There is a lot of noise around DEI hiring lately. People for it don't see that we still are selecting based on factors unrelated to qualifications. People against it rarely have similar reactions when family members get preferential hiring, treatment, etc.

If we are going to throw a fit aboit DEI, we need to talk about all of our sons and daughters who receive scholarships they don't really need, jobs they didn't really qualify for, etc. If we are going to defend DEI we need to acknowledge we are replacing one form of corruption with another.

My thoughts on the matter: It's all inconsequential, PR nonsense. The world has been and will remain an imperfect place. I'm more concerned when the super wealthy stop boarding commercial airliners. When that happens two standards of safety follows. We've seen this happen in other countries. When the rich can use helicopters, they stop maintaining the roads and paying the traffic police. When the rich can fly to Dubai for medical care they stop funding the local hospitals.

DEI hiring? We've been having variations on this discussion since the 1940s.

 

Just peruse the new hire class pictures.......... no change.

It's virtue signaling for investors.

 

Getting hired as a flight attendant requires really no experience. You can run practically anyone through the program and poof, they're a flight attendant. Being a pilot requires years of dedication and hard work before you even get your entry level job. That alone weeds people out, both male and female. What we see are the survivors. The bottom half of the flight attendant list churns. People get hired, find out that life on the road isn't good for their families, and quit. There is also a difference in how the sexes are wired. Men seem wired towards being gearheads while most women do not. There aren't as many women pilots, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, etc, not because of discrimination, but because most women simply aren't interested. I suspect that if we take a large group of young people entering the zero to hero training programs like the Aviate Academy and check in on them in 10-15 years, we'll find that a much larger percentage of female applicants have quit to focus on a family.

 

"Hypergomous", You are stretching with this one. Thanks for the laugh though.

 

s

Our kids "don't need a scholarship", "jobs that they don't really qualify for"? Sounds exactly what DEI does. Show me anyone who is going to turn down a scholarship because they, "don't need it".

 

Stan,

Line up 100 women and ask them what they would rather have. A provider husband who makes more than them so he can support a family with kids or an average wage earner who requires his wife to work full time and earn the same as she does? Most would say they want a man who is stronger, smarter, taller, and most of all can provide the resources to raise a family. That is the very definition of hypergamous.

 

Where does this opinion come from? Have you asked hundreds of women this question? Are you a woman who is assuming everyone else shares your sentiment? Or are you a man who thinks they know what women want?

These posts describing what women want are a joke. Women are not a monolith.

 

The world works in generalities. Just because you are a special outlyer doesn't make the generalization invalid. A woman should be hypergamous. They need to choose the man who can provide for their family. Evolutionary biology isn't very complicated. Go read Dr. David Bus.

 

If you put any large group of people together you begin to see patterns develop. In our society that pattern typically shows that most women would prefer to be home with kids while most men would prefer to be the providers. Some families depend on 2 incomes, while others have 2 career driven parents, but the majority would pick the stay at home mom plan if given a choice.

 

Women tell us what they want in their mating selections. WE HAVE THE DATA! Dating apps have spilled the beans on how women view men. They swipe right only for the top 20% of men. 80% of men are unattractive to them (invisible). Why do you think that 33% of men under the age of 30 are incels or virgins. You can call this hypergamy or hoflation or whatever word you want (Stan) but it is a fact. Men will, as they always do, follow the herd and adjust their strategy to get what they want.