Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Trek launches female-only technician scholarship - and some men are apoplectic

Sexist keyboard warriors out to have their say at the news

Trek Bicycles has run its first ever Women's Expert Technician course to help female technicians find their way in the cycling industry.

The six-day scholarship-funded course, run at their global headquarters in Waterloo, USA, is part of the School of Certified Service, which aims to bring through a greater number of women into the business.

The brand stated: “With women making up less than 10 percent of technicians in the bicycle industry today, it is our goal to grow this number substantially.”

Each scholarship has an approximate value of $3,000 and is awarded based on the qualification of the entrant, as well as the quality of the application.

This week, Trek posted the above photograph to their Facebook account, saying: “The first ever Women's Expert Technician course is in progress at the Trek global headquarters this week.

“The six-day, scholarship-funded course is the third in a series of women's-focused courses designed to provide growth opportunities and increase diversity within the cycling industry.”

Unfortunately the post wasn’t met with unmitigated accolades, with a number of sexist keyboard warriors pitching in.

Lars de Waardt said: “I think it's nonsense to make women only courses as if a woman isn't capable to keep up with a man when it comes to working on a bicycle. I love the Trek brand and I do not think different about it but this is just plain silly.”

Trek answered: “The course curriculum is exactly the same for all of our classes, because all classes are open to everyone. This is a class designed to give the opportunity to an under-represented population of mechanics and technicians in our industry. The take aways and skill level obtained are EXACTLY the same.”

Scott Allred added: “Let me know when there is a mens only expert course. Wait...it won't happen because that would be sexist. Common [sic], trek, enough with the PC crap. It's not like woman we're excluded from previous courses.”

Trek responded: “Everyone is welcome in all of our courses. This one is focused on encouraging women to participate, because we know this industry can be a challenging place for women, where they feel less like peers and more as something to be looked at.”

 

Add new comment

56 comments

Avatar
Mark@DP | 7 years ago
1 like

Barth's insinuation and one supported it seems by many women and their metro-sexual male toadies is that to object to to this initiative is to object to the advancement of women. Objecting of course is doing nothing of the kind. I can't see anyone objecting to women mechanics, I am sure they can sneer at a customer's lack of bike-nouse with the best of them, but simply to the implication that men are unpleasent people to be around and women must be protected. it is not far off the all men are paedos policy that airlines have had towards male passengers sitting next to youngsters. It is Trek and Barth, for all the PC double-think, who are being sexist.

I had a look at Trek's press release and two comments stand out:

1. "To qualify to attend the course, each of the 11 women had a minimum of
three years' experience in a high-performing service department, and
ideally prior formal training."

These are probably not then women who are unused to a mixed-gender environment or a commercial setting. One has to ask what attracts them to a women-only setting. Is it really because they find [all] men intimidating/annoying or a preference to not be with men?

2. "“TCS saw a need for women’s-focused training as a way to provide a
different learning environment than what’s typical in the service
industry."

Go on Trek, say it! Describe this 'typical' environment, and then explain why you are not offering the appropriate environment in your mixed-gender courses? What the heck is 'women-focused' when it is at home?

This initiative is so wrapped up in 'niceness' it disguises the underlying issue that maybe only a few women want to do do these courses and that the women who chose these courses would have done the mixed course if the segregated course was not on offer. It also brands all men the same. There are many men who would prefer not to be with 'spanner snobs' who expect you to turn up at a mechanics course not to learn but fully formed and ready to strut.

Discrimnation of any kind is divisive and wrong, no matter how well meaning.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Mark@DP | 7 years ago
0 likes
Mark@DP wrote:

Discrimnation of any kind is divisive and wrong, no matter how well meaning.

So higher rate tax is wrong because it's discriminating against the higher earners?

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
2 likes

urbane by name, but not by nature  2

Avatar
Kim | 7 years ago
2 likes

Reading some of the comment here, it is clear why there is a need for such courses. Trek is to be applauded for taking this initiative, if it gives more people the opportunity to get into the cycle industry that has to be a good thing.

Avatar
DaSy | 7 years ago
1 like

My main objection to this whole concept is the use of "series of women's-focused courses ". What sort of use of the English language is that? I hope they teach them to mend bikes with more accuracy.

 

Avatar
Legin | 7 years ago
0 likes

Fair amount of bollocks being posted on this thread; mainly by people who need to grow a pair!

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

Yep, totally off-topic: again, I don't think we're totally disagreeing either, and as for *causes*, there are much stronger ones (at least one of the articles says as much) - and they were many and complex.

My point is when you get similar people with similar views you get groupthink. Groupthink has negative consequences, particularly when that group needs to show progressive leadership when Bad Shit Happens. I use Wall St, City, regulators as an example of that.

They hold some, not all, responsibility for creating some of the circumstances and environment in the first place. Bad Shit Happened. And they had opportunities to dampen some, not all, of that Bad Shit. The domination of a particular culture and way of thinking was a factor.

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

@dinosaurJR: I think you're being a tad naive here.

For a start, you credit me with too much. I don't make the claim. Groupthink and its effects, including being a factor in the financial crisis, are so widely established, they're taken for granted. A lazy google turns up reams - look for yourself, but below are a few credible, relevant articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02view.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/systemic-risk-was-the-real-culp...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/06/released-bank-of-england-minutes-show-gro...

But why is this so hard to understand? You know what oldish, privileged white men are really good at? Hiring other oldish, privileged white men and hearing their views in an echo chamber - exactly the same as any other group of people would and do. However, it's a particular problem with oldish, privileged white men because many institutions and bodies that hold the power in Western society are controlled by.... you know who. We don't have quite the same problem in our society with women or another ethnic group controlling institutions, or industries, so we don't need to correct anything away from that direction.

And unless they're forced to do otherwise, their next appointments to the board will be more oldish, privileged white men.

You seem to think change in this area just happens, and that oldish, privileged white men naturally start hiring youngish Asian females and middle-aged black women to shake things up, when needed. It doesn't, and they don't. One day I hope to be an oldish, privileged white man. At least I'm aware (at the moment) that my worldview is inherently biased, as is everyone's.

Of course the claim isn't that oldish, privileged white men are any more greedy than any other ethnicity - it's that they were already in the positions of power necessary to dump on the economy from a great height, and when other people pointed risks out, they weren't listened to. The argument goes that if the board is more diverse, groupthink is less likely to take hold. But look at China or Arab or African countries to see how entrenched views of similar men become, whatever the ethnicity.

Are women less greedy/controlling/groupthinky? Who knows? I don't think there's ever been a matriarchy that we could get that sort of data from.

 

Avatar
ktache replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

Are women less greedy/controlling/groupthinky? Who knows? I don't think there's ever been a matriarchy that we could get that sort of data from.

 

Nice.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to davel | 7 years ago
2 likes
davel wrote:

@dinosaurJR: I think you're being a tad naive here.

For a start, you credit me with too much. I don't make the claim. Groupthink and its effects, including being a factor in the financial crisis, are so widely established, they're taken for granted. A lazy google turns up reams - look for yourself, but below are a few credible, relevant articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02view.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/systemic-risk-was-the-real-culp...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/06/released-bank-of-england-minutes-show-gro...

But why is this so hard to understand? You know what oldish, privileged white men are really good at? Hiring other oldish, privileged white men and hearing their views in an echo chamber - exactly the same as any other group of people would and do. However, it's a particular problem with oldish, privileged white men because many institutions and bodies that hold the power in Western society are controlled by.... you know who. We don't have quite the same problem in our society with women or another ethnic group controlling institutions, or industries, so we don't need to correct anything away from that direction.

And unless they're forced to do otherwise, their next appointments to the board will be more oldish, privileged white men.

You seem to think change in this area just happens, and that oldish, privileged white men naturally start hiring youngish Asian females and middle-aged black women to shake things up, when needed. It doesn't, and they don't. One day I hope to be an oldish, privileged white man. At least I'm aware (at the moment) that my worldview is inherently biased, as is everyone's.

Of course the claim isn't that oldish, privileged white men are any more greedy than any other ethnicity - it's that they were already in the positions of power necessary to dump on the economy from a great height, and when other people pointed risks out, they weren't listened to. The argument goes that if the board is more diverse, groupthink is less likely to take hold. But look at China or Arab or African countries to see how entrenched views of similar men become, whatever the ethnicity.

Are women less greedy/controlling/groupthinky? Who knows? I don't think there's ever been a matriarchy that we could get that sort of data from.

 

I have no problem with the existence of this bike mechanic course, but I disagree with you that something like the financial crisis would have been averted just by having some more asian or female bankers. It doesn't matter who has those jobs, the problem is the existence of those jobs and the structure they exist within. Employ someone as a banker and they'll think and behave as a banker.

Avatar
davel replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
davel wrote:

@dinosaurJR: I think you're being a tad naive here.

For a start, you credit me with too much. I don't make the claim. Groupthink and its effects, including being a factor in the financial crisis, are so widely established, they're taken for granted. A lazy google turns up reams - look for yourself, but below are a few credible, relevant articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02view.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/systemic-risk-was-the-real-culp...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/06/released-bank-of-england-minutes-show-gro...

But why is this so hard to understand? You know what oldish, privileged white men are really good at? Hiring other oldish, privileged white men and hearing their views in an echo chamber - exactly the same as any other group of people would and do. However, it's a particular problem with oldish, privileged white men because many institutions and bodies that hold the power in Western society are controlled by.... you know who. We don't have quite the same problem in our society with women or another ethnic group controlling institutions, or industries, so we don't need to correct anything away from that direction.

And unless they're forced to do otherwise, their next appointments to the board will be more oldish, privileged white men.

You seem to think change in this area just happens, and that oldish, privileged white men naturally start hiring youngish Asian females and middle-aged black women to shake things up, when needed. It doesn't, and they don't. One day I hope to be an oldish, privileged white man. At least I'm aware (at the moment) that my worldview is inherently biased, as is everyone's.

Of course the claim isn't that oldish, privileged white men are any more greedy than any other ethnicity - it's that they were already in the positions of power necessary to dump on the economy from a great height, and when other people pointed risks out, they weren't listened to. The argument goes that if the board is more diverse, groupthink is less likely to take hold. But look at China or Arab or African countries to see how entrenched views of similar men become, whatever the ethnicity.

Are women less greedy/controlling/groupthinky? Who knows? I don't think there's ever been a matriarchy that we could get that sort of data from.

 

I have no problem with the existence of this bike mechanic course, but I disagree with you that something like the financial crisis would have been averted just by having some more asian or female bankers. It doesn't matter who has those jobs, the problem is the existence of those jobs and the structure they exist within. Employ someone as a banker and they'll think and behave as a banker.

That really isn't my point, nor that of any of the articles I linked to, so on a very superficial level I agree with your last sentence. And I'm a banker.

Opportunities to rein in behaviour, manage risks etc fall foul of groupthink. Are you arguing that? Have you read the linked articles?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

That really isn't my point, nor that of any of the articles I linked to, so on a very superficial level I agree with your last sentence. And I'm a banker.

Opportunities to rein in behaviour, manage risks etc fall foul of groupthink. Are you arguing that? Have you read the linked articles?

Don't really want to argue becuase its _so_ far off-topic of what the site is supposed to be about!

I just think the causes, in this specific case, are much deeper than specific issues like 'group think'.

I'm sure there are other forms of institutional failure where that particular issue is the major cause, so I'm not 100% disagreeing, I just think if you are talking about banking (and hence the global economy) its a bit bigger than that and I don't believe having a more diverse set of bankers would make any difference at all - such things will still happen, its in the nature of the system itself.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

 And I'm a banker.

I think you're being a bit too hard on yourself here :p

Avatar
kelvin | 7 years ago
2 likes

"But they are not educating the industry to be more accepting of women. "

Are they not?
I thought they were saying... "we're upping our game, so should you."

Encouraging more women into the industry should be seen as a good thing, rather than sitting back and waiting for others to do it. Actions speak louder than words. DO something to get more women into the industry, rather than just talk about it. Communication isn't just words, it's about taking action and letting others see what you are doing.

Also, your idea that because "you have the law on your side and should use it" then there is no need for companies to take action ignores that fact that most people don't want to use the legal system, they just seek to avoid such conflict instead... and that doesn't make them "Snowflakes" it just makes them people who want a good and enjoyable life. Not everyone can, or wants to, get involved in seeking legal redress.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
4 likes

A female only course is fair, it may not be equality but it is equity

 

 

Avatar
paulrattew | 7 years ago
0 likes

Ignoring the quagmire of previous comments on this - I think that the idea is brilliant. Yes, having female only courses isn't 'equal', but so what. We do not live in an equal society. Opening up opportunities to more people, expanding them to focus on different groups, can only make the industry better, stronger. The more people we can get working in the industry from more different backgrounds the better.

It's a phantasy to think that because women are legally entitled to equality that they actually get equal treatment. I've been bike shopping on many occassions with female friends, many of whom are far more technically adept and experienced than I am, and seen how much worse they are treated in shops. This different treatment is not the exception, it is the rule. Frankly, for a service industry, bike shops are wallowing in the stone age. Anything that can be done to actively improve things is a good thing. Trek should be commended for accepting that they have failed previously to provide an environment that truly makes people of all backgrounds feel they can have an equal place, and actually doing something about it.

I'm a white, middle class guy. I live in a society that panders to me. The barriers to opportunities have been systematically lower for me than they have for large parts of the population. This is great for me personally, but pretty rubbish for society long term. I want my wife to feel that she doesn't have to face more barriers than i do, I want my kids, if we choose to have any, to grow up in a world where no matter what gender they are they genuinely have the same opportunities, with no unequal barriers. To look at the world and not see the privilege that I have been born into would be blind stupidity. To not want that priviege shared, so that it is no longer a privilege but the base standard for all, is little more than hateful. In a world where the vast majority of the explicit and implicit power lies with a minority (white men are a minority that have massively disproportionate power, advantage and influence) active steps need to be taken to address this. Steps like this by Trek are positive. They are not pushing one group down to try and achieve equality, they are giving a very small hand up, to try and share out the advantage.

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
1 like

@dinosaurJR: right, but you're making out like it's all about choice. It isn't. I'm sure some women really would like to be physios and referees and chief execs in football, but have you seen how much grief the trailblazers got, just for being women?

Do you think men in that position got the same amount of grief? Do you appreciate that the next generation of women to choose to work in football might have it that little bit easier, and if it becomes commonplace it could genuinely be about simply choosing to do that job, as opposed to choosing to do that job and toughing out all the sexist bullshit just to turn up every day? So it's more difficult for certain people to do certain jobs just because of their background/gender/ethnicity, yes? And that's not right, yes?

So, what do you do about it?

Well, in certain organisations (eg. Met and Los Angeles police) over-representation of some 'types' has had nasty consequences for society (eg. institutional racism). So, do you just accept that there'll be riots every now and then or do you see that the status quo is awful and is going to need a sledgehammer to put right, and when you look around the shed, you see positive action/discrimination leaning against the wall?

Now, Trek isn't a police force, and it's unlikely that there'll be riots even if Trek's mechanics are a load of white male chauvinists. However, Trek could still see cycling as male-dominated and want to break down some barriers to women in order to encourage them onto the roads and trails to further cycling's uptake, or it could be that they have slightly less altruistic visions of women being a growth market for them.

Can you not see that as a corrective action, rather than outright discrimination in the favour of the status quo?

Avatar
velo-nh replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

So, do you just accept that there'll be riots every now and then or do you see that the status quo is awful and is going to need a sledgehammer to put right, and when you look around the shed, you see positive action/discrimination leaning against the wall?

The situation with the police and rioting is not a good example.  The police did nothing wrong in the majority of those media sensationalized incidents.  In some cases, the cop or cops involved were non-caucasian but the media chose not to focus on that.  NBC, a major TV network in the US, was caught altering a 911 call to make the story appear racially motivated when there was no evidence to support that.  The whole "hands up don't shoot" thing was so misrepresented by the media that what actually happened bears no resemblence to what the media had run with.

The rioters are opportunists that want to loot and destroy or they're possibly well intentioned but seriously misled by the media and by activist groups to the point of doing bad things.  You can't give them money or a job that they're otherwise unqualified for unless you want people coming back for more.  You're setting the individual and the community up for failure if you go down that path.  If you make rioters think they've won something, they're going to use rioting as a tool and they will continue to use it.

This article is an example of the media creating a narative.  The author did nothing to analyze why women aren't commonly found assembling or repairing bicycles.  It must be bias.  There's no evidence, but the quotas aren't right so it must be those nefarious men and that glass cieling.  That's opinion, that's not news.  I don't see a lot of men working in childcare but I don't think that has anything to do with sexism.  Groups may prefer different types of work.  You'll never have equal percentages of every type of group working every type of job.

The last thing we should want is to artificially promote women into certain jobs.  Anytime a woman works hard and gets there on her own everyone is going to assume she's there as a charity case.  That would actually promote sexism.  

 

Avatar
kelvin | 7 years ago
2 likes

Trek are offering education, and are communicating to as many women as possible that there is a place for them in the industry. I for one would gladly cooperate with that, just as road.cc are here.

Avatar
kelvin | 7 years ago
1 like

Hmm... lots  of examples here of the age old ... "some women have pushed through a male dominated industry and done well, so any attempt to encourage more women to do so is wrong" ... argument.

Depressing.

But not nearly as depressing as ... "I was an outsider male in my industry and have done well, so any attempt to encourage more women to do so in an entirely different industry is wrong" ...  took a good long look at yourself, and think about what motivated you to post such nonsense ... are you worried the "snowflakes" might pile up and bury you?

Avatar
bumble | 7 years ago
1 like

I agree with those that think positive discrimination is an imperfect, non-ideal tool.

but if we're going to get all hot and bothered about discrimination, positive or otherwise, how about we start with the entire rest of the world first?

or are some of you men so insecure that you can't see one single sign that says 'no men, not today' without feeling threatened? As if automatically being at the front of the queue for the rest of the known universe isn't enough somehow?

 

Avatar
velo-nh replied to bumble | 7 years ago
1 like
bumble wrote:

I agree with those that think positive discrimination is an imperfect, non-ideal tool.

but if we're going to get all hot and bothered about discrimination, positive or otherwise, how about we start with the entire rest of the world first?

or are some of you men so insecure that you can't see one single sign that says 'no men, not today' without feeling threatened? As if automatically being at the front of the queue for the rest of the known universe isn't enough somehow?

 

There is no such thing as positive discrimination.  It's discrimination regardless of the intent.  The rest of the world?  Irrelevant.  This article is about what Trek is doing and that's what is being discussed.  Feeling threatened?  Nothing of the sort.  People are rightly pointing out that what Trek is doing is disciminatory.  No fear, no hate, just pointing out what it is.  You wouldn't turn a blind eye to a racist policy, why allow it for a sexist one?

 

Avatar
davel replied to velo-nh | 7 years ago
2 likes
velo-nh wrote:
bumble wrote:

I agree with those that think positive discrimination is an imperfect, non-ideal tool.

but if we're going to get all hot and bothered about discrimination, positive or otherwise, how about we start with the entire rest of the world first?

or are some of you men so insecure that you can't see one single sign that says 'no men, not today' without feeling threatened? As if automatically being at the front of the queue for the rest of the known universe isn't enough somehow?

 

There is no such thing as positive discrimination.  It's discrimination regardless of the intent.  The rest of the world?  Irrelevant.  This article is about what Trek is doing and that's what is being discussed.  Feeling threatened?  Nothing of the sort.  People are rightly pointing out that what Trek is doing is disciminatory.  No fear, no hate, just pointing out what it is.  You wouldn't turn a blind eye to a racist policy, why allow it for a sexist one?

 

Except that 'positive action' is already legal and widely used (over here at least; not sure about across the pond but it's unlikely Trek are doing anything illegal).

A 'blind eye' is already turned to what is a crude tool. Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils when the other is dominance of particular work environments and trades by particular groups of people.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn...

Avatar
velo-nh replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

Except that 'positive action' is already legal and widely used (over here at least; not sure about across the pond but it's unlikely Trek are doing anything illegal).

Over here it's called "affirmative action", although that's usually in the context of minorities.  Many feel it's repugnant and our courts have been moving away from allowing it.  Things can be wrong and still be legal since you can't legislate morality.  

 

Quote:

Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils when the other is dominance of particular work environments and trades by particular groups of people.

I prefer no evil.  "Groups of people" may choose to work in certain roles or not for a long list of reasons.  Claiming a gap must be because they're disadvantaged is bigotted thinking since you're saying they're not strong enough to get their on their own.  

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to velo-nh | 7 years ago
2 likes
velo-nh wrote:
davel wrote:

Except that 'positive action' is already legal and widely used (over here at least; not sure about across the pond but it's unlikely Trek are doing anything illegal).

Over here it's called "affirmative action", although that's usually in the context of minorities.  Many feel it's repugnant and our courts have been moving away from allowing it.  Things can be wrong and still be legal since you can't legislate morality.  

 

Quote:

Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils when the other is dominance of particular work environments and trades by particular groups of people.

I prefer no evil.  "Groups of people" may choose to work in certain roles or not for a long list of reasons.  Claiming a gap must be because they're disadvantaged is bigotted thinking since you're saying they're not strong enough to get their on their own.  

 

What utter bilge. Does no-one call you out on this nonsense in real life?

"Can't legislate morality." 

"You prefer no evil."

 

What fantasy are you living in.

Avatar
davel replied to velo-nh | 7 years ago
1 like
velo-nh wrote:
davel wrote:

Except that 'positive action' is already legal and widely used (over here at least; not sure about across the pond but it's unlikely Trek are doing anything illegal).

Over here it's called "affirmative action", although that's usually in the context of minorities.  Many feel it's repugnant and our courts have been moving away from allowing it.  Things can be wrong and still be legal since you can't legislate morality.  

 

Quote:

Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils when the other is dominance of particular work environments and trades by particular groups of people.

I prefer no evil.  "Groups of people" may choose to work in certain roles or not for a long list of reasons.  Claiming a gap must be because they're disadvantaged is bigotted thinking since you're saying they're not strong enough to get their on their own.  

What was the % of white men in Wall St banks' boardrooms prior to the credit crisis? Do you honestly not think that white males were (still are) over-represented there? Remind me how 2008 went again.

Just one example where the organisations themselves realised that being institutionally biased in terms of outlook is not only bad for performance, but increases groupthink and reduces governance.

You're making the likes of Bank of America look progressive.

Avatar
urbane replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
velo-nh wrote:
bumble wrote:

I agree with those that think positive discrimination is an imperfect, non-ideal tool.

but if we're going to get all hot and bothered about discrimination, positive or otherwise, how about we start with the entire rest of the world first?

or are some of you men so insecure that you can't see one single sign that says 'no men, not today' without feeling threatened? As if automatically being at the front of the queue for the rest of the known universe isn't enough somehow?

 

There is no such thing as positive discrimination.  It's discrimination regardless of the intent.  The rest of the world?  Irrelevant.  This article is about what Trek is doing and that's what is being discussed.  Feeling threatened?  Nothing of the sort.  People are rightly pointing out that what Trek is doing is disciminatory.  No fear, no hate, just pointing out what it is.  You wouldn't turn a blind eye to a racist policy, why allow it for a sexist one?

 

Except that 'positive action' is already legal and widely used (over here at least; not sure about across the pond but it's unlikely Trek are doing anything illegal). A 'blind eye' is already turned to what is a crude tool. Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils when the other is dominance of particular work environments and trades by particular groups of people. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn...

Just because something is legal doesn't make it fair, right or moral e.g. another example is banks being allow to create multiple of the input currency out of thin air via debt instruments for massive profit compared to their costs; debt which can never be paid back!

Some women may like the warm embrass of Socialist state 'support' via Socialist Third Wave Femininist corruption, but that does not make it a good idea because it isn't financially, culturally, or population sustainable, and there should be no surprise at the growing push back from awake males now via activism and passive detachment!

 

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to urbane | 7 years ago
1 like
urbane wrote:

Just because something is legal doesn't make it fair, right or moral

 

I agree with this statement. For example it is currently legal for women to be paid less for doing exactly the same jobs, this is legal but not fair, right or moral!

Females are coming out of university with better degree results than their male equivalents and yet are being paid a lot less, as detailed in the IFS study from April

Given such factors you could see this initiative as trying to redress some of the balance.

Avatar
urbane replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
urbane wrote:

Just because something is legal doesn't make it fair, right or moral

 

I agree with this statement. For example it is currently legal for women to be paid less for doing exactly the same jobs, this is legal but not fair, right or moral!

Females are coming out of university with better degree results than their male equivalents and yet are being paid a lot less, as detailed in the IFS study from April

Given such factors you could see this initiative as trying to redress some of the balance.

I see the sneaky hijack of my comment there, but it is deception by partial quoting.

The reason why some women got/get paid less is for basic reproduction and economic reasons; sensible women try to have babies, this is very costly for an employer in benefits pay and years of loss of a trained worker, and males have primal psychological needs for some endeavours with no female prescence.

The cruel irony of women trying to have their cake and eat it, is that by working on long careers, wasting their nubile youth sleeping around and maybe late marriage,  is that they may no longer be attractive enough for men to marry, try to have childen too late, when their ovaries are exhausted/damaged, later get avoidable female ill heath, like breast cancer, because their Breasts were never or too late matured and protected by pregnancy and nursing *,  and/or become unhappy cat 'ladies' who can become nasty, jealous feminists, so have cause stupid and unfair laws.

* See the book "Breasts" by Florence Williams for the Science on this.

Women challenge Nature at their cost as well as Mens', and no amount of precious, wishful thinking, pink, unicorn, princess fantasies and laws are going to change that.

Avatar
brooksby replied to urbane | 7 years ago
5 likes
urbane wrote:

The reason why some women got/get paid less is for basic reproduction and economic reasons; sensible women try to have babies, this is very costly for an employer in benefits pay and years of loss of a trained worker, and males have primal psychological needs for some endeavours with no female prescence.

The cruel irony of women trying to have their cake and eat it, is that by working on long careers, wasting their nubile youth sleeping around and maybe late marriage,  is that they may no longer be attractive enough for men to marry, try to have childen too late, when their ovaries are exhausted/damaged, later get avoidable female ill heath, like breast cancer, because their Breasts were never or too late matured and protected by pregnancy and nursing *,  and/or become unhappy cat 'ladies' who can become nasty, jealous feminists, so have cause stupid and unfair laws.

* See the book "Breasts" by Florence Williams for the Science on this.

Women challenge Nature at their cost as well as Mens', and no amount of precious, wishful thinking, pink, unicorn, princess fantasies and laws are going to change that.

I'm sorry, but WTF?????? surprise

Pages

Latest Comments