to get anywhere. There is also ZERO discussion of the nature V nurture debate, which is critical, putting aside whether or not it is good to have some 'agreeable' bosses (it is), women are raised to be agreeable, men are raised to be 'tough' (or in the case of corporate bosses, 'areholes') (I'm quoting myself there ;D)
He actually snookers himself, says the 3 predictors of success are intelligence, conscientiousness, toughness. Women are just as good at the first 2, 'better in some cases'. Zero mention of context, complex factors why this is the case, that you could fill libraries and databases with, (bosses selecting people like them, networks, machismo culture etc etc, this stuff isn't new or rocket science, he has no answer for any of it, just ignores it).
JP is FOS
He starts off badly, 'I DON"T THINK young men hear words of encouragement, some of them never in their entire lives, thats what they tell me, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL'. This is one plank of his argument, and its a wafer-thin balsa wood plank. That middle class white men have it tough, poor little guys. So firstly he doesn't back it up with any stats, apparently he has spoken to a few young men ('for their entire lives'?), and they haven't been encouraged. Secondly, does anyone buy this? Am I the only man around who is one of JP's outliers? I was encouraged, most of my friends thoughout my entire life were encouraged (I can't think of one who wasn't), I encourage young men, all parents and male role models I know encourage young men, all the young men I know were and are encouraged. Do I need to go on? I refute his anecdotal evidence with my own, and I'll back mine all day long.
Here is the main, core substantive argument, that its natural that women don't get into positions of power and seniority because they have certain female traits, the main one being 'agreeableness'. Or being nice. Women need to be bigger *smile*s, or 'tough' like men according to JP, that's the way it is and the way it should be. The interviewer correctly pins him on this, women say men run the show (easily supported) so they place a premium on 'tough' and discount 'agreeable', also that 'tough' or pushy men plough and harangue their way to the top while women just have to keep doing their job really well for a long time to get anywhere. There is also ZERO discussion of the nature V nurture debate, which is critical, putting aside whether or not it is good to have some 'agreeable' bosses (it is), women are raised to be agreeable, men are raised to be 'tough' (or in the case of corporate bosses, 'areholes') (I'm quoting myself there ;D)
He actually snookers himself, says the 3 predictors of success are intelligence, conscientiousness, toughness. Women are just as good at the first 2, 'better in some cases'. Zero mention of context, complex factors why this is the case, that you could fill libraries and databases with, (bosses selecting people like them, networks, machismo culture etc etc, this stuff isn't new or rocket science, he has no answer for any of it, just ignores it).
JP is FOS
tigersnake said:got sucked in and watched it. Terrible. Worse than I thought. Her interviewing is fine, only problem is when she has him on the back foot she lets him squirm out of it. Probably being too 'agreeable'
I don't agree with that at all. She never gets him on the back foot. In fact her poor interview skills on this occasion has been a boon for his profile.
I don't get that at all. Quite a few times she leads him to a point where he has to give a straight answer and he evades. 'Depends what you mean by equality", what she should have said at that point was '2 people, one man and one woman doing the same job, getting paid the same'. She didn't. So yes she wasn't impeccable, but far from terrible.
I'm convinced after watching 20 minutes, (swithced off when they changed subjects), that he's a charlatan.
I'm convinced after watching 20 minutes, (swithced off when they changed subjects), that he's a charlatan.
Giardiasis said:
im still not sure why he contradicted himself. he said the gap doesnt exist, not the gap doesnt exist to the extent you claim, or to the amount you claim.
he then admitted gender is a reason women are paid less, ie part of the reason they women are paid less then men is because they are women.
you can try to dismiss it by putting a downgrading label on it, but if this guy is right and women are paid less than men in part because of gender then surely you agree that is something that needs to be rectified.
as an aside, im also a believer that people who are trying to influence people should be clear in what they are saying. they should not need somewhere to explain what they omitted or meant to say.
all his followers who arent as intelligent as you will hear him say there is no gender pay gap and believe him. even tho he then refutes his own statement.
No I don’t agree it needs to be rectified, there is nothing to rectify. Women in general make different life choices than men, to think that this needs rectification is absurd.Brodders17 said:
Everything you said here is fine, but perhaps you can see that my explanation makes sense and move on? You are drawing a line through him even though a valid explanation has been elaborated.Brodders17 said:
By choosing different careers and by choosing to spend less time at work. Becoming pregnant also reduces your productivity to your employer.Brodders17 said:
Giardiasis said:
the guy also stated the gender plays a part in women being paid less. in addition to those reasons.
or did he mean something else?
Giardiasis said:
Largely agree.
Childcare is a female dominated large industry that is basically paid min wages. While FIFO and other construction trades, truck drivers which have a higher pay scale are dominantly male industries. I don’t know the answer on how to change this.
People hijack is argument by saying that females get paid less for doing the same work. I want to see examples as I haven’t seen it.
Also part of the equality discussion needs to be directed at how we better empower employees and employers to recognise that males have equal responsibilities at home.
His main take is that women are more agreeable and hence less inclined to negotiate harder for pay rises.Brodders17 said:
Giardiasis said:
im pretty sure i heard him say Gender is one of the reasons? or did he actually mean something else when he said that?
E
easy_tiger
Guest
sometimes I wish mrs,easy was a little more agreeable.
although she did remain quite productive through several pregnancies.
I think the term 'pregnant' is just the lefty PC fun police gone mad.
Call it what it is; a gutful of arms and legs that stops them driving railway spikes for three quarters of a year
although she did remain quite productive through several pregnancies.
I think the term 'pregnant' is just the lefty PC fun police gone mad.
Call it what it is; a gutful of arms and legs that stops them driving railway spikes for three quarters of a year
