Conservatives angry at Airline CEO focusing on DEI policies implying “too many” White men in industr

[Bismarck]

My favorite is in tech where half the workers and all the CEOs are Indian and yet still they talk about decreasing white men.

[VBM]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

From a purely statistical standpoint that doesn’t hold water. No way 80% of pilots are men just because “they make the best pilots” or whatever.

There's probably much less women than men seeking to become pilots

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

It's really insane to me how there's a large movement of people who point at any shortcoming of an institution in the United States and somehow immediately conclude it's due to "DEI". It's complete nonsense.

The funny thing is people on the left take the dumb pills and, instead of challenging this idiotic premise, instead insist on defending the practice of DEI itself. This thread is a great example! It's so stupid to me that I have to wonder if these complaints are meant as some sort of rhetorical trap to trick liberals into taking a less persuasive argument.

There's no credible evidence connecting "DEI" to any sort of negative change in performance in any of the airline or transportation industries, regardless of whether you think asking your new hires to listen to Robin DiAngelo is a good idea.

[DrScholl]

Percentages are just percentages and it really isn't about changing them just for the sake of changing them. It is about identifying if there are barriers that prevent women pilots from applying to airlines. If there is an idea that a male co-pilot is going to show hostility that is a deterrent and DEI training is necessary to let male pilots know that bias or harassment is zero tolerance.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

From a purely statistical standpoint that doesn’t hold water. No way 80% of pilots are men just because “they make the best pilots” or whatever.

There's probably much less women than men seeking to become pilots

That’s! Why! DEI! Exists!

To try and include and support all kinds of people to seek and stay in the job so the organization can succeed to the best of its ability.

[Badger]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Yes Dule. If you listen to just a little harder you would hear more calls for lesser gender gap for all of those relatively well-paying jobs. Sure one can make an argument that the demanding and erratic work schedule pilot is less amenable to Parenthood in child ring which societal Norms still place the primary burden upon women for, but how about Sanitation workers? Too physically demanding for women? Okay, generously one might argue that would be grounds for three or even four to one ratio in the workplace of men versus women, that's clearly not what we have what about plumbers?

It's simply ridiculous to just wave one's hand over these disparities and say " nothing to see here! Just the Glorious Invisible Hand of the market at work!" Nor does it make an ounce of sense to say that because there's ongoing gender disparities in less pain- but still reasonably middle to upper middle class jobs - like plumbing and sanitation workers that it's in any manner shaper form unreasonable to start focusing on one particular industry like aviation.

[Badger]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe women just aren’t as interested in becoming pilots for whatever reason

Post like this reinforce the notion that Atlas is chock full of people who need to get out of their mother's basement far more often.

[Badger]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Yeah, it seems like people have almost forgotten what a pilot is. You're not sitting in front of a computer staring at meaningless Excel sheets all day. You're being entrusted to steer a giant metal tube 30000 feet in the air with hundreds of people inside it. This is an industry where they need to hire the best of the best and it needs to be entirely meritocratic. If over 80% of them end up being white men, that's the way it is.

If you truly think that over 80% hiring of white males is truly meritocratic, there is literally no talking to you about this.

The privilege and Manchild Vibes exuding from this thread are Peak Atlas

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Your opinions are not facts.

The amount of ignorance here posted as fact is actually quite astounding. For one actual fact, women have not only 'whined' about the lack of women truck drivers, they've launched at least one law suit over it:

A new lawsuit accuses one of the US's largest trucking companies of gender discrimination. Women were unable to start work because there weren't enough female trainers, per the suit. The amount of women truckers is rising, but still low — they're only about 14% of the industry.
http://tinyurl.com/t3f6pxes

And women 'whining' about the lack of women in skilled trades like car mechanics and plumbers:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-americans-and-women-continue-to-face-discrimination-in-skilled-trades

Adrienne Bennett:
Like the women before me, they wanted me to leave.

Paul Solman:
But just listen to what she endured from her fellow apprentices.

Adrienne Bennett:
Dead rats in my lunch box. And they were used to groping me.

And trash collectors:
Lawsuit: Women told trash collecting job for 'males only'
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2015/11/10/lawsuit-women-told-trash-collecting-job-males-only/75503242/

Given the total ignorance in the second part of the post, I have a hard time taking seriously the 'factual' claims that are actually based on nothing more than sexist gender stereotypes in the first part of the post.

I can see why an unintelligent person like John Dule would feel the need to try to claim as a 'fact' that discrimination effectively does not exist, because being a white male is the only claim people like him have to getting jobs.

[GP270watch]

Female Truck Drivers Are Safer, So Why Aren’t There More on the Road?

Men get into fatal car crashes twice as often as women

 Statistics show women are safer drivers anyways.

[VBM]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe women just aren’t as interested in becoming pilots for whatever reason

Post like this reinforce the notion that Atlas is chock full of people who need to get out of their mother's basement far more often.

This might just be the most Badger post ever

[VBM]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Yeah, it seems like people have almost forgotten what a pilot is. You're not sitting in front of a computer staring at meaningless Excel sheets all day. You're being entrusted to steer a giant metal tube 30000 feet in the air with hundreds of people inside it. This is an industry where they need to hire the best of the best and it needs to be entirely meritocratic. If over 80% of them end up being white men, that's the way it is.

If you truly think that over 80% hiring of white males is truly meritocratic, there is literally no talking to you about this.

The privilege and Manchild Vibes exuding from this thread are Peak Atlas

Do you also believe that the vast majority of truckers are male because the people running delivery companies are all sexist pigs, or that it's because there's simply much less women even trying to become truckers in the first place?

[John Dule]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Your opinions are not facts.

The amount of ignorance here posted as fact is actually quite astounding. For one actual fact, women have not only 'whined' about the lack of women truck drivers, they've launched at least one law suit over it:

A new lawsuit accuses one of the US's largest trucking companies of gender discrimination. Women were unable to start work because there weren't enough female trainers, per the suit. The amount of women truckers is rising, but still low — they're only about 14% of the industry.
http://tinyurl.com/t3f6pxes

And women 'whining' about the lack of women in skilled trades like car mechanics and plumbers:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-americans-and-women-continue-to-face-discrimination-in-skilled-trades

Adrienne Bennett:
Like the women before me, they wanted me to leave.

Paul Solman:
But just listen to what she endured from her fellow apprentices.

Adrienne Bennett:
Dead rats in my lunch box. And they were used to groping me.

And trash collectors:
Lawsuit: Women told trash collecting job for 'males only'
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2015/11/10/lawsuit-women-told-trash-collecting-job-males-only/75503242/

Given the total ignorance in the second part of the post, I have a hard time taking seriously the 'factual' claims that are actually based on nothing more than sexist gender stereotypes in the first part of the post.

I can see why an unintelligent person like John Dule would feel the need to try to claim as a 'fact' that discrimination effectively does not exist, because being a white male is the only claim people like him have to getting jobs in a world where everybody actually has equal opportunity.

Gee, you’re so right. That handful of anecdotes proves that the only reason why 50% of janitors aren’t women is because of gender discrimination. You enlighten us all once again with your mere presence.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Your opinions are not facts.

The amount of ignorance here posted as fact is actually quite astounding. For one actual fact, women have not only 'whined' about the lack of women truck drivers, they've launched at least one law suit over it:

A new lawsuit accuses one of the US's largest trucking companies of gender discrimination. Women were unable to start work because there weren't enough female trainers, per the suit. The amount of women truckers is rising, but still low — they're only about 14% of the industry.
http://tinyurl.com/t3f6pxes

And women 'whining' about the lack of women in skilled trades like car mechanics and plumbers:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-americans-and-women-continue-to-face-discrimination-in-skilled-trades

Adrienne Bennett:
Like the women before me, they wanted me to leave.

Paul Solman:
But just listen to what she endured from her fellow apprentices.

Adrienne Bennett:
Dead rats in my lunch box. And they were used to groping me.

And trash collectors:
Lawsuit: Women told trash collecting job for 'males only'
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2015/11/10/lawsuit-women-told-trash-collecting-job-males-only/75503242/

Given the total ignorance in the second part of the post, I have a hard time taking seriously the 'factual' claims that are actually based on nothing more than sexist gender stereotypes in the first part of the post.

I can see why an unintelligent person like John Dule would feel the need to try to claim as a 'fact' that discrimination effectively does not exist, because being a white male is the only claim people like him have to getting jobs in a world where everybody actually has equal opportunity.

Gee, you’re so right. That handful of anecdotes proves that the only reason why 50% of janitors aren’t women is because of gender discrimination. You enlighten us all once again with your mere presence.

Class action lawsuits are anecdotes?

1.Even mere anecdotes are more evidence than anything in the opinions that you expressed that you falsely claimed as 'facts.'  But, no, class action lawsuits and studies are certainly greater evidence than mere anecdotes.

2.Your original point here was that the only demand for equality is in 'glamour' jobs like pilots, and that I easily found recent lawsuits or studies regarding discrimination in all the types of jobs you falsely claimed women aren't interested in, showed your total ignorance, as well as obviously disproved this false claim.

You ignorantly and falsely wrote:  "Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob."

[John Dule]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Your opinions are not facts.

The amount of ignorance here posted as fact is actually quite astounding. For one actual fact, women have not only 'whined' about the lack of women truck drivers, they've launched at least one law suit over it:

A new lawsuit accuses one of the US's largest trucking companies of gender discrimination. Women were unable to start work because there weren't enough female trainers, per the suit. The amount of women truckers is rising, but still low — they're only about 14% of the industry.
http://tinyurl.com/t3f6pxes

And women 'whining' about the lack of women in skilled trades like car mechanics and plumbers:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-americans-and-women-continue-to-face-discrimination-in-skilled-trades

Adrienne Bennett:
Like the women before me, they wanted me to leave.

Paul Solman:
But just listen to what she endured from her fellow apprentices.

Adrienne Bennett:
Dead rats in my lunch box. And they were used to groping me.

And trash collectors:
Lawsuit: Women told trash collecting job for 'males only'
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2015/11/10/lawsuit-women-told-trash-collecting-job-males-only/75503242/

Given the total ignorance in the second part of the post, I have a hard time taking seriously the 'factual' claims that are actually based on nothing more than sexist gender stereotypes in the first part of the post.

I can see why an unintelligent person like John Dule would feel the need to try to claim as a 'fact' that discrimination effectively does not exist, because being a white male is the only claim people like him have to getting jobs in a world where everybody actually has equal opportunity.

Gee, you’re so right. That handful of anecdotes proves that the only reason why 50% of janitors aren’t women is because of gender discrimination. You enlighten us all once again with your mere presence.

Class action lawsuits are anecdotes?

1.Even mere anecdotes are more evidence than anything in the opinions that you expressed that you falsely claimed as 'facts.'  But, no, class action lawsuits and studies are certainly greater evidence than mere anecdotes.

2.Your original point here was that the only demand for equality is in 'glamour' jobs like pilots, and that I easily found recent lawsuits or studies regarding discrimination in all the types of jobs you falsely claimed women aren't interested in, showed your total ignorance, as well as obviously disproved this false claim.

You ignorantly and falsely wrote:  "Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob."

Duh, there are going to be discrimination lawsuits in every industry given the litigious nature of our society. I was talking about the attention paid to different occupations by media coverage and political discourse. You could just as easily find a story about male applicants suing for discrimination in early childhood education jobs. I’d still say we don’t talk about that much regardless.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If any industry needs some diversifying its pilots. 80-90% or pilots are men.

Not sure why the percentage of pilots that are men is at all relevant so long as the companies are hiring the most qualified applicants

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women. You can talk all you like about equality in occupations, but being a pilot is particularly non-conducive to "having it all," which is still a concern for women today even if you would rather pretend otherwise. You're literally jumping to the worst possible conclusion for no reason whatsoever, based on the (incorrect) assumption that if we created a frictionless job market where everyone got the jobs they wanted, every occupation would be comprised of 50% men and 50% women. That is moronic.

I do not see anyone whining about how we need more female trash collectors, construction workers, truck drivers, car mechanics, or plumbers. Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob. Instead of wasting time discussing this, we could be talking about how few men are employed in early childhood education-- the rare area of employment where having a more equal gender balance would create substantively better results rather than just being an affirmative action program.

Your opinions are not facts.

The amount of ignorance here posted as fact is actually quite astounding. For one actual fact, women have not only 'whined' about the lack of women truck drivers, they've launched at least one law suit over it:

A new lawsuit accuses one of the US's largest trucking companies of gender discrimination. Women were unable to start work because there weren't enough female trainers, per the suit. The amount of women truckers is rising, but still low — they're only about 14% of the industry.
http://tinyurl.com/t3f6pxes

And women 'whining' about the lack of women in skilled trades like car mechanics and plumbers:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/black-americans-and-women-continue-to-face-discrimination-in-skilled-trades

Adrienne Bennett:
Like the women before me, they wanted me to leave.

Paul Solman:
But just listen to what she endured from her fellow apprentices.

Adrienne Bennett:
Dead rats in my lunch box. And they were used to groping me.

And trash collectors:
Lawsuit: Women told trash collecting job for 'males only'
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/business/2015/11/10/lawsuit-women-told-trash-collecting-job-males-only/75503242/

Given the total ignorance in the second part of the post, I have a hard time taking seriously the 'factual' claims that are actually based on nothing more than sexist gender stereotypes in the first part of the post.

I can see why an unintelligent person like John Dule would feel the need to try to claim as a 'fact' that discrimination effectively does not exist, because being a white male is the only claim people like him have to getting jobs in a world where everybody actually has equal opportunity.

Gee, you’re so right. That handful of anecdotes proves that the only reason why 50% of janitors aren’t women is because of gender discrimination. You enlighten us all once again with your mere presence.

Class action lawsuits are anecdotes?

1.Even mere anecdotes are more evidence than anything in the opinions that you expressed that you falsely claimed as 'facts.'  But, no, class action lawsuits and studies are certainly greater evidence than mere anecdotes.

2.Your original point here was that the only demand for equality is in 'glamour' jobs like pilots, and that I easily found recent lawsuits or studies regarding discrimination in all the types of jobs you falsely claimed women aren't interested in, showed your total ignorance, as well as obviously disproved this false claim.

You ignorantly and falsely wrote:  "Somehow it's only the gender gaps in the glamorous jobs that catch the eye of the woke mob."

Duh, there are going to be discrimination lawsuits in every industry given the litigious nature of our society. I was talking about the attention paid to different occupations by media coverage and political discourse. You could just as easily find a story about male applicants suing for discrimination in early childhood education jobs. I’d still say we don’t talk about that much regardless.

"Women sue trucking companies" produces 14 million results on google. While it is true that 'women sue aviation companies' produces about 50 million more results, it's also true that google search results are ephemeral.

So, your claim that this is receiving more attention due to the 'woke mob' is ultimately nothing more than your personal observation, or, essentially, a personal anecdote.

I haven't heard as much in the media for a long time about the U.S being a 'litigious society.' But, I remember this was a claim made by the corporate mob about 20-25 years ago to try to guilt trip people and to change legislation to make it more difficult for individuals to sue corporations.

It turned out that, at least at that time, that the U.S was such a litigious society mainly due to corporations suing other corporations. If anything, individuals don't sue corporations anywhere near enough.

U.S. Businesses File Four Times More Lawsuits Than Private Citizens And Are Sanctioned Much More Often for Frivolous Suits

But Corporate America and Political Allies Bush and Cheney Campaign to Limit Citizens’ Rights to Sue
https://www.citizen.org/news/u-s-businesses-file-four-times-more-lawsuits-than-private-citizens-and-are-sanctioned-much-more-often-for-frivolous-suits/

[John Dule]

"Women sue trucking companies" produces 14 million results on google. While it is true that 'women sue aviation companies' produces about 50 million more results, it's also true that google search results are ephemeral.

So, your claim that this is receiving more attention due to the 'woke mob' is ultimately nothing more than your personal observation

I didn’t intend for it to be anything more than that.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

"Women sue trucking companies" produces 14 million results on google. While it is true that 'women sue aviation companies' produces about 50 million more results, it's also true that google search results are ephemeral.

So, your claim that this is receiving more attention due to the 'woke mob' is ultimately nothing more than your personal observation

I didn’t intend for it to be anything more than that.

So, a personal observation or anecdote is evidence to back up an argument to you? I can see you flailing out of law in a very short period of time.

Anyway, thank you for wasting everybody's time on what you now admit are not based on any evidence and are certainly not 'facts' but are merely your personal observations.

You wrote: Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women.

It seems clear to me you meant for the third point to be included in your claimed 'facts' in addition to writing 'naturally attracts' (whatever that means.)

Not only, however, is that not a fact, based on actual facts and evidence it doesn't even come close to holding up. Flight attendants who equally have irregular schedules and strange hours, and spend long periods of time away from their families (though they do work on average about 1-2 hours less a day than pilots) are nearly 80% female.

[John Dule]

"Women sue trucking companies" produces 14 million results on google. While it is true that 'women sue aviation companies' produces about 50 million more results, it's also true that google search results are ephemeral.

So, your claim that this is receiving more attention due to the 'woke mob' is ultimately nothing more than your personal observation

I didn’t intend for it to be anything more than that.

So, a personal observation or anecdote is evidence to back up an argument to you? I can see you flailing out of law in a very short period of time.

Anyway, thank you for wasting everybody's time on what you now admit are not based on any evidence and are certainly not 'facts' but are merely your personal observations.

That portion of my comment was not the argument I was making. It was a personal observation tacked onto the end of my main point, which you didn’t bother to address. A normal person— one capable of understanding via context clues when their interlocutor is making an argument or merely speaking from personal experience— would have understood which part of that comment warranted a thorough response.

The time wasted here, as usual, is yours.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

"Women sue trucking companies" produces 14 million results on google. While it is true that 'women sue aviation companies' produces about 50 million more results, it's also true that google search results are ephemeral.

So, your claim that this is receiving more attention due to the 'woke mob' is ultimately nothing more than your personal observation

I didn’t intend for it to be anything more than that.

So, a personal observation or anecdote is evidence to back up an argument to you? I can see you flailing out of law in a very short period of time.

Anyway, thank you for wasting everybody's time on what you now admit are not based on any evidence and are certainly not 'facts' but are merely your personal observations.

That portion of my comment was not the argument I was making. It was a personal observation tacked onto the end of my main point, which you didn’t bother to address. A normal person— one capable of understanding via context clues when their interlocutor is making an argument or merely speaking from personal experience— would have understood which part of that comment warranted a thorough response.

The time wasted here, as usual, is yours.

I added to it.

You wrote: Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women.

It seems clear to me you meant for the third point to be included in your claimed 'facts' in addition to writing 'naturally attracts' (whatever that means.)

Not only, however, is that not a fact, based on actual facts and evidence it doesn't even come close to holding up. Flight attendants who equally have irregular schedules and strange hours, and spend long periods of time away from their families (though they do work on average about 1-2 hours less a day than pilots) are nearly 80% female.

Of course, I commented on nearly your entire second paragraph, and I mentioned how the complete inaccuracy of everything you wrote in your second paragraph places significant doubt on your first paragraph, especially since it didn't actually have any facts to back it up either.

I've now presented an argument that completely shows the lack of logic of your main claim in the first paragraph.

As to the other points, nobody here has claimed that in a frictionless job market every job would be 50% male and 50% female, the point here is simply that there isn't a frictionless job market.

You might claim here that women must prefer to be flight attendants and not pilots, and I or anybody else could counter argue that women who prefer to 'be in the air' can really only get jobs as flight attendants, but the number of women flight attendants certainly disproves that many women have any problem working odd/irregular hours and being away from their families.

So, not only were there equally no actual facts in your first paragraph, actual facts disprove the main claim of your first paragraph.

There is a fairly equal number of commercial airline pilots and flight attendants. Most pilots are cargo pilots, but it seems that many are short haul cargo pilots who don't necessarily face as long or odd hours. So, your fact free argument regarding these things being a block for women doesn't apply here.

[John Dule]

I added to it.

You wrote: Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women.

It seems clear to me you meant for the third point to be included in your claimed 'facts' in addition to writing 'naturally attracts' (whatever that means.)

Not only, however, is that not a fact, based on actual facts and evidence it doesn't even come close to holding up. Flight attendants who equally have irregular schedules and strange hours, and spend long periods of time away from their families (though they do work on average about 1-2 hours less a day than pilots) are nearly 80% female.

Of course, I commented on nearly your entire second paragraph, and I mentioned how the complete inaccuracy of everything you wrote in your second paragraph places significant doubt on your first paragraph, especially since it didn't actually have any facts to back it up either.

I've now presented an argument that completely shows the lack of logic of your main claim in the first paragraph.

As to the other points, nobody here has claimed that in a frictionless job market every job would be 50% male and 50% female, the point here is simply that there isn't a frictionless job market.

You might claim here that women must prefer to be flight attendants and not pilots, and I or anybody else could counter argue that women who prefer to 'be in the air' can really only get jobs as flight attendants, but the number of women flight attendants certainly disproves that many women have any problem working odd/irregular hours and being away from their families.

So, not only were there equally no actual facts in your first paragraph, actual facts disprove the main claim of your first paragraph.

First, this is an actual counterargument to the core point I was making, so I thank you for that. Hopefully the next time we have one of these conversations, we can jump right to this point rather than litigating the excruciating minutiae of how I choose to phrase my opinions.

Second, there are obvious differences between pilots and flight attendants that makes the latter generally more desirable for women. Yes, both occupations have irregular hours and long periods of time spent away from one's family. However, pilot's licenses represent a significant investment (around $100,000 if I'm not mistaken), not to mention years of training. When a person invests that amount of time and money in a career, it makes them much less fungible as a worker. The skills they develop in that area aren't transferrable to less demanding areas of work, and they are incentivized to stay in that position in order to get the most out of the time and money they've invested.

The option to comfortably walk away from a career is important for women seeking to start a family. Stewardesses require certification and training, but nowhere near on the level of a pilot. Additionally, the skills they develop in their jobs are much more transferrable to other types of hospitality work that don't require long and irregular hours. For a woman in her late twenties/early thirties who hopes to have kids soon, investing thousands of dollars in a license and spending 1500 hours in training just doesn't make economic sense if she plans to just walk away from it within a few years. The other option is for the woman to continue to work as a pilot while her kids are at home, which is not appealing to many working women. It should not be surprising that a job requiring a significant time/money investment with very little free time or schedule regularity isn't exactly the most appealing thing for a woman trying to navigate pregnancy and childcare.

None of this is to say that there isn't sexism in the airline industry or that women shouldn't have the option to be pilots. The point of my response to Badger was to mock his assertion that sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity, which simply isn't true. Overall I do appreciate the fact that you made me think about this more in-depth. However, my conclusion is the same: You are wrong.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I added to it.

You wrote: Or maybe it simply has to do with the fact that airline pilots have irregular schedules and strange hours, spend long periods of time away from their families, and that the nature of their work naturally attracts more men than women.

It seems clear to me you meant for the third point to be included in your claimed 'facts' in addition to writing 'naturally attracts' (whatever that means.)

Not only, however, is that not a fact, based on actual facts and evidence it doesn't even come close to holding up. Flight attendants who equally have irregular schedules and strange hours, and spend long periods of time away from their families (though they do work on average about 1-2 hours less a day than pilots) are nearly 80% female.

Of course, I commented on nearly your entire second paragraph, and I mentioned how the complete inaccuracy of everything you wrote in your second paragraph places significant doubt on your first paragraph, especially since it didn't actually have any facts to back it up either.

I've now presented an argument that completely shows the lack of logic of your main claim in the first paragraph.

As to the other points, nobody here has claimed that in a frictionless job market every job would be 50% male and 50% female, the point here is simply that there isn't a frictionless job market.

You might claim here that women must prefer to be flight attendants and not pilots, and I or anybody else could counter argue that women who prefer to 'be in the air' can really only get jobs as flight attendants, but the number of women flight attendants certainly disproves that many women have any problem working odd/irregular hours and being away from their families.

So, not only were there equally no actual facts in your first paragraph, actual facts disprove the main claim of your first paragraph.

First, this is an actual counterargument to the core point I was making, so I thank you for that. Hopefully the next time we have one of these conversations, we can jump right to this point rather than litigating the excruciating minutiae of how I choose to phrase my opinions.

Second, there are obvious differences between pilots and flight attendants that makes the latter generally more desirable for women. Yes, both occupations have irregular hours and long periods of time spent away from one's family. However, pilot's licenses represent a significant investment (around $100,000 if I'm not mistaken), not to mention years of training. When a person invests that amount of time and money in a career, it makes them much less fungible as a worker. The skills they develop in that area aren't transferrable to less demanding areas of work, and they are incentivized to stay in that position in order to get the most out of the time and money they've invested.

The option to comfortably walk away from a career is important for women seeking to start a family. Stewardesses require certification and training, but nowhere near on the level of a pilot. Additionally, the skills they develop in their jobs are much more transferrable to other types of hospitality work that don't require long and irregular hours. For a woman in her late twenties/early thirties who hopes to have kids soon, investing thousands of dollars in a license and spending 1500 hours in training just doesn't make economic sense if she plans to just walk away from it within a few years. The other option is for the woman to continue to work as a pilot while her kids are at home, which is not appealing to many working women. It should not be surprising that a job requiring a significant time/money investment with very little free time or schedule regularity isn't exactly the most appealing thing for a woman trying to navigate pregnancy and childcare.

None of this is to say that there isn't sexism in the airline industry or that women shouldn't have the option to be pilots. The point of my response to Badger was to mock his assertion that sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity, which simply isn't true. Overall I do appreciate the fact that you made me think about this more in-depth. However, my conclusion is the same: You are wrong.

1.I and everybody else can only respond to your comments as you phrase them.  That you constantly state your opinions as if they are established facts is not minutiae.

2.Badger never claimed that 'sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity.' This is what Badger actually wrote:

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

I'm not sure how you can read 'as much or more to do with the good old boys network' as 'the only possible explanation is sexism.'

So, your entire post is based on attempting to 'litigate the minutiae' of Badger's comment.

3.Flight attendants aren't women in their late 20s early 30s who walk away from it after a few years.

78.9% of all flight attendants are women, while 21.1% are men. The average flight attendant age is 49 years old. The most common ethnicity of flight attendants is White (59.0%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.8%), Black or African American (10.2%) and Asian (7.6%).
https://www.zippia.com/flight-attendant-jobs/demographics/

It seems increasingly clear to me anyway that your personal observations are clouded by sexism. Maybe it's this same sexism that many women who want to be pilots face.

4.Your claim that young women are making a rational assessment of their future to not spend the time/money to become a pilot is a hypothesis that is also fact free. I'm not sure that I can find evidence that would counter it directly, but I can counter it indirectly.

An equally expensive profession to get into is law. If people were totally rational and able to assess their futures with certainty, we would not see this:

From a 2010 report from the Law Society of Alberta (Canada)
Within 5 years of being called to the bar, 57% of women and 49% of men will have left private practice. Many will move to in-house or government positions, but close to 30% (28% of women and 29% of men) will have left the practice of law entirely.

And, on the ability of young people to make rational assessments of their future careers:
Most telling, perhaps, was the response to the question, “If you could do it all over again, would you become a lawyer?”  For those under 30, only 33% responded that they would, and for those aged 30-39, only 40% responded in the affirmative.  

Of course, it might be the case that law provides more transferable skills, but it's clearly an awful lot of time and money to get a law degree and pass the bar to leave the profession within five years.

Certainly, I don't think one data point like this knocks down your hypothesis entirely, but you haven't presented anything other than a hypothesis. I don't know if it's true or not but neither do you. I agree on the surface it is a plausible hypothesis and might well be a partial explanation, but many plausible hypothesis are wrong, and you have presented no actual evidence to counter the claim that discrimination is a major problem in hiring.

[John Dule]

1.I and everybody else can only respond to your comments as you phrase them.  That you constantly state your opinions as if they are established facts is not minutiae.

2.Badger never claimed that 'sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity.' This is what Badger actually wrote:

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

I'm not sure how you can read 'as much or more to do with the good old boys network' as 'the only possible explanation is sexism.'

So, your entire post is based on attempting to 'litigate the minutiae' of Badger's comment.

3.Flight attendants aren't women in their late 20s early 30s who walk away from it after a few years.

78.9% of all flight attendants are women, while 21.1% are men. The average flight attendant age is 49 years old. The most common ethnicity of flight attendants is White (59.0%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.8%), Black or African American (10.2%) and Asian (7.6%).
https://www.zippia.com/flight-attendant-jobs/demographics/

It seems increasingly clear to me anyway that your personal observations are clouded by sexism. Maybe it's this same sexism that many women who want to be pilots face.

4.Your claim that young women are making a rational assessment of their future to not spend the time/money to become a pilot is a hypothesis that is also fact free. I'm not sure that I can find evidence that would counter it directly, but I can counter it indirectly.

An equally expensive profession to get into is law. If people were totally rational and able assess their futures with certainty, we would not see this:

From a 2010 report from the Law Society of Alberta (Canada)
Within 5 years of being called to the bar, 57% of women and 49% of men will have left private practice.  Many will move to in-house or government positions, but close to 30% (28% of women and 29% of men) will have left the practice of law entirely.

Of course, it might be the case that law provides more transferable skills, but it's clearly an awful lot of time and money to get a law degree and pass the bar to leave the profession within five years.

Certainly, I don't think one data point like this knocks down your hypothesis entirely, but you haven't presented anything other than a hypothesis. I don't know if it's true or not but neither do you.

1. The law, as you say, has much more transferrable skills and also a wide variety of practice areas offering stable scheduling and more flexibility. It’s not similar enough to piloting to disprove my argument. Again, I’m saying that jobs requiring a large investment that also offer no transferrable skills and have irregular schedules are uniquely unappealing to women.

2. The required age to be a flight attendant is only 21. This means a woman could easily work in that position at an early age, leave to start a family, and reenter the workforce later without losing a significant investment. The average age isn’t really relevant unless we also have stats on the average starting age and what percentage of flight attendants take maternity leave or quit their jobs for long periods of time.

3. Nothing I’ve said here is sexist, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I could have very easily made this an argument about how being a stewardess requires “soft skills” like patience, hospitality, and communication that men generally lack. This is all true, but I chose not to bother with that because I correctly assumed that this would be met with sexism allegations. I guess it didn’t really matter either way, though.

4. Even if the argument is that “the ratio has more to do with the boys network than anything else,” that is still an absurd claim based on nothing. The burden is on you to show that sexism is the main reason for this disparity. I offered up multiple confounding variables, and I thus remain unconvinced.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1.I and everybody else can only respond to your comments as you phrase them.  That you constantly state your opinions as if they are established facts is not minutiae.

2.Badger never claimed that 'sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity.' This is what Badger actually wrote:

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

I'm not sure how you can read 'as much or more to do with the good old boys network' as 'the only possible explanation is sexism.'

So, your entire post is based on attempting to 'litigate the minutiae' of Badger's comment.

3.Flight attendants aren't women in their late 20s early 30s who walk away from it after a few years.

78.9% of all flight attendants are women, while 21.1% are men. The average flight attendant age is 49 years old. The most common ethnicity of flight attendants is White (59.0%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.8%), Black or African American (10.2%) and Asian (7.6%).
https://www.zippia.com/flight-attendant-jobs/demographics/

It seems increasingly clear to me anyway that your personal observations are clouded by sexism. Maybe it's this same sexism that many women who want to be pilots face.

4.Your claim that young women are making a rational assessment of their future to not spend the time/money to become a pilot is a hypothesis that is also fact free. I'm not sure that I can find evidence that would counter it directly, but I can counter it indirectly.

An equally expensive profession to get into is law. If people were totally rational and able assess their futures with certainty, we would not see this:

From a 2010 report from the Law Society of Alberta (Canada)
Within 5 years of being called to the bar, 57% of women and 49% of men will have left private practice.  Many will move to in-house or government positions, but close to 30% (28% of women and 29% of men) will have left the practice of law entirely.

Of course, it might be the case that law provides more transferable skills, but it's clearly an awful lot of time and money to get a law degree and pass the bar to leave the profession within five years.

Certainly, I don't think one data point like this knocks down your hypothesis entirely, but you haven't presented anything other than a hypothesis. I don't know if it's true or not but neither do you.

1. The law, as you say, has much more transferrable skills and also a wide variety of practice areas offering stable scheduling and more flexibility. It’s not similar enough to piloting to disprove my argument. Again, I’m saying that jobs requiring a large investment that also offer no transferrable skills and have irregular schedules are uniquely unappealing to women.

2. The required age to be a flight attendant is only 21. This means a woman could easily work in that position at an early age, leave to start a family, and reenter the workforce later without losing a significant investment. The average age isn’t really relevant unless we also have stats on the average starting age and what percentage of flight attendants take maternity leave or quit their jobs for long periods of time.

3. Nothing I’ve said here is sexist, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I could have very easily made this an argument about how being a stewardess requires “soft skills” like patience, hospitality, and communication that men generally lack. This is all true, but I chose not to bother with that because I correctly assumed that this would be met with sexism allegations. I guess it didn’t really matter either way, though.

4. Even if the argument is that “the ratio has more to do with the boys network than anything else,” that is still an absurd claim based on nothing. The burden is on you to show that sexism is the main reason for this disparity. I offered up multiple confounding variables, and I thus remain unconvinced.

1.The article was referring to people who left the legal profession entirely. That pilots have less direct transferable skills doesn't take away from my main point that there is reason to doubt that young people in general think as rationally about their futures as your hypothesis suggests.

2.I'm not sure why a woman couldn't similarly rejoin the piloting profession. Yes, it takes longer to become a pilot, but there isn't a significant difference other than that:  In 2020, the average active commercial pilot in the United States was 45.3 years old. Cargo pilots seem to be a similar average age.

It isn't that difficult for a pilot to re-earn a pilot's license.

3."How dare you call me sexist, you woke person!" Airline pilots also need patience and communications skills. If it's true that men 'generally lack' those skills, then maybe only women should be airline pilots (in general.)

4.The existence of the 'old boys network' is an absurd claim? Certainly trying to ridicule its existence so that nobody can research it like these DEI policies do, is a way to prevent research about it so that people can continue to make the absurd claim that the 'old boys network' doesn't exist.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1.I and everybody else can only respond to your comments as you phrase them.  That you constantly state your opinions as if they are established facts is not minutiae.

2.Badger never claimed that 'sexism is the only possible explanation for this disparity.' This is what Badger actually wrote:

Because unless One Believes there is some inherent inability of women to distract their brains from Cosmos and makeup and wrap them around the concept of controlled flight, and 80 to 90% ratio of male Pilots clearly indicates that ratio has as much or more to do with the good old boys network - literally - and other factors making the industry on well to women rather than truly getting the best and brightest for the job.

I'm not sure how you can read 'as much or more to do with the good old boys network' as 'the only possible explanation is sexism.'

So, your entire post is based on attempting to 'litigate the minutiae' of Badger's comment.

3.Flight attendants aren't women in their late 20s early 30s who walk away from it after a few years.

78.9% of all flight attendants are women, while 21.1% are men. The average flight attendant age is 49 years old. The most common ethnicity of flight attendants is White (59.0%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (15.8%), Black or African American (10.2%) and Asian (7.6%).
https://www.zippia.com/flight-attendant-jobs/demographics/

It seems increasingly clear to me anyway that your personal observations are clouded by sexism. Maybe it's this same sexism that many women who want to be pilots face.

4.Your claim that young women are making a rational assessment of their future to not spend the time/money to become a pilot is a hypothesis that is also fact free. I'm not sure that I can find evidence that would counter it directly, but I can counter it indirectly.

An equally expensive profession to get into is law. If people were totally rational and able assess their futures with certainty, we would not see this:

From a 2010 report from the Law Society of Alberta (Canada)
Within 5 years of being called to the bar, 57% of women and 49% of men will have left private practice.  Many will move to in-house or government positions, but close to 30% (28% of women and 29% of men) will have left the practice of law entirely.

Of course, it might be the case that law provides more transferable skills, but it's clearly an awful lot of time and money to get a law degree and pass the bar to leave the profession within five years.

Certainly, I don't think one data point like this knocks down your hypothesis entirely, but you haven't presented anything other than a hypothesis. I don't know if it's true or not but neither do you.

1. The law, as you say, has much more transferrable skills and also a wide variety of practice areas offering stable scheduling and more flexibility. It’s not similar enough to piloting to disprove my argument. Again, I’m saying that jobs requiring a large investment that also offer no transferrable skills and have irregular schedules are uniquely unappealing to women.

2. The required age to be a flight attendant is only 21. This means a woman could easily work in that position at an early age, leave to start a family, and reenter the workforce later without losing a significant investment. The average age isn’t really relevant unless we also have stats on the average starting age and what percentage of flight attendants take maternity leave or quit their jobs for long periods of time.

3. Nothing I’ve said here is sexist, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I could have very easily made this an argument about how being a stewardess requires “soft skills” like patience, hospitality, and communication that men generally lack. This is all true, but I chose not to bother with that because I correctly assumed that this would be met with sexism allegations. I guess it didn’t really matter either way, though.

4. Even if the argument is that “the ratio has more to do with the boys network than anything else,” that is still an absurd claim based on nothing. The burden is on you to show that sexism is the main reason for this disparity. I offered up multiple confounding variables, and I thus remain unconvinced.

My understanding of this is that I've seen plenty of sexism from men (and from women to other women) as well as read enough studies where, like you, hiring managers outright make comments that they don't want to hire women because they're concerned they'll leave after a few years, to recognize that these issues are real. And, beyond that, that they become self fulfilling prophesies: if women know that hiring managers are unlikely to hire them, they won't even try in the first place.

However, I do find it interesting at least in terms of gender for DEI that you are clearly taking the view here that many and women are fundamentally different beyond physical differences. I personally take an agnostic position on that as I do on many things. I don't need to have an opinion on that to recognize that sexism is real.

But, for this specifically when it comes to women, it makes DEI potentially very interesting. Does the claim that 'men and women are fundamentally different but men can still understand women' seem credible?

If not, then, and I don't think there is a male or female way to fly an airline here in this specific case, but more generally, it makes DEI programs essential because if only women understand women it necessitates if not gender parity, at least a critical mass of women working at banks to ensure women receive loans, it necessitates a critical mass of women engineers to ensure products for women get made, it necessitates a critical mass of women on corporate boards of directors, and so on...