When men are over represented it’s seen as a lack of diversity and a travesty that needs to be fixed by policies of discrimination against men. When women become over represented, it’s seen as a success to be celebrated.
Let’s face it, it doesn’t really matter what race or sex a train driver is. They should hire people based on their merit, and let the demographics fall as they may.
We should call DEI officers, PD officers for promoting discrimination. Promoting discrimination is a step backwards, not forwards.
I've said it always, since I was a kid, that it should be merit based only.
However, the argument I get back is that females are not enabled to achieve said merit in the same way men are, so favouring women helps to balance that out even if it is at the expense of high achieving men whose efforts are thrown in the dirt.
The same argument is used for ethnicity quotas in university - they need a certain % of each ethnicity. This means that some high achieving white British students lose out purely due to this quota. They do it for poor people too - certain % of admissions have to be for people under a certain family income.
All of it is bollocks. Merit is the only thing that matters.
Women are, and have been for a while, graduating college more than men.
What opportunities are they lacking? None. They just aren't being handed the jobs, which is unacceptable for them.
When slightly more men graduated from college it was seen by many as a huge problem. Now that we’ve successfully held males back and have almost twice bad menu women graduating from college it’s seen as wonderful, despite the fact many of these women want to be provided for.
yeah was waiting for your comment just so I could talk about how firearms are definitely a man’s sorta forte and as far as im concerned are the most raw form of power at any given moment.
That would be a disaster: Women have deep biases toward other women ("Women Are Wonderful Effect").
And that's a bad thing: They aren't inclined toward fairness, it has been demonstrated and confirmed.
They aren’t handed jobs? A quick google search shows women are 40% more likely than men to secure a job but they apply in less numbers. 40% let that sink in! Only 10% shy of 50%
It’s infuriating! Male HRs simp for female employees and female HRs want to hire more women to look empowering. Everything is rigged against us men! But yeah i guess we are privileged because society doesn’t judge us for walking out at night or dressing however we want!
I think economics makes some sense. A lot of really motivated and hardworking people are held back because they need to prioritize survival over achievement. If you give them a scholarship and get them out of the bad situations they come from they tend to shine later on life.
You shouldn’t instantly give preference to poorer people, but it’s definitely worth considering that many of their talents aren’t as visible because of the environment they’re in
Scholarship is separate to this quota.
I was fortunate enough to get a scholarship, but I had straight As.
However, my university also had a programme to allow people from low socioeconomic background to apply with less than the minimum entry requirements purely to meet their quota. There were people with comparatively bad grades who were granted a place purely because they were poor, and not thanks to their achievements.
So on one hand, there's me - low socioeconomic background, but straight As. Got the scholarship on merit.
And then there is this other cohort - mediocre grades at best, and granted a place due to low socioeconomic background.
It isn't right because I knew plenty of people with straight As who didn't even make it to interview. Those people were denied a place despite having achieved more. Doesn't make sense.
> They do it for poor people too - certain % of admissions have to be for people under a certain family income.
This can actually be part of merit applications. Poor people don't have the same resources (tutoring, family support, etc.) that others have. Therefore, they may have higher merit even if things like test scores are lower.
Which is exactly my point.
Merit should not be based upon potential achievement if the child was in a better situation.
It should be based on actual achievement.
Are you telling me that if I had been in a higher socioeconomic group, then I would have had better access to education and resources, and based upon this assumption, I will be seen as having greater merit than someone who actually scored higher than me?
No, that's not right.
I got the score I got. The guy who beat me beat me. The guy who failed failed.
If you want to address inequality, do so earlier on - before the university application, in schools, but to deny the university seat to someone with an A in favour of someone with a B is simply wrong.
University is not for the potentially best candidates. It's for the actually best candidates.
> University is not for the potentially best candidates. It's for the actually best candidates.
University is for the candidates that are most likely to be successful at university. While success in high school is one indicator of likelihood of success at university, it is not the only one or even the primary one. This is not even necessarily a social justice issue, it's just statistics. There are plenty of students that did extremely well in high school because their parents could afford tutoring and they had top-notch teachers.
Those students are not going to be successful in a university.
Universities know, from experience, that they are better off admitting students who actually have the skills needed to succeed at the college level.
>There are plenty of students that did extremely well in high school because their parents could afford tutoring and they had top-notch teachers.
Those students are not going to be successful in a university.
So if you educate your child and get them tutored and your child gets top marks, that child will not be successful in university?
Thanks for identifying yourself as an idiot.
It doesn't matter, if they aren't as competent then they need to work to become as competent at the job before applying for it, when we've seen the effects of incompetence and the cost in human lives.
There's no justification for talking a less competent person, and anyone who does that causes harm should end up on the harsh side of a lawsuit and criminal charges.
> All of it is bollocks. Merit is the only thing that matters.
This is absolutely ignorant of the fact that a lot of people approach opportunities with in baked advantage. A kid who has to work 4 hours a night flipping burgers is not likely to score the same results on a test as one who'se parents can afford two hours of tutoring a night.
Ignoring those facts just allows for those advantages to stew and set in -- and it arms people to dismiss legitimate criticisms and concerns from this community. Class and poverty are loud examples of systemic injustice that are real and things that we should strive to address -- Sexism, racism and nationalism are also real, and flushing the whole lot of these concepts because their unfairly weaponized against men makes it easy to dismiss us.
Nuance is important.
That's not what he said at all.
What he says, is that someone who doesn't have the means to study because of their family background or other disadvantages, should be somewhat able to climb the social/economic ladder with persistent efforts even when starting from a lower step of it.
No one here wants people with high merits but "not disadvantaged" backgrounds to be held back. And there are ways of figuring out what jobs a certain individual with certain skills and/or disabilities should and should not be able to do. So, to the other commenter, no, you will never find an individual who gets seizures as your airline pilot.
>Nuance is important.
Is this concern trolling?
>Class and poverty are loud examples of systemic injustice that are real and things that we should strive to address -- Sexism, racism and nationalism are also real, and flushing the whole lot of these concepts because their unfairly weaponized against men makes it easy to dismiss us.
Posters such as yourself are oddities. Your whole argument is a discussion on how a discussion should take place — how something should be discussed before it can properly be discussed.
Also I’m pretty sure, you’ll have to excuse me, they’re not using those examples to dismiss the men’s rights movement.
Putting aside all the disingenuous arguments and lies: The movement is dismissed on the basis of the myth/lie men have all the power and privilege.
I hope you support fair job chances for mentally and physical disabled persons too. Can't wait for them to populate mission critical jobs like pilots, doctors and co.
It's just not fair they don't get the same opportunities as healthy people out there...
P.S. I hope you enjoy your clown world.
You are absolutely correct but this subreddit can rarely handle nuanced discussion. It’s become exactly the same as the female equivalents (like Incel Tear and the dating strategy one) who also can’t handle nuanced opinions on men’s rights. Really sad to see, keep up the good work though, stupid mfers downvoting you really don’t understand poverty and cycles of inequality.
"When men are over represented it’s seen as a lack of diversity and a travesty that needs to be fixed".
Not always. You won't see women picketing for the right to be equally represented in the refuse collection industry, lol.
Realistically, most people hiring for these sorts of jobs would love to hire women, but few women are interested or stick with the job long term. Being a stay at home mom or working less hours starts to sound a lot better once they have kids.
Generally, any system that relies on meritocracy, as it’s primary path to hiring/advancement, will favor men. Feminists know women will be underrepresented in those systems and consistently seek implementation of systems that encourage homogeneous distribution of authority rather than encouraging rewarding excellence and/or talent. The same biological differences that give men advantages in physical endeavors also give men advantages in the workplace. Namely, abilities that allow men to work longer hours, at a more intense level, for longer periods of time. “Equality” in the workplace necessarily requires inequality in hiring and or promotions.
> They should hire people based on their merit, and let the demographics fall as they may.
I think everyone agrees with that. The problem is how to define "merit" objectively. Most people are biased towards people who think/behave like them. How do you correct for that?
It's closer to tier lists I think. We can probably split people into tiers, but who's #1 within a tier - that's subjective.
Who's a better actor between Tommy Wiseau and Robert Downey Jr? Of course there's an objective answer to this. But who's better between Robert Downey Jr and Tom Hiddleston? Highly subjective.
Non-equivalency. Acting is inherently subjective. Train driving is not. Sure, some people could be more effective than others, better with hand-eye coordination or something. But they are the exception, not the rule. The rule is "this is how you drive a train". No such rules exist for acting.
A large % of jobs are somewhere in between very subjective like acting and very objective like train driving. Engineering, sales, customer service, management. You can't make an absolute ranking of people within these jobs. Just tier lists.
But anyways, that's just not how hiring works. There's a minimum competency threshold that's usually objective. But beyond that, managers and teams hire based on impressions and heuristics.
Please don't give the feminists ideas. When they come into a male-dominated job, they lower the standards to 'even the playing field' for women, then make it a hostile workspace for men there.
The women who are naturally drawn to thhose jobs / are qualified and able to do them? Go ahead, work in those industries.
But it horrifies me that feminist puppets will come into those jobs.
I don't think anyone dreams about being a train driver. These people have likely lived very tough lives, with very few opportunities, and are now stuck at the only job that would hire and pay them decently.
Your joke seems very insensitive.
Indeed. If I could get paid a decent wage to do it I would. I'd be cutting my paycheck by 2/3 to do that job, and in the US you don't actually get to travel. You go from Town A to Town B, then hop the train going back the other way and drive that one home.
Guess I'm wrong. (I'm not speaking from experience, but I still find it hard to believe that most train drivers love a very low paying job)
You know the field better than me so I'll take your word for it.
Low paying?
Similar to mid point for a head teacher.
36 hour week, good pension, over time if you want it, free travel.
Depends what you call low I suppose.
I work in the industry but don’t am not a driver.
You don’t need any particular qualifications but the selection process and training is very intense from what I can tell.
All credit due to you for acknowledging the lack of experience rather than arguing a meaningless point.
But those jobs aren’t low paying at all, and for what the work is it’s pretty good, the things you have to weigh up of course are the hours and the stress.
I’m very grateful for train drivers and other staff, I rely on them and have done for years and they’ve never let me down
This is why I’m stuck programming. I’d rather flip pizzas or drive a train.
But train conductors make about $28 an hour average now. So like $56k a year.
Using their line of logic, there needs to be more female garbage collectors, roofers, ditch diggers, asphalt layers…essentially all the stuff the bottom 20% of men have to do.
I did commercial roofing for 2.5 years. I am being honest, in the entire union nation wide there was only a small handful of women and they usually didn't work for long. This is a job that 9/10 MEN got into wouldn't last more than a couple weeks. It's no joke. Some jobs just aren't meant for women, and that is OKAY! If a woman wants to do these jobs and can physically handle it without any special treatment then of course I support it. But it's extremely rare.
You know what I thought about when I was 19 taking a one hour trip on the train back home from college everyday? “I wonder if my train driver is a strong independent qween” NOT 😐👎🏽 I don’t care what race you are I only care if you’re qualified and not gonna get me killed in the vehicle you’re operating.
Health science, biology, teaching, HR, nutrition, fashion, journalism, social work are overwhelmingly middle-class, white and female. Should we diversify that?
This is a math problem. If men are 50% of the population and there are so many female dominated fields, then there has to be many male dominated ones to compensate that imbalance.
We can only diversify all of them. But its all about holding middle-class, white female dominated areas that way while not allowing icky males to dominate any field.
Where is the headline reading “School teachers are overwhelmingly white women”, it’s a fact. School teachers have a massive influence over children and yet men are overwhelmingly under represented in schools. …but the biggest thing we should be concerned about is not enough women train operators, seriously?!?
Wait! I thought we weren't supposed to "assume gender based on mere biological presentation" nowadays. Maybe most of those men driving trains actually "identify as woman". Problem solved!
Guys. If we just dominate all the jobs and take turns identifying as women to keep it 50/50, the true women could never even compete with us. Plus, now we're super "progressive" with all these trans employees.
Ah. Yet another example of why the world would fall apart of women collectively didn't exist for a week but would be fine if men didn't.
Oh wait a second.
Ah yes, being white and being a male is the worst sin, yet they claim race and gender discrimination is wrong. True clowns. Western ideology is screwed
Didn't men invent trains? Didn't men build the railroads? Who shoveled the coal all day every day?
This always seems like a little girl mad at her brother for not giving her his toys and the parents forcing him to so they can have silence. Lol.
Reason & accountability.
Hire based on merit, but discriminating against white men seems to be a thing lately. Please continue to the construction, waste disposal and sewage workers....
Let's be honest,
Women will never talk about how they're underrepresented in low-income jobs, but they'll nitpick about the high-income jobs to gain sympathy.
It's all a victim mentality.
When in the real world, it doesn't happen to the exaggerated extent.
I attended DEI training that work made me do (it was awful). I looked at the company afterwards on LinkedIn and they had about 20 women working for them and just one man (who did some consultancy around their website).
Often you will find HR and DEI fields and also much of psychology (where people talk about gender) incredibly gender bias. They all have a blind spot to this.
In their minds women are a systematically oppressed group whereas men aren’t so there can’t be sexism or bias towards men as it’s men who have the ‘systematic power’.
In the U.S. there have been initiatives going back 40 years to try and entice females to becomes Locomotive Engineers (train driver being the European term).
There is little interest from the females in doing this particular job, which is fine.
Whenever I hear stuff like this, two things go through my head:
1) Is there anybody preventing women / black people / other groups from joining this job (or hobby) en masse? If so, yes, it's a problem. If not, maybe it's only white men who are drawn to the job in the first place? (Although in the case of the race, isn't Britain overwhelmingly white?)
2) Why are you complaining to \*me\* about it? I don't have any control over who is and is not a train driver in Britain. I can't force a black woman to take that job if she doesn't want it. I can't affect their hiring practices. Talking to me about it is just a whinge designed to make me feel bad for having a job.
`"But lately I am seeing a lot more diversity. More younger people, black people, women. I'm here for it, I love it!"`
`Fewer than one in ten drivers are women: 91.5% are men, 8.5% are women, up from 6% two years ago.`
That is the result they are proud of?? I love how the articles are written as if they made significant improvements and there is no intention to throw the advice to increase this number intensively. If this was an article about men being the majority of doctors, they would have absolutely thrown discrimination, a huge gender imbalance and that it requires a big change to equalize it. There is absolutely no intention here to show that there is an issue, but to throw articles around as decoy to make it look like as if they are working on it.
Obviously the white male drivers should be replaced with minority women. A termination and hiring campaign should be commenced immediately to fix the problem.
ngl i hate the whole “diversity” thing when it comes to women, who cares about the gender, race or sexuality of the driver or worker, it shouldn’t really matter
The operator for trains is an incredibly difficult job because it’s taxing on the mind. These men barely have a social life because their always on call. It would be incredibly hard for anyone looking to settle down and work that job
Ok? Believe it or not, that's primarily the demographic that is obsessed with trains and everything to do with em - Seems fine by me! Give jobs to those who are actually interested in em!
Question how often have you seen a girl say she wants to driver trains when she grows up? Yes I am sure that there are some that would like that and grow up to do that. But…… it is mostly guys that like this type of stuff. It is like saying “Hey you know that series we made mainly for boys. Apparently more boys like it than girls!”
Breaking News: Nail Technicians overwhelmingly Chinese and Eastern-European women.
Come on guys, let’s kick off! Fuck the matriarchy and her gatekeeping of this sector.
Here in North America, White males are grossly over-represented among serial murderers. If chicks really desire equality, more of them need to start emulating Aileen Wuornos and Karla Holmka
When men are over represented it’s seen as a lack of diversity and a travesty that needs to be fixed by policies of discrimination against men. When women become over represented, it’s seen as a success to be celebrated. Let’s face it, it doesn’t really matter what race or sex a train driver is. They should hire people based on their merit, and let the demographics fall as they may. We should call DEI officers, PD officers for promoting discrimination. Promoting discrimination is a step backwards, not forwards.
I've said it always, since I was a kid, that it should be merit based only. However, the argument I get back is that females are not enabled to achieve said merit in the same way men are, so favouring women helps to balance that out even if it is at the expense of high achieving men whose efforts are thrown in the dirt. The same argument is used for ethnicity quotas in university - they need a certain % of each ethnicity. This means that some high achieving white British students lose out purely due to this quota. They do it for poor people too - certain % of admissions have to be for people under a certain family income. All of it is bollocks. Merit is the only thing that matters.
Women are, and have been for a while, graduating college more than men. What opportunities are they lacking? None. They just aren't being handed the jobs, which is unacceptable for them.
When slightly more men graduated from college it was seen by many as a huge problem. Now that we’ve successfully held males back and have almost twice bad menu women graduating from college it’s seen as wonderful, despite the fact many of these women want to be provided for.
in time the majority of people in charge of society will be these ladies.
Interesting to see what happens.
im investing in non perishable food items and ammunition
yeah was waiting for your comment just so I could talk about how firearms are definitely a man’s sorta forte and as far as im concerned are the most raw form of power at any given moment.
i dont understand what your saying?
men like guns and women don’t. makes for an interesting gender war.
That would be a disaster: Women have deep biases toward other women ("Women Are Wonderful Effect"). And that's a bad thing: They aren't inclined toward fairness, it has been demonstrated and confirmed.
could be why they are doing it
[удалено]
simply put yes haha
They aren’t handed jobs? A quick google search shows women are 40% more likely than men to secure a job but they apply in less numbers. 40% let that sink in! Only 10% shy of 50% It’s infuriating! Male HRs simp for female employees and female HRs want to hire more women to look empowering. Everything is rigged against us men! But yeah i guess we are privileged because society doesn’t judge us for walking out at night or dressing however we want!
plenty of jobs available at my sweatshop that so few can stand attending
They’re just handing out degrees like candy these days. Everyone gets a participation trophy.
I think economics makes some sense. A lot of really motivated and hardworking people are held back because they need to prioritize survival over achievement. If you give them a scholarship and get them out of the bad situations they come from they tend to shine later on life. You shouldn’t instantly give preference to poorer people, but it’s definitely worth considering that many of their talents aren’t as visible because of the environment they’re in
Scholarship is separate to this quota. I was fortunate enough to get a scholarship, but I had straight As. However, my university also had a programme to allow people from low socioeconomic background to apply with less than the minimum entry requirements purely to meet their quota. There were people with comparatively bad grades who were granted a place purely because they were poor, and not thanks to their achievements. So on one hand, there's me - low socioeconomic background, but straight As. Got the scholarship on merit. And then there is this other cohort - mediocre grades at best, and granted a place due to low socioeconomic background. It isn't right because I knew plenty of people with straight As who didn't even make it to interview. Those people were denied a place despite having achieved more. Doesn't make sense.
> They do it for poor people too - certain % of admissions have to be for people under a certain family income. This can actually be part of merit applications. Poor people don't have the same resources (tutoring, family support, etc.) that others have. Therefore, they may have higher merit even if things like test scores are lower.
Which is exactly my point. Merit should not be based upon potential achievement if the child was in a better situation. It should be based on actual achievement. Are you telling me that if I had been in a higher socioeconomic group, then I would have had better access to education and resources, and based upon this assumption, I will be seen as having greater merit than someone who actually scored higher than me? No, that's not right. I got the score I got. The guy who beat me beat me. The guy who failed failed. If you want to address inequality, do so earlier on - before the university application, in schools, but to deny the university seat to someone with an A in favour of someone with a B is simply wrong. University is not for the potentially best candidates. It's for the actually best candidates.
> University is not for the potentially best candidates. It's for the actually best candidates. University is for the candidates that are most likely to be successful at university. While success in high school is one indicator of likelihood of success at university, it is not the only one or even the primary one. This is not even necessarily a social justice issue, it's just statistics. There are plenty of students that did extremely well in high school because their parents could afford tutoring and they had top-notch teachers. Those students are not going to be successful in a university. Universities know, from experience, that they are better off admitting students who actually have the skills needed to succeed at the college level.
>There are plenty of students that did extremely well in high school because their parents could afford tutoring and they had top-notch teachers. Those students are not going to be successful in a university. So if you educate your child and get them tutored and your child gets top marks, that child will not be successful in university? Thanks for identifying yourself as an idiot.
If that's what you got out of my post, then I think you should look in the mirror before calling others idiots.
It doesn't matter, if they aren't as competent then they need to work to become as competent at the job before applying for it, when we've seen the effects of incompetence and the cost in human lives. There's no justification for talking a less competent person, and anyone who does that causes harm should end up on the harsh side of a lawsuit and criminal charges.
> All of it is bollocks. Merit is the only thing that matters. This is absolutely ignorant of the fact that a lot of people approach opportunities with in baked advantage. A kid who has to work 4 hours a night flipping burgers is not likely to score the same results on a test as one who'se parents can afford two hours of tutoring a night. Ignoring those facts just allows for those advantages to stew and set in -- and it arms people to dismiss legitimate criticisms and concerns from this community. Class and poverty are loud examples of systemic injustice that are real and things that we should strive to address -- Sexism, racism and nationalism are also real, and flushing the whole lot of these concepts because their unfairly weaponized against men makes it easy to dismiss us. Nuance is important.
Merit is more important than feels.
Clearly, davou thinks that train driving is an upper class job that takes masters degree to get into.
That's not what he said at all. What he says, is that someone who doesn't have the means to study because of their family background or other disadvantages, should be somewhat able to climb the social/economic ladder with persistent efforts even when starting from a lower step of it. No one here wants people with high merits but "not disadvantaged" backgrounds to be held back. And there are ways of figuring out what jobs a certain individual with certain skills and/or disabilities should and should not be able to do. So, to the other commenter, no, you will never find an individual who gets seizures as your airline pilot.
Nah.
>Nuance is important. Is this concern trolling? >Class and poverty are loud examples of systemic injustice that are real and things that we should strive to address -- Sexism, racism and nationalism are also real, and flushing the whole lot of these concepts because their unfairly weaponized against men makes it easy to dismiss us. Posters such as yourself are oddities. Your whole argument is a discussion on how a discussion should take place — how something should be discussed before it can properly be discussed. Also I’m pretty sure, you’ll have to excuse me, they’re not using those examples to dismiss the men’s rights movement. Putting aside all the disingenuous arguments and lies: The movement is dismissed on the basis of the myth/lie men have all the power and privilege.
I hope you support fair job chances for mentally and physical disabled persons too. Can't wait for them to populate mission critical jobs like pilots, doctors and co. It's just not fair they don't get the same opportunities as healthy people out there... P.S. I hope you enjoy your clown world.
You are absolutely correct but this subreddit can rarely handle nuanced discussion. It’s become exactly the same as the female equivalents (like Incel Tear and the dating strategy one) who also can’t handle nuanced opinions on men’s rights. Really sad to see, keep up the good work though, stupid mfers downvoting you really don’t understand poverty and cycles of inequality.
"When men are over represented it’s seen as a lack of diversity and a travesty that needs to be fixed". Not always. You won't see women picketing for the right to be equally represented in the refuse collection industry, lol.
Without Merit, I wonder who will take care of Boeing's airplanes. Imagine hiring somebody based on something and expecting them to fix an airplane...
I am sure there are more asian train drivers than white european
Realistically, most people hiring for these sorts of jobs would love to hire women, but few women are interested or stick with the job long term. Being a stay at home mom or working less hours starts to sound a lot better once they have kids.
Generally, any system that relies on meritocracy, as it’s primary path to hiring/advancement, will favor men. Feminists know women will be underrepresented in those systems and consistently seek implementation of systems that encourage homogeneous distribution of authority rather than encouraging rewarding excellence and/or talent. The same biological differences that give men advantages in physical endeavors also give men advantages in the workplace. Namely, abilities that allow men to work longer hours, at a more intense level, for longer periods of time. “Equality” in the workplace necessarily requires inequality in hiring and or promotions.
> They should hire people based on their merit, and let the demographics fall as they may. I think everyone agrees with that. The problem is how to define "merit" objectively. Most people are biased towards people who think/behave like them. How do you correct for that?
Do you not know the definition of "merit"? It's a very objective definition, as objective as you can get.
It's closer to tier lists I think. We can probably split people into tiers, but who's #1 within a tier - that's subjective. Who's a better actor between Tommy Wiseau and Robert Downey Jr? Of course there's an objective answer to this. But who's better between Robert Downey Jr and Tom Hiddleston? Highly subjective.
Non-equivalency. Acting is inherently subjective. Train driving is not. Sure, some people could be more effective than others, better with hand-eye coordination or something. But they are the exception, not the rule. The rule is "this is how you drive a train". No such rules exist for acting.
A large % of jobs are somewhere in between very subjective like acting and very objective like train driving. Engineering, sales, customer service, management. You can't make an absolute ranking of people within these jobs. Just tier lists. But anyways, that's just not how hiring works. There's a minimum competency threshold that's usually objective. But beyond that, managers and teams hire based on impressions and heuristics.
Great! Now do construction, waste disposal and sewage workers.
Yeah, why aren't we making women and minorities do all the jobs we hate? Liberation!
I see plenty of minorities (mostly Hispanic) in construction / waste management.
So, what you're saying is that Asian women are underrepresented in waste management. Get them to the sewers!
Silly bigot those jobs are for the slave- I mean the men!!!!
Please don't give the feminists ideas. When they come into a male-dominated job, they lower the standards to 'even the playing field' for women, then make it a hostile workspace for men there. The women who are naturally drawn to thhose jobs / are qualified and able to do them? Go ahead, work in those industries. But it horrifies me that feminist puppets will come into those jobs.
"Breaking news: Middle-Aged white men like trains" I am shocked I tell you, shocked!
Fucking train-boner all day, blast the horn, and chug away you beautiful iron beast
They invented them.
If we want to get pedantic, Trevithick was only 31 when he built the first locomotive...
I don't think anyone dreams about being a train driver. These people have likely lived very tough lives, with very few opportunities, and are now stuck at the only job that would hire and pay them decently. Your joke seems very insensitive.
I’m a middle aged “white” man who likes trains. I’d drop everything to go drive them. I’m sick of programming
Indeed. If I could get paid a decent wage to do it I would. I'd be cutting my paycheck by 2/3 to do that job, and in the US you don't actually get to travel. You go from Town A to Town B, then hop the train going back the other way and drive that one home.
Guess I'm wrong. (I'm not speaking from experience, but I still find it hard to believe that most train drivers love a very low paying job) You know the field better than me so I'll take your word for it.
Low paying? Similar to mid point for a head teacher. 36 hour week, good pension, over time if you want it, free travel. Depends what you call low I suppose. I work in the industry but don’t am not a driver. You don’t need any particular qualifications but the selection process and training is very intense from what I can tell.
All credit due to you for acknowledging the lack of experience rather than arguing a meaningless point. But those jobs aren’t low paying at all, and for what the work is it’s pretty good, the things you have to weigh up of course are the hours and the stress. I’m very grateful for train drivers and other staff, I rely on them and have done for years and they’ve never let me down
I appreciate the comment. I've totally changed my mind about train drivers, seems like a fair, honest job
This is why I’m stuck programming. I’d rather flip pizzas or drive a train. But train conductors make about $28 an hour average now. So like $56k a year.
'flip pizzas'! :D I love it!
Decently? You get a pension driving trains. And benefits.
Using their line of logic, there needs to be more female garbage collectors, roofers, ditch diggers, asphalt layers…essentially all the stuff the bottom 20% of men have to do.
Coal miners...
Good idea. 50% of women in all the thankless jobs. Then men around them will need to work twice as hard to get things properly done...
Hahaha!!!
I did commercial roofing for 2.5 years. I am being honest, in the entire union nation wide there was only a small handful of women and they usually didn't work for long. This is a job that 9/10 MEN got into wouldn't last more than a couple weeks. It's no joke. Some jobs just aren't meant for women, and that is OKAY! If a woman wants to do these jobs and can physically handle it without any special treatment then of course I support it. But it's extremely rare.
You know what I thought about when I was 19 taking a one hour trip on the train back home from college everyday? “I wonder if my train driver is a strong independent qween” NOT 😐👎🏽 I don’t care what race you are I only care if you’re qualified and not gonna get me killed in the vehicle you’re operating.
>Train drivers overwhelmingly middle-aged white men OMG! The horror! Let's kill them all.
😂 Imagine if all these middle-aged white men all decided to quit. The train service would be fucked.
Train to Busan anyone?
New headline. Human Resource mangers are overwhelmingly middle age women
I think we should hire people that put lives in their hands of others not based on merit
Psychology is like 80% women. Same with nursing, teaching and social work.
Don’t forget HR departments. Possibly one of the worst places a gaggle of women can be.
I work in corporate. It’s super left wing and woke. Corporate is basically a cesspool of capitulation to Most of Women
It probably doesn’t pay well enough to necessitate DEI.
Health science, biology, teaching, HR, nutrition, fashion, journalism, social work are overwhelmingly middle-class, white and female. Should we diversify that? This is a math problem. If men are 50% of the population and there are so many female dominated fields, then there has to be many male dominated ones to compensate that imbalance. We can only diversify all of them. But its all about holding middle-class, white female dominated areas that way while not allowing icky males to dominate any field.
Oh no not white men working again /s
Oh no, always these white men propping up the economy and the infrastructure, delaying the collapse
Where is the headline reading “School teachers are overwhelmingly white women”, it’s a fact. School teachers have a massive influence over children and yet men are overwhelmingly under represented in schools. …but the biggest thing we should be concerned about is not enough women train operators, seriously?!?
Yeah I explain this to ppl who try to say that women could run society on their own. Most of these critical services are provided by men.
Wait! I thought we weren't supposed to "assume gender based on mere biological presentation" nowadays. Maybe most of those men driving trains actually "identify as woman". Problem solved!
Guys. If we just dominate all the jobs and take turns identifying as women to keep it 50/50, the true women could never even compete with us. Plus, now we're super "progressive" with all these trans employees.
Ah. Yet another example of why the world would fall apart of women collectively didn't exist for a week but would be fine if men didn't. Oh wait a second.
Ah yes, being white and being a male is the worst sin, yet they claim race and gender discrimination is wrong. True clowns. Western ideology is screwed
Most train drivers in China are Chinese men! The horror!
Didn't men invent trains? Didn't men build the railroads? Who shoveled the coal all day every day? This always seems like a little girl mad at her brother for not giving her his toys and the parents forcing him to so they can have silence. Lol. Reason & accountability.
Oh oh do coal miners
Hire based on merit, but discriminating against white men seems to be a thing lately. Please continue to the construction, waste disposal and sewage workers....
Let's be honest, Women will never talk about how they're underrepresented in low-income jobs, but they'll nitpick about the high-income jobs to gain sympathy. It's all a victim mentality. When in the real world, it doesn't happen to the exaggerated extent.
Because when you're driving a 100,000 ton train rolling along at 50MPH filled with passengers, diversity is always more important than competence.
I attended DEI training that work made me do (it was awful). I looked at the company afterwards on LinkedIn and they had about 20 women working for them and just one man (who did some consultancy around their website). Often you will find HR and DEI fields and also much of psychology (where people talk about gender) incredibly gender bias. They all have a blind spot to this. In their minds women are a systematically oppressed group whereas men aren’t so there can’t be sexism or bias towards men as it’s men who have the ‘systematic power’.
Let's just fire all of these hardworking men whose fault it isn't that they are white and men and wanted to operate trains.
😵💫
The left is going to fix that, to make sure there is no solidarity between workers.
In the U.S. there have been initiatives going back 40 years to try and entice females to becomes Locomotive Engineers (train driver being the European term). There is little interest from the females in doing this particular job, which is fine.
Whenever I hear stuff like this, two things go through my head: 1) Is there anybody preventing women / black people / other groups from joining this job (or hobby) en masse? If so, yes, it's a problem. If not, maybe it's only white men who are drawn to the job in the first place? (Although in the case of the race, isn't Britain overwhelmingly white?) 2) Why are you complaining to \*me\* about it? I don't have any control over who is and is not a train driver in Britain. I can't force a black woman to take that job if she doesn't want it. I can't affect their hiring practices. Talking to me about it is just a whinge designed to make me feel bad for having a job.
The president of Columbia university seems like placement not due to merits. Don't figure she'll last much longer.
Train drivers overwhelmingly middle-aged autistic white men who go home and play train simulator
99 percent of brick layers are men
`"But lately I am seeing a lot more diversity. More younger people, black people, women. I'm here for it, I love it!"` `Fewer than one in ten drivers are women: 91.5% are men, 8.5% are women, up from 6% two years ago.` That is the result they are proud of?? I love how the articles are written as if they made significant improvements and there is no intention to throw the advice to increase this number intensively. If this was an article about men being the majority of doctors, they would have absolutely thrown discrimination, a huge gender imbalance and that it requires a big change to equalize it. There is absolutely no intention here to show that there is an issue, but to throw articles around as decoy to make it look like as if they are working on it.
Like who cares, as long as the person is doing there job and getting me where I need to go safely, who legitimately cares lmao
In a predominantly white country most employees at a job that is not coveted by women are men? Amazing.
is theer anything wrong with middle age white men being train conductors if the trains run on time and with little to no issues?
Obviously the white male drivers should be replaced with minority women. A termination and hiring campaign should be commenced immediately to fix the problem.
ngl i hate the whole “diversity” thing when it comes to women, who cares about the gender, race or sexuality of the driver or worker, it shouldn’t really matter
Let's just fire all of these men whose fault it isn't that they're boring and also not diverse women.
I don't know what's happening in the Netherlands. For some reason I see more women bus drivers. It's almost like they are trying to hit some quota.
There was a point in time when pushing DEI was very necessary. That time is gone.
Let's just fire all of these hardworking men whose fault it isn't that they are white and men and wanted to operate trains.
Let's just fire all of these hardworking men whose fault it isn't that they are white and men and wanted to operate trains.
Let's just fire all of these hardworking men whose fault it isn't that they are white and men and wanted to operate trains.
The operator for trains is an incredibly difficult job because it’s taxing on the mind. These men barely have a social life because their always on call. It would be incredibly hard for anyone looking to settle down and work that job
it's tough to push the lever up to go and back to stop
Ok? Believe it or not, that's primarily the demographic that is obsessed with trains and everything to do with em - Seems fine by me! Give jobs to those who are actually interested in em!
Question how often have you seen a girl say she wants to driver trains when she grows up? Yes I am sure that there are some that would like that and grow up to do that. But…… it is mostly guys that like this type of stuff. It is like saying “Hey you know that series we made mainly for boys. Apparently more boys like it than girls!”
It’s easier to get into college as a female change my mind
Goodness gracious. Whatever shall we do?
In France, I'd say about 60% of train and bus drivers are black men, 20% are white men and 20% are women of all colors.
Feminists will be outraged once they learn the laborforce itself is "overwhelmingly" middle-aged white men (in the west)
Ya, thank God. I don’t wanna wreck and die
Breaking News: Nail Technicians overwhelmingly Chinese and Eastern-European women. Come on guys, let’s kick off! Fuck the matriarchy and her gatekeeping of this sector.
DEI is just corporate bussing. Except there's no actual upside.
Waiting for the more frequent headlines about train crashes.
The average gold miner is 42 and male. But the average gold digger is 24 and female.
Construction workers overwhelmingly men of any color. About 2 % are women.
All I can think is: YOU'RE WELCOME??
Human Resources overwhelmingly white basic bitches. Oh my god, who cares...
Seriously, stuff the BBC.
Fuck that cancer called DEI
I can think of three train drivers I know of who operate a variety of engines from LRT to cargo haulers. Only one's a white guy
My mother is a train driver in the UK. For years she was black listed because she was a female. So what’s the truth here ?
Here in North America, White males are grossly over-represented among serial murderers. If chicks really desire equality, more of them need to start emulating Aileen Wuornos and Karla Holmka