|
Originally Posted by GA2Jets
(Post 3218273)
Explain to me what about having XX chromasomes means you are destined to be more likely a nurse than a pilot. Absent society's influence, it should be much much closer to even.
|
Originally Posted by SonicCarhop
(Post 3218292)
But that's not what this is.
This is acceptance into a program that has a goal of 50% women and minorities in the program, all of whom must presumably meet whatever requirements there are. |
Originally Posted by CoefficientX
(Post 3218295)
So in your opinion if we dressed young boys in pink and gave them dolls they’d grow up to be nurses and if we dressed young girls in blue and gave them trucks they’d grow up to be pilots? Is that how this works?
|
Originally Posted by SonicCarhop
(Post 3218300)
In your opinion, is a boy born biologically preferring blue, and a girl born biologically preferring pink?
Answering a question with a question.... |
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne
(Post 3218297)
Yet.
That number is unfeasibly ridiculous without excluding people based on their race/gender (white men). |
Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne
(Post 3218290)
Do you have any scientific peer reviewed research that shows a large percentage of women being wired differently from their evolutionary counterparts?
Again, it should be a huge discrepancy based on a myriad of factors - several of which have already been discussed. Pilots are are extremely skewed toward men in a way most other professions aren't. It's that simple. It's a serious outlier and to have absolutely no introspection about that, well it's very disappointing. |
Originally Posted by CoefficientX
(Post 3218295)
So in your opinion if we dressed young boys in pink and gave them dolls they’d grow up to be nurses and if we dressed young girls in blue and gave them trucks they’d grow up to be pilots? Is that how this works?
|
My dog wants to fly. He has one wheel from a bum leg and is pushing 10 years old, but I'm sure we can push him through the program. Think they'll modify the crew entry doors for him for the mid flight potty breaks?
|
Originally Posted by AAL763
(Post 3218286)
We’ve been promoting things like that for decades now. This isn’t that. This is putting up a barrier to entry into the training program to applicants who don’t meet HR’s preferred skin color/genital makeup. And it may be a hard concept to grasp for many of the social justice warriors out there, but there is a HUGE difference between qualified (e.g. meeting the minimum requirements) and being the most-qualified. In order to meet the numbers they’re proposing, there will have to be sacrifices made in that regard. If It is for entry into basic flight training, the standards that will be lowered may not be flight time (they won’t have any), rather it will be high school/college grades, extra-curriculars, volunteer experiences, etc.
|
The US military has taken the lead in social issues in this country for many decades. Gender hasn't been a consideration in military pilot hiring for nearly 50 years (other than height for ejection seats and combat restrictions). With the gates wide open for decades, the military hasn't come anywhere near 10% female on the flight deck. For UA to achieve its goal, it will necessarily require a massive disparity in standards due to a sheer lack of volume and interest - it's just basic math, not a comment on any social issue.
I would also add this thought. Have fun negotiating a contract in 15 years if a third of the seniority list is beholden to UA for their only skill set, their employment, and has a $100,000 debt to the company. That should make for a very steely-eyed pilot group at the negotiating table (sarcasm intended). |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:59 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands