SJW Snowflakes

[Tom 14011]

What "rules" btw? 

[Rayvin 5223]

2 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I hate the paxman-lite way all channel 4 presenters attempt to provoke their guests, I actually think KGM is even worse than Cathy Newman. He dealt well with most of it. And he was an engaging talker making reasoned arguments and wouldn’t let her put words in his mouth

But he didn’t really have an answer for her point about what if the rules were changed and there were more woman at the top.

Would bluechip companies - and banks, particularly leading up to the financial crisis - have performed better with more women on their boards? Or if they adopted what he says are more feminine personality traits - like being agreeable? I find it bit depressing that you have to be an aggressive arsehole to make it to the top in most industries. 

Is boom and bust caused by capitalism and greed, or is it more about the testosterone flying around on the male-dominated trading rooms?

I’m quite liberal when to it comes to things like quotas. They’re not democratic, I’m not a fan in principle, but I don’t see it changing or us finding out the answer to these questions anytime soon otherwise because men at the top will continue to appoint men. I don’t know what the all the 18 different factors are that he said make up the pay gap as he didn’t cite the studies the data came from, but it’s hard to imagine prejudice doesn’t rank pretty high.

 

He did answer that though, didn't he? Or at least he tried to before she took him away on another tangent.

 

The market demands what it demands. If it doesn't demand feminine traits, what can anyone do about it?

 

On the other stuff, of course he didn't cite anything, it was an interview. But he's a tenured professor at Toronto University who has been published in many reputable journals. He will have sources. And why would prejudice rank high? If you could, as an employer, hire a woman, who is equal to men in the same field, and for 75% of the wage - you'd do that every time. I don't know where this bizarre idea that shareholders and fatcats are so devoted to the 'boys club' notion that they're prepared to sacrifice their own income comes from. Only 7 women in FTSE 100 companies - she said that herself. If competent women were being paid less for because of prejudice, surely the FTSE 100 would be full of them!

Edited January 19, 2018 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5223]

BTW, his lectures on YT are pretty heavy going, but there are a number of 'parasite' channels which break his stuff down into smaller chunks of relevant information. Worth looking into.

[Tom 14011]

I think Cathy Newman could have done with dedicating some time to either or rather than looking daft.

Smaller chunks might have helped with the anger issues mind.

[Dr Gloom 21923]

6 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

He did answer that though, didn't he? Or at least he tried to before she took him away on another tangent.

 

The market demands what it demands. If it doesn't demand feminine traits, what can anyone do about it?

 

On the other stuff, of course he didn't cite anything, it was an interview. But he's a tenured professor at Toronto University who has been published in many reputable journals. He will have sources. And why would prejudice rank high? If you could, as an employer, hire a woman, who is equal to men in the same field, and for 75% of the wage - you'd do that every time. I don't know where this bizarre idea that shareholders and fatcats are so devoted to the 'boys club' notion that they're prepared to sacrifice their own income comes from. Only 7 women in FTSE 100 companies - she said that herself. If competent women were being paid less for because of prejudice, surely the FTSE 100 would be full of them!

I don’t think he did answer that particular question very well, no.

The market doesn’t demand feminine traits at the top of industry because industry has been been dominated for so long by willy waving men; that the point. 

Particularly in banking, where I’m afraid to say prejudice still does part a big part in recruitment.  This is based on my own experience, or rather that of mrs G. I could tell you some stories about what my mrs has had to endure in her career. I work in journalism which is very progressive by comparison.

If quotas were enforced and there were more women in banking, would there have been the financial crisis? Or would boom and bust cycles be less pronounced? I think it’s a good question.  It’s another generalisation but women are more risk averse and less likely to gamble.  

It’s a bit shit to say women have to be more like men to make it.  We live in a corporate world that men still rule. If the rules were changed artificially all of that could change. Not saying it’s the right approach but all the evidence that backs up the anti feminist arguments is based on research of the status quo. It’s still a man’s world 

[Rayvin 5223]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

I don’t think he did answer that particular question very well, no.

The market doesn’t demand feminine traits at the top of industry because industry has been been dominated for so long by willy waving men; that the point. 

Particularly in banking, where I’m afraid to say prejudice still does part a big part in recruitment.  This is based on my own experience, or rather that of mrs G. I could tell you some stories about what my mrs has had to endure in her career. I work in journalism which is very progressive by comparison.

If quotas were enforced and there were more women in banking, would there have been the financial crisis? Or would boom and bust cycles be less pronounced? I think it’s a good question.  It’s another generalisation but women are more risk averse and less likely to gamble.  

It’s a bit shit to say women have to be more like men to make it.  We live in a corporate world that men still rule. If the rules were changed artificially all of that could change. Not saying it’s the right approach but all the evidence that backs up the anti feminist arguments is based on research of the status quo. It’s still a man’s world 

 

Yeah but what is stopping anyone from making a bank that operates like that? I think he made this point. The opportunity to do so is there, and that is equality.

 

Also, I think his point was more that 'people' have to be less agreeable to make it. And that women are in general more agreeable.

 

The world is what it is. How much 'tyrannical social pressure' do we apply in pursuit of something that by all accounts doesn't even seem to make very many people happy anyway? Women being less happy now than they were 50 years ago, and all.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21923]

That’s the point. If we want to see meaningful change it will almost certainly have to be enforced. 

[Dr Gloom 21923]

Also, are women under more pressure from men to be more agreeable? Isn’t there a lot of pressure on women to conform to that personality trait? If they don’t they’re feisty, nagging, pecking, hysterical, bossy etc 

[Dr Gloom 21923]

Words that are rarely applied to men who display similar personality traits. They would be described as confident or assertive.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5223]

Right, but why? I mean for one thing, it could well make our businesses less competitive in the global market place - we don't know that it won't. He provides another example in one of his YT videos for this. If you're a law firm and you're utilising 'reasonable' working hours that support a healthy work life balance, then you're going to be hopelessly outcompeted by a similar firm in another country that just doesn't give a shit and just wants the contract you're bidding for irrespective of what their employees have to do to get it.

 

Secondly, if there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many highly qualified women simply aren't prepared to put the hours in, as he appears to suggest, because they value a plethora of other things - and there are men who are - are you suggesting that subpar and less work driven women be put into positions ahead of men who work far harder? That doesn't sound like equality to me. It sounds like social engineering for the purpose of just 'looking like we've got this right'.

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

Words thy are rarely applied to men who display similar personality traits. They would be described as confident or asssertive.

 

This is a concept straight from the Guardian and it's not an experience I've recognised personally. My boss is a man and I would have always described him as overly controlling, paranoid and nagging. I've not had a female boss so I can't compare there. But sure, if it's a socially produced problem, then deal with it. Doesn't mean there is prejudice in salary offers though.

[Dr Gloom 21923]

I thought you were all about big government and intervention. 

Do you think the crisis made us more competitive? The so called female traits at the top of financial couldn have helped avert it, no?

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21923]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

This is a concept straight from the Guardian and it's not an experience I've recognised personally. My boss is a man and I would have always described him as overly controlling, paranoid and nagging. I've not had a female boss so I can't compare there. But sure, if it's a socially produced problem, then deal with it. Doesn't mean there is prejudice in salary offers though.

Of course not, you’re not a woman

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

Of course not, you’re not a woman

 

I am a man though, and given that your comment was about how men perceive women, I think I'm reasonably well placed to comment?

 

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

I thought you were all about big girls bernment and intervention. 

Do you think the crisis made us more competitive? The so called female traits at the top of financial couldn have helped avert it, no?

 

Where has this notion that I am a feminist come from? I'm egalitarian.

 

I don't know tbh, you seem to believe that risk aversion is a feminine trait which isn't something Peterson has cited and so while I 'expect' it to be true, I can't say for sure that it is. So in answer, would it have averted the financial crisis? Given that it started in the US, I expect no. If more feminine traits were used in the US? Maybe...? But perhaps all associated economies would be far weaker. The point is we just don't know. The point is also that nothing is stopping anyone from trying this, except, I would argue, that it is likely to make the firms in question less competitive. Or at least that is how it is perceived.

[Rayvin 5223]

Another point here - these things are the way they are, you could argue, because of the existence of these hyper competitive, work focused, quite possibly psychotic men. If you replace them with competent but ultimately not as driven or effective women - they're just going to go, find another company, or set something up on their own, and outcompete the original businesses. They will naturally just end up at the top. Because they work harder than everyone else. I mean what do you suggest we do about them? Cos the problem is that they exist, IMO.

[ewerk 30610]

13 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I thought you were all about big government and intervention. 

Do you think the crisis made us more competitive? The so called female traits at the top of financial couldn have helped avert it, no?

 

Only if you want a stock market crash once a month when the CEOs' rag times align.

[Dr Gloom 21923]

I don’t equate hard work or being driven with being psychopathic, or aggressive or with excessive risk taking and gambling in chase of profits and bonuses. 

An interesting question for me, is whether the financial crisis was typical symptom of  capitalism, the boom and bust cycles driven by greed, or would things have been different without so many dickhead male bankers calling the shots?

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21923]

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Only if you want a stock market crash once a month when the CEOs' rag times align.

Wahey 

[Dr Gloom 21923]

14 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I am a man though, and given that your comment was about how men perceive women, I think I'm reasonably well placed to comment?

 

 

Where has this notion that I am a feminist come from? I'm egalitarian.

 

I don't know tbh, you seem to believe that risk aversion is a feminine trait which isn't something Peterson has cited and so while I 'expect' it to be true, I can't say for sure that it is. So in answer, would it have averted the financial crisis? Given that it started in the US, I expect no. If more feminine traits were used in the US? Maybe...? But perhaps all associated economies would be far weaker. The point is we just don't know. The point is also that nothing is stopping anyone from trying this, except, I would argue, that it is likely to make the firms in question less competitive. Or at least that is how it is perceived.

why not, do you only believe what peterson tells you?

you're right that we just don't know  - about any of this! we live in a wold which has always been dominated by men. so we know no alternative. 

things are only just starting to change but we have a long way to go. i think things could evolve slowly to a point where there is little prejudice and much more equality. i don't see that we're anywhere near that point today. the pay gap is pretty damning of society. it suggests to me that things aren't functioning correctly if psychopathic risk takers are the ones who are controlling the fate of the global economy. 

some feminists say enforced quotas are the solution. i'm already seeing positive discrimination in my industry.  the latest job i applied for i had to say what colour i was, whether i was male, female or trans, what my sexual preference. i found it bizarre and none of this helps me as a white, heterosexual, middle aged man. is it the right thing to do to try to fix inequality in society? and not just male/female inequality. i don't know. 

 

 

[adios 717]

48 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I don’t equate hard work or being driven with being psychopathic, or aggressive or with excessive risk taking and gambling in chase of profits and bonuses. 

An interesting question for me, is whether the financial crisis was typical symptom of  capitalism, the boom and bust cycles driven by greed, or would things have been different without so many dickhead male bankers calling the shots?

Jon Ronson makes a good case for it in The Psychopath Test.  

 

You pretty much have to be less risk-averse than the average person to succeed in business and men are more likely to fit that criterion. 

 

Of course we're also more likely to be too far along that spectrum and be degenerate gamblers.

 

I have confirmed all of this by thinking about it.

[ewerk 30610]

1 minute ago, adios said:

You pretty much have to be less risk-averse than the average person to succeed in business and men are more likely to fit that criterion. 

 

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4668698/Controversial-Mike-Ashley-defends-gambling-competition.html

 

And yet this man is a billionaire.

[adios 717]

He has to be a black swan.  

[Rayvin 5223]

51 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

why not, do you only believe what peterson tells you?

you're right that we just don't know  - about any of this! we live in a wold which has always been dominated by men. so we know no alternative. 

things are only just starting to change but we have a long way to go. i think things could evolve slowly to a point where there is little prejudice and much more equality. i don't see that we're anywhere near that point today. the pay gap is pretty damning of society. it suggests to me that things aren't functioning correctly if psychopathic risk takers are the ones who are controlling the fate of the global economy. 

some feminists say enforced quotas are the solution. i'm already seeing positive discrimination in my industry.  the latest job i applied for i had to say what colour i was, whether i was male, female or trans, what my sexual preference. i found it bizarre and none of this helps me as a white, heterosexual, middle aged man. is it the right thing to do to try to fix inequality in society? and not just male/female inequality. i don't know. 

 

 

 

I don't only believe what he tells me, but he has more credibility than anyone I've seen discussing these things in the media or, with respect, you

 

I would believe other tenured professors with similarly robust arguments as well.

 

And in answer to your final question - no it isn't. You've worked hard to get to where you are, I assume. Why should you be overlooked in place of someone less qualified to do the job? If you are, what is the point in you working hard at all?

[Dr Gloom 21923]

so positive discrimination, like all forms of discrimination, is bad. i think i agree with you here, with the caveat that we're not starting from an equal base, when it comes to race or gender, so i do get why the argument is made. if there wasn't an entrenched gender pay gap, we could just leave it to the market. would the outcome be the same if there were more woman on boards or would the balance change? who knows.

in the meantime, leaving it to the market, basically means we continue to leave it to wealthy, white men to continue ruling the world. sometimes government intervention is the answer. it might not be egalitarian in the short term, and  it would be be shit for you and i, but it also might produce a better corporate culture and more stable global economy in the long term. 

incidentally, i think you'll enjoy this

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/twitterstorm-2018?utm_term=.inXLb02RP#.xkAAbkREV

Edited January 19, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5223]

The Twitter thing is brilliant

 

And I agree on equal opportunity, and that time and energy should be invested into this above all else. But remember that we have far more women than men at university now, and the pay gap between men and women under 30 favours women:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

 

So maybe it's already in the post, and that the main issue really was opportunity.