The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[dream big]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m just saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The annoying CBTs, the intolerably weird seminars, etc., yea those aren’t helping. The DEI industrial complex is a thing and it pretty much sucks - 69% of them are a bunch of grifters of you ask me.

BUT, there’s no reason the flight deck (or the boardroom or wherever else) has to be so radically skewed white and male, or female, or whatever else depending on the field. But for aviation it’s definitely white and male.

IMHO talent is relatively evenly distributed by race, gender, etc., so if your institution is not, you are accepting more mediocrity than you should. If there are some no-shitter physical characteristics that are essential to screen for, ok. That doesn’t really exist for airline pilots, yet the group is 95% male and I’m sure very overly represented by white people as well.

And while I’m sure the vast majority of current pilots are well meaning and we’ll qualified, you don’t just continue to accept an objectively weird situation with that kind of imbalance forever.

Give more opportunities to folks who are underrepresented and you’ll find tons of excellent pilots, more than if you remained hemmed in by your very off-kilter, limited historical selection pool.

That’s my opinion at least. It’s not hard quotas or interviewing people with freaking bags over their heads, it’s nuts seeking out talent broadly and nurturing opportunities for everyone. Feel free to disagree if you’d like.

So what if it is skewed? As long as the most qualified are being hired and everyone has an opportunity to tryout, then who cares what people look like? If a group of people I’m working with are all disabled transgender black females, but the most qualified… then great! If that same group were all white men…then who cares?

The dudes on this group are talking about it because “those left of you” have made institutionalized racism a comeback in places like the airlines and military. 

Also what problem is DEI trying to solve? Are we losing wars because there aren’t enough minority female generals? Are aircraft incidents on the rise because of old white males? Or is it about feelings and perception…quality and competence be damned? Because that is an unacceptable experiment in fields where quality and competence impacts lives.

Finally, what rights do white males have in terms of getting a pilots license that minorities and females do not? Are women not allowed to pursue aviation, nor minorities? There is no law in place that prevents anyone from pursuing a pilot career. Now, if you want to make the financial barrier argument, for example, African Americans, I’ll buy that and to that point have no issue with flight schools doing outreach, mentorship and offering scholarships. Those should be offered to underprivileged without thought of race/gender but that’s just my opinion. However, having a mandatory quota based on race (United, and let’s be honest many programs in our military) is racist and dangerous. 

[SocialD]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You…are having weird dark fantasies about putting hoods on people and conducting super weird interviews.

🤷‍♂️

 

 

This is what they'd do if they truly cared about removing bias and hiring the most qualified people.  Anything that could lead to a conclusion on demographics would be masked on applications. The interviewers wouldn't see the person being interviewed and their voices would be modulated to avoid detection of any accents (tons of bias based on that).  But that wouldn't meet the agenda, so it would never happen.  

[Inertia17]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Well half of the population is women, technically more than half of you consider all ages, so that makes sense! If you’re taking people literally off the street and making them pilots all in-house, you should at bare minimum expect to start with ~50% women, right?

An issue with setting demographic based quotas is that they don't take into account the interest of said groups. While at least partially due to perception, ie seeing that aviation is 95% male can be discouraging to some women, it isn't simply a matter of setting a demographic for a class. Men and Women tend to gravitate towards certain fields based on interest, which could be argued til the end of time whether it is nature vs nurture, but most engineers are men, most nurses are women. Things vs people. Aviation is a "thing" field. A demographic quota doesn't make sense, and forces the wrong kind of hiring.

If you want to move the number, increase the interest in the groups you want, then continue to hire based on merit. Reference the multiple female demo pilots, show them it can be done, this can be you. Interest grows, hire those who can do the thing, the number moves.

[Boomer6]

I don’t know that anyone is arguing that there should be barriers to ppl based on physical traits they’re born with, specifically in aviation jobs. However, there are a lot of company/gov led initiatives that are pushing certain groups of ppl based on physical traits they’re born with. I get the impression after years of these arguments on BO that the liberal minded ppl here and in America have no problem with physical traits being the discriminator as long as it helps someone get a job, but consider it abhorrent if the situation is reversed. I don’t understand how that isn’t a hypocritical viewpoint.

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I don’t know that anyone is arguing that there should be barriers to ppl based on physical traits they’re born with, specifically in aviation jobs. 

Liberals are arguing there should be barriers to people based on physical traits they are born with in aviation jobs.  They don’t think they are arguing this, but they are.  They talk about opportunities and shattering glass ceilings, and similar emotional gibberish that sounds inspirational and forward thinking at first contact.  However, because there are a finite number of jobs, any hiring advantage given to one group based on their immutable characteristics has deleterious impacts on those outside that group.  A job in the majors is already highly competitive with far more qualified applicants than positions; ergo preference to one skin color/genitalia necessarily creates a higher barrier to those without the desired qualities. 

Flea/NS: is there any proof that race/gender based hiring increases aviation safety or efficiency?  Is there any danger they could threaten aviation safety or efficiency?  I’m sure you are both well meaning bros who want to answer “yes and no” respectively, but consider the question not from your altruistic motives but from the perspective of cold-hearted corporations driven solely by financial incentives.  

[brabus]

Perhaps a lot of talking past each other here. DEI progressives/leftists/grifters (whatever you want to call them) only care about a narrative, which is to say they want to cook the books with numbers and don’t give a fuck about actual qualifications or merit, and in fact are biased and racists against certain demographics. On the other side are the ultra-right people who think women don’t belong in a cockpit, gay people can’t possibly be doctors, etc. (insert whatever other similar statement you want). 
 

I think most of us agree DEI could simply be destroying barriers to truly provide equality of opportunity. I don’t give a fuck how many white vs. black fly airplanes, but we can do better recruiting and educating in inner city Atlanta. I don’t care if we have 50% women or 2% women pilots, but we can put more effort into targeted recruiting at women’s schools, female sports events, whatever. We should be after these demographics not because of physical traits, but to maximize the applicant pool and look for hiring opportunities to diversify backgrounds (and therefore thought), but with zero fucks given about immutable traits. That direction and weight of effort of education and recruitment is how DEI could be a good thing, but instead, as it stands today, is all kinds of fucked up. 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by brabus

[ClearedHot]

I don't even have words to respond.

Clean pantries are ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’: Loyola marketing scholar

[Guardian]

Wonder what the pendulum swing back is going to look like.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

ultra-right people who think women don’t belong in a cockpit..

Pictures for humor only.

The right message at every recruiting event, from inner city schools to MIT, should be "we want the best on our team and we believe some of the best are here right now. If you think that's you, come talk to me."

The absurdity of DEI hiring is that it advantages the rich black girl from a private school in New York over the poor white dude from Appalachia with no parents who has been working since 12 and taught himself to read.  Both examples are real people I know. 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by tac airlifter

[Biff_T]

If you were conducting an interview and this dude walked in, would you take him seriously?   Be honest.  

They won't hire you if you show up to the interview with the wrong color suit at some places.   

I had the pleasure to fly with a future trans a few months before I retired in 2018.  He, by far, was the worst pilot/student I ever flew with. We were conducting a NVG tac form upgarde sortie, in the mountains during a steady snowfall.  He couldn't maintain +/- 100 feet.  That will get you killed when you're flying at 50 feet.  l  I had to cancel our flight before we left the pattern.  The other aircraft went single ship.  We were not able to complete any training. The other aircraft needed us to complete MSN training as well.  He (my student) was not confident or competent...at all.  He actually scared me.  I have been in situatuons where if he was my co, we would have died. He transitioned two months before I retired.  That reaIly helped the squadron.  Especially, the 5 months he spent DNIF trying to figure out his sexuality.  He was a waste of a pilot slot.  I knew it was my time to retire.  

That's my experience.   What's yours? 

[skibum]

18 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

That's my experience.   What's yours? 

Meh - I've got a dozen stories just like that with regular dudes. Your sample size is a bit low. I've had more issues with some pussy AC/DO/CC types who couldn't make a decision to sit a low-performing idiot just because. This was long before we celebrated people for cutting off a penis.

[Guest nsplayr]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Perhaps a lot of talking past each other here. DEI progressives/leftists/grifters (whatever you want to call them) only care about a narrative, which is to say they want to cook the books with numbers and don’t give a fuck about actual qualifications or merit, and in fact are biased and racists against certain demographics. On the other side are the ultra-right people who think women don’t belong in a cockpit, gay people can’t possibly be doctors, etc. (insert whatever other similar statement you want). 
 

I think most of us agree DEI could simply be destroying barriers to truly provide equality of opportunity. I don’t give a fuck how many white vs. black fly airplanes, but we can do better recruiting and educating in inner city Atlanta. I don’t care if we have 50% women or 2% women pilots, but we can put more effort into targeted recruiting at women’s schools, female sports events, whatever. We should be after these demographics not because of physical traits, but to maximize the applicant pool and look for hiring opportunities to diversify backgrounds (and therefore thought), but with zero fucks given about immutable traits. That direction and weight of effort of education and recruitment is how DEI could be a good thing, but instead, as it stands today, is all kinds of fucked up. 

 

Yea I agree with almost all of this.

It does make you wonder when there’s a highly desirable, lucrative and respected career that’s 95% one gender (or race or whatever), that’s not what you’d expect to naturally occur. Probably worth putting some effort to assess if that makes sense or if it is a societal effect that’s not actually helping make that career field better.

Don’t hire people because of their race or gender or whatever or hire unqualified people, but open up your recruiting lenses and offer opportunities and push people who are underrepresented to apply. There are amazing, top 10% future pilots we’ll miss out on if you don’t do those things, and you’ll have to hire instead more center- or below-center-of-mass in-group folks just to fill the seats.

I’ll say it again, there’s a brittleness to too much sameness. Fully agree that modern DEI stuff is usually insane so don’t put that evil on me Ricky Bobby.

Edited March 17, 2023 by nsplayr

[Guardian]

Yea I agree with almost all of this.
It does make you wonder when there’s a highly desirable, lucrative and respected career that’s 95% one gender (or race or whatever), that’s not what you’d expect to naturally occur. Probably worth putting some effort to assess if that makes sense or if it is a societal effect that’s not actually helping make that career field better.
Don’t hire people because of their race or gender or whatever or hire unqualified people, but open up your recruiting lenses and offer opportunities and push people who are underrepresented to apply. There are amazing, too 10% future pilots we’ll miss out on if you don’t do those things, and you’ll have to hire instead more center- or below-center-of-mass in-group folks just to fill the seats.
I’ll say it again, there’s a brittleness to too much sameness. Fully agree that modern DEI stuff is usually insane so don’t put that evil on me Ricky Bobby.

5% female. Have you ever considered that maybe they don’t want to do the same jobs as men? Why are their so many male construction workers or mechanics? Why aren’t the women equally represented?


Are there other possible answers other than sexism or racism to your perceived problems? And are those reasons way more likely to answer your why question than the system is broken and racist, sexist or some sort of ist?

Do you understand that equity is more likely actually racist or sexist than it isnt?

And do the groups who you claim are under represented feel this way too in actuality or is it just you being offended on their behalf instead of what is the most equal and right thing to do? I’d wager it’s what makes us American in the first place.

The best thing is opportunity to succeed. And someone else hit it on the cranium. Why should a poor, black, female, who worked her butt off to get where he is at and in this example might be just as experienced as a male or majority race be held back because of his skin color and genitalia . The answer is she shouldn’t. And to do otherwise is racist and or sexist.

Switch the roles around in that example of female to male and black to white and ask yourself the same question.

The answer is DEI the way it’s marketed and employed is racist and sexist. It seeks to hold one group down at the expense of another.

[Guest nsplayr]

It’s not that you should have quotas or some of the other excesses of modern DEI warriors. But just ask yourself if, given that talent is relatively evenly distributed (maybe you don’t believe this), what led to a certain career field still being 95/5 split in 2023? Is that a desirable end state?

There was a time when basically all prestigious career fields were approx 100% male. Doctors, lawyers, surgeons, elected leaders, CEOs, etc. That’s no longer the case, and I say that’s for the better for everyone. Maybe you don’t believe that either.

ATP pilots are a bit of an outlier still being so highly male, why is that? Like I mentioned, even some of the most stereotypically female careers (that pay way less) are more gender-balanced. Some imbalance is due to preferences and all else, but 95/5? Likely not.

I actually, no-shit, believe that diversity across numerous dimensions makes us stronger and it’s ok if you don’t, but that’s the foundational belief for supporting programs that help bring underrepresented people into high-status, important fields. Trying to give voice however imperfectly to the other side of a lot of what’s posted here.

Edited March 17, 2023 by nsplayr

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, skibum said:

Meh - I've got a dozen stories just like that with regular dudes. Your sample size is a bit low. I've had more issues with some pussy AC/DO/CC types who couldn't make a decision to sit a low-performing idiot just because. This was long before we celebrated people for cutting off a penis.

In my entire flying career, I've flown with only one guy who couldn't hold level flight as a rated pilot.   That was him.    

For sure there are subpar performers who aren't trans but once again, they could hold their altitude.   I had a crew chief hold his altitude better than this dude.   Basic pilot skills.  I'm not talking about having him landing on mountains in whiteout conditions or hovering at 200 feet to rescue someone. Or having him fly NVG gun patterns with no illumination l.  Basic pilot skills.  He had some mental issues.  

Look guys,  to be honest, I don't care what you look like or who you fuck.  It shouldn't matter.  I just want the best people flying with our airmen.  In the current environment, that doesn't appear to be the priority.  

I too care about helping the most vulnerable people in our population, but forcing them to be hired because of their appearance vs abilities is not a smart move.  There has to be a better way.

Who do you want hovering that helicopter as you get hoisted out of a shitty situation? Who do you want dropping targets that are danger close?  The best aviator or something else? 

@nsplayr

BTW,  I'm really into hosting masked hiring parties.  Except there is no job.  BRCC  

[Biff_T]

14 hours ago, nsplayr said:

IMHO talent is relatively evenly distributed by race, gender, etc., so if your institution is not, you are accepting more mediocrity than you should. If there are some no-shitter physical characteristics that are essential to screen for, ok. That doesn’t really exist for airline pilots, yet the group is 95% male and I’m sure very overly represented by white people as well.

And while I’m sure the vast majority of current pilots are well meaning and we’ll qualified, you don’t just continue to accept an objectively weird situation with that kind of imbalance forever.

Give more opportunities to folks who are underrepresented and you’ll find tons of excellent pilots, more than if you remained hemmed in by your very off-kilter, limited historical selection pool

I agree.   But the change can't happen overnight.  Use DEI to educate people, recruite talent (sts) and etcetera.  Give them the opportunity to succeed by their own merit.  Don't just hand them a job because of the body they were born in.  To an extent, that's been going on for hundreds of years with my white brothers (all jobs, not just aviation), just like equal rights for all, this disparity will not be fixed overnight.  

[Guardian]

It’s not that you should have quotas or some of the other excesses of modern DEI warriors. But just ask yourself if, given that talent is relatively evenly distributed (maybe you don’t believe this), what led to a certain career field still being 95/5 split in 2023? Is that a desirable end state?
There was a time when basically all prestigious career fields were approx 100% male. Doctors, lawyers, surgeons, elected leaders, CEOs, etc. That’s no longer the case, and I say that’s for the better for everyone. Maybe you don’t believe that either.
ATP pilots are a bit of an outlier still being so highly male, why is that? Like I mentioned, even some of the most stereotypically female careers (that pay way less) are more gender-balanced. Some imbalance is due to preferences and all else, but 95/5? Likely not.
I actually, no-shit, believe that diversity across numerous dimensions makes us stronger and it’s ok if you don’t, but that’s the foundational belief for supporting programs that help bring underrepresented people into high-status, important fields. Trying to give voice however imperfectly to the other side of a lot of what’s posted here.

I get what you are trying to say. And to a certain extent I agree about what you are saying about diversities. However I think a white male and another white male can be an example of diversity. Not because of their skin and crotch obviously but because of an untold number of other diversity factors.

Sex and skin color are some of the worst indicators of diversity imaginable. And yet that’s what’s focused on.

[Grabby]

nsplayr,

The reason there is not an equal gender split is because men and women are different.  We think different, we want different things and are attracted to different things.  I don't understand how this isn't clear to absolutely everyone, especially any adult regardless of political leanings.

Why is it only certain professions that people decry an unequal ratio in?  

 

 

 

[FLEA]

15 hours ago, O Face said:

Hope this helps…Sounds exactly like that data you were requesting.

I don't read that as a direction to hiring manager to pick only minorities or women--which would be unlawful under existing federal statutes and no company would risk doing it. This has been litigated several times and a hiring authority has never won a case trying to justify taking race into account in its hiring decisions. If the HR department is functioning properly, the hiring authorities should never receive candidate information on race/gender/etc..... A separate arm of HR collects that and it is kept highly confidential. 

I read that as a direction to talent recruiters to spend more time in the space of women and people of color to ensure a higher number of applying, thus increasing the probabilities that someone who is qualified for the position from one of those sub-categories applies. Remember, talent recruiters have absolutely 0 bearing on the hiring decision for a candidate. Their soul purpose is to find people to put in front of hiring managers. 

I also read it as a message to ERG's to spend more time doing community outreach, mentoring and working with applicants, to give them guidance on what types of things they can do to prepare to submit the strongest application ever. Again, ERG's have nothing to do with a hiring decision. They are there to internally support workplace culture and to help provide external influences to promote their affinity group. 

I dont think you would find either of those two things problematic. 

[FLEA]

8 minutes ago, Grabby said:

nsplayr,

The reason there is not an equal gender split is because men and women are different.  We think different, we want different things and are attracted to different things.  I don't understand how this isn't clear to absolutely everyone, especially any adult regardless of political leanings.

Why is it only certain professions that people decry an unequal ratio in?  

 

 

 

Because they are typically the high paying ones without significant personal danger or health consequences. Pretty obvious. 

[Guest nsplayr]

@Grabby

As I’ve mentioned several times, there’s some imbalance that’s expected due to preferences. Is it 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, etc. I don’t know, don’t really care one way or the other. But it ain’t 95/5, especially for a lucrative and well respected career field. You have to see that something there is probably not ideally distributed. You have some low-performers in the 95% group who can and should be overlooked for very talented folks in the 5% group who haven’t been given a shot.

Percentage wise there are more male elementary school teachers than female ATP pilots, and I can tell you for sure elementary education doesn’t pay for shit and is not high-status.

It’s worth thinking about how we arrived at 95/5, what talented folks we’re missing out on because of that, and figuring out ways to move toward a better mix that actually maximizes talent in the long term.

I personally know many extremely talented & valuable PhDs, JDs, MDs, etc. that would have never been in those career fields even one generation ago due to racial or gender norms of the time. It’s much better for everyone that we’ve moved beyond that today, and my point that hits close to home perhaps is that ATP pilots as a group are well behind the 8-ball in this regard.

[HossHarris]

The underlying assumption for all DEI is that talent is distributed evenly across the spectrum of humanity. 
 

That’s a large assumption….

I’d concede that it’s probably true at level of young children. But once talent becomes merit, and effort, motivation, hard work, aptitude, and drive is involved to increase your merit…all bets are off. 
 

and there are physiological differences amongst groups of humans as well.  For example, There’s a reason there aren’t any women playing in the NFL. and I don’t think it has anything to do with recruiting efforts or barriers to entry. 
 

could a woman attain the merit to play … absolutely… it’s just a lot less likely. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by HossHarris

[Pooter]

There's a phenomenon where people will subconsciously self-select out of a career fields if they don't see people who look like them doing those jobs.  As white dudes we don't notice it because we're well represented in most desirable high caliber fields. But I have multiple female family members who are military pilots, and they say that feeling is something they had, and is still prevalent among girls. 

I'm not for quotas or specific DEI hiring initiatives but outreach campaigns like the "fly like a girl" one the Air Force has pushed are great in my opinion.  If you truly want to get the best talent you need to cast the widest net you can and whittle down the pool from there. 

[HossHarris]

Just now, Pooter said:

There's a phenomenon where people will subconsciously self-select out of a career fields if they don't see people who look like them doing those jobs.  As white dudes we don't notice it because we're well represented in most desirable high caliber fields. But I have multiple female family members who are military pilots, and they say that feeling is something they had, and is still prevalent among girls. 

I'm not for quotas or specific DEI hiring initiatives but outreach campaigns like the "fly like a girl" one the Air Force has pushed are great in my opinion.  If you truly want to get the best talent you need to cast the widest net you can and whittle down the pool from there. 

Perfectly valid … as long as you’re still selecting for the “best”

[Pooter]

3 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

Perfectly valid … as long as you’re still selecting for the “best”

Exactly. This is how I view the difference between the words equality and equity. 
 

Equality = cast the widest net you can by publicizing opportunities for underrepresented groups.. but still select for competence at the end of the day

 

Equity = prioritize quotas and percentages over all else at the expense of competence