Oh really how so exactly? (I have previously worked in mass cheap catering)
Has anyone elses salary been affected by the gender pay gap yet?
- Thread starter Roar87
- Start date
Oh really how so exactly? (I have previously worked in mass cheap catering)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Preparing, cooking and serving food is a skill. Are you able to do it for 200 kids?
easily as part of a team of lunch time supervisors in a typical school as would most other people in the country find the role............ next!!
(much like I would find it an easy if somewhat less pleasant job to be a refuse collector ...............)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,162
So you think Greed is a good trait even if it ***** over the entire cast and crew of a movie?
His net worth is $225 million dollars. Did he need another $1.5 million?
Yes I generally think greed is a good trait .............. (within legal boundaries)
The alternative of socialism is an immoral repeatedly failed system that inhibits human ingenuity, drive and hard work replacing it with failure and mediocracy where almost everyone suffers more in the long run (and a system that doesn't even eliminate human greed)
If you have a skill asset or talent and someone else needs use of it there's nothing wrong with asking an appropriate fee for it .............
There's nothing wrong with a bit of (genuine) charity or pro bono work if the person so chooses to go down that route
'Greed' properly harnessed is one of the principle driving forces that has propelled human civilisations forward....
I very much doubt if I looked at your house and wage slip that you could argue that you 'needed' all that you have when children die for want of clean water every minute of every day........
So I take it your fine with me 'socialising' your assets and labour for the common good comrade?
or are you just another western socialist leaning hypocrite who draws an arbitrary line of 'excess wealth' just above your own?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,162
It's all very ironic considering he plays John Paul Gettys associate, at one point trying to convince a tight millionaire to part with his money
to pay the mob??
yes a true tale to warm a socialists heart .........from one bunch of crooks to another
not like he didn't have a good reason (or 2) not to pay...........
First, he argued that to submit to the kidnappers' demands would immediately place his other fourteen grandchildren at the risk of copy-cat kidnappers. He added:The second reason for my refusal was much broader-based. I contend that acceding to the demands of criminals and terrorists merely guarantees the continuing increase and spread of lawlessness, violence and such outrages as terror-bombings, "skyjackings" and the slaughter of hostages that plague our present-day world. (Getty, 1976,).
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
I'm not saying that this thread was boring before we got into bin man vs dinner lady Marxism and how the fired Google employee who turned out to hold abhorrent views might actually be one of the good guys - just saying, both sides have good people, some of the best, thank you! - but no, I suppose I am saying that. Tremendous!
Are you one of those Internet bots that spews random nonsense onto the Internet?
I would be interested to see even a single contextulised quote from yourself, from Damore's memo, to illustrate why exactly you think it could be labelled 'abhorrent'
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
Fantastic interview with Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 on the “pay gap”, feminism and other things. Surprised it’s not been posted on here already. A masterclass in critical thought vs an entrenched position. Interviewer gets it handed to her.
Fantastic interview with Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 on the “pay gap”, feminism and other things. Surprised it’s not been posted on here already. A masterclass in critical thought vs an entrenched position. Interviewer gets it handed to her.
She is going for the award for the most amount of Strawman arguments in one interview.
Again the whole pay gap, is just another divide that pits men against women and women against men, along with all the other divisions in this world....the rulers and elite are laughing.....we all hate each other.
Maybe we should address the gender death gap in the workplace...90%+ of deaths in the workplace are men.....but this isn't talked about, as money for women and power for women is far more important.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,118
The interviewer's argument along with many women (not just feminist) is that the workplace should be orientated and adaptions made so women can reach the top without the need for the battles or and this is the clincher the total life sacrifice which male counterparts have accepted as necessary. Also promotion irrespective of market and cultural forces and thus regardless of impact on revenue.
Essentially, on this approach to her argument there is the fundamental rewrite of history on a 'straw man what if position' i.e. if it had historically been a female orientated environment then these would have been in place from day one.
Conveniently forgetting that we aren't that distant from 2 world wars, short life expectancies due to poor health interventions or none at all and societies which were built on the fundamental survivalist need for male psychology and physiological traits; and the need and security for large family sizes and consistent population growth through birth rates.
Also ignoring that there are lots of female dominated environments and successful females in politics, public sector and private sector. Using the FTSE 100 for male Vs female etc as a measure of parity is also fundamentally flawed; especially where you can realise greater career, financial and social success along with a worklife balance in private companies (law, finance, pharmacy, healthcare etc etc). Plenty of females apply this dictate of choice to their career.
The most challenging context though in all of this is that these hierarchical females are forcing the expectation on all women that they must dominate in the workplace. Ignoring personal choice for example where a female may consider medicine but instead must follow finance on a path to CEO of FTSE 100. Or for women who are content to have a family and are not work performance or income wealth motivated.
Essentially, on this approach to her argument there is the fundamental rewrite of history on a 'straw man what if position' i.e. if it had historically been a female orientated environment then these would have been in place from day one.
Conveniently forgetting that we aren't that distant from 2 world wars, short life expectancies due to poor health interventions or none at all and societies which were built on the fundamental survivalist need for male psychology and physiological traits; and the need and security for large family sizes and consistent population growth through birth rates.
Also ignoring that there are lots of female dominated environments and successful females in politics, public sector and private sector. Using the FTSE 100 for male Vs female etc as a measure of parity is also fundamentally flawed; especially where you can realise greater career, financial and social success along with a worklife balance in private companies (law, finance, pharmacy, healthcare etc etc). Plenty of females apply this dictate of choice to their career.
The most challenging context though in all of this is that these hierarchical females are forcing the expectation on all women that they must dominate in the workplace. Ignoring personal choice for example where a female may consider medicine but instead must follow finance on a path to CEO of FTSE 100. Or for women who are content to have a family and are not work performance or income wealth motivated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,118
Why?
While it was good entertainment value, particularly the "gotcha" bit when she realised just how little she was understanding the points being made, she just didn't get anything out of him really considering the depth he can offer, whenever he tried to expand on anything it would be the "So what you're saying" line or changing to another area from the book.
That being said I've watched many of his videos, so I'd heard most of his points already, for anyone new to him who was watching, it may have been a breath of fresh air to the usual interviews they see on the gender pay gap.
It was nice to see the simplistic feminist viewpoints being easily handled, but the interview was extremely poor, I dunno, maybe that was their agenda as it gets more views.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 1,753
I'd say on the contrary, the interviewer's inadequateness, moral superiority and bias helped further Peterson's gospel.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
The FTSE 100 reference exposes the true feminist agenda. It's not about equality, it's about power. Feminists are angry that it is predominantly white men who hold positions of power and they will do their thing until those white men have been replaced.
What amuses me about feminists is they insist that successful businesses alter their business practices to accommodate their demands. They never go out and set up successful businesses for themselves.
That's the far left in general.....take from others who have worked hard, in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,118
Most importantly though it shows that a gracious, charismatic and intellectual male personality who does not come across as overbearing is still happy to stand up for this position without fear of social media execution.
Too many males and females are either folding and apologising these days even if they have the correct argument or following the popular opinion to fit in. Equally many are now vulnerable to social media juries and executions due to their position or employers position. Academics notably in the USA at certain universities for example are no longer able to enter debates through risk of irrational backlash.
A lot of people are not equipped to enter the current swathe of debates on a whole range of matters in support or opposition to a position statement but do so because social media has given them a voice and the media can make money off amplifying and disseminating divisive opinion. This does nothing to present a robust position.
Historically these debates would have been reserved for the talk shows and media interviews with politicians, academics and experts leaving conjecture to the coffee morning or pub social.