Sexism still exists against female pilots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are they the same race, national origin, etc? If so, it may come down to the interview.

If they are both white, and everything is truly the same and no difference in the interview, etc, then the woman because the white male can't sue for discrimination.

But if the airline has one legally cognizable distinguishing feature that they can hang their hat on, then it depends on the airline and the person(s) making the decision. Sexism still exists and I am sure that there are airlines that will avoid hiring women whenever they are sure that they can get away with it.
 
JimNtexas said:
Thought problem:

Pilot A and Pilot B have identical qualifications. They have the same amount of time in the same types of planes, neither has dented an airplane or ever failed a check ride. They exceed the application requirements to apply to Big Airline, a U.S. flag part 121 international air carrier.

Both are heterosexual, both are members of the same racial classification. Neither is a felon.

The only difference is that A is female, B is male.

Who is most likely to be hired by Big Airline?
Click to expand...

No question, candidate A since that person is in a protected class.
 
eaglepilot said:
Really?

Perhaps after you post a pic of you in a Speedo.

No wait, bad idea, I just had lunch.:wonderwoman:
Click to expand...
I don't have any pictures handy of me in a speedo. Would a mankini do? PM'ed you. Enjoy.
 
Kristin said:
Are they the same race, national origin, etc? If so, it may come down to the interview.

If they are both white, and everything is truly the same and no difference in the interview, etc, then the woman because the white male can't sue for discrimination.

But if the airline has one legally cognizable distinguishing feature that they can hang their hat on, then it depends on the airline and the person(s) making the decision. Sexism still exists and I am sure that there are airlines that will avoid hiring women whenever they are sure that they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

If she is ugly yes you are probably right.
 
Lindberg said:
Just because I'm a cynic and I've seen this go down before, it wouldn't surprise me if someone was trying to set up a hostile workplace claim.
Click to expand...

If so it was by someone who probably didn't research the law very well. Things might be a bit different in Canada, but down here, hostile workplace requires some malfeasence on the part of the employer, in order to hold the employer liable. That typically means that it has to be the employees that are doing the harassing, not the customers. In general, the only way that the employer gets tagged for what the customers do is if they knew about it and didn't do anything or actively set things up to make it more likely that harassment was going to happen.
 
jenkins said:
If she is ugly yes you are probably right.
Click to expand...

I actually was giving you the benefit of the doubt on your original post thinking maybe you were being deliberately provocative and not just a pig. I think I may have erred.

In fact, really beautiful women are generally considered to be less competent than plainer looking women.

So on top of appearing to be extremely sexist, you appear not to be well informed.
 
Kristin said:
I actually was giving you the benefit of the doubt on your original post thinking maybe you were being deliberately provocative and not just a pig. I think I may have erred.

In fact, really beautiful women are generally considered to be less competent than plainer looking women.

So on top of appearing to be extremely sexist, you appear not to be well informed.
Click to expand...

:eek:

That was quite the beat down you gave me!

I employ quite a few people myself. In my case, maybe I am unusual, if there are three candidates with identical qualifications relevant to the position and background and one is a guy, the second is an ugly lady and the third is a pretty lady? I'm hiring the pretty lady because that makes HR happy (I'm hiring a woman) and we get some eye candy too. Now the reality is usually (in my field) the more qualified candidate happens to be male and we will always hire the more qualified applicant. Just recently I hired an ugly woman who was the more qualified candidate. So I assure you I am not an unfair person. Just being honest, given the choice I will hire the more attractive woman every time.

Now I am not in the aviation industry. If you are telling me that male pilots prefer to work with ugly ladies then perhaps that is good I am not in aviation... :rofl: That and the lack of, um, money. ;)

I am not a pig. Just honest. All these males coming on here and saying "the right thing" are being dishonest we all know the way we REALLY feel.
 
jenkins said:
:eek:

That was quite the beat down you gave me!
...

I am not a pig. Just honest. All these males coming on here and saying "the right thing" are being dishonest we all know the way we REALLY feel.
Click to expand...

Note to self: "Do Not Engage, Do Not Engage,..."

To everyone else, just by the tone of the posts, I would fly as a passenger with Kristen anytime, but NEVER with this guy.

Just being HONEST..
 
Kristin said:
If so it was by someone who probably didn't research the law very well. Things might be a bit different in Canada, but down here, hostile workplace requires some malfeasence on the part of the employer, in order to hold the employer liable.
Click to expand...

The same is true here-I know because i dealt with an employee who claimed harassment, but it never came to anything....he/she claimed the other employees were harassing, not the customers. He/she was well coached before the complaint was lodged:mad2:
 
jenkins said:
All these males coming on here and saying "the right thing" are being dishonest we all know the way we REALLY feel.
Click to expand...

Personally, I flunked out of mind-reading school.
 
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm just the only one brave enough to talk up about the truth that is all.
 
eaglepilot said:
Note to self: "Do Not Engage, Do Not Engage,..."

To everyone else, just by the tone of the posts, I would fly as a passenger with Kristen anytime, but NEVER with this guy.

Just being HONEST..
Click to expand...

Aw... Now you tell me after I sent you those sexy mankini pictures of myself!

:no:

I feel used!

:sad:
 
jenkins said:
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm just the only one brave enough to talk up about the truth that is all.
Click to expand...

You can certainly tell the truth about how YOU feel, but with regard to anyone else, it's just speculation!
 
jenkins said:
:eek:

That was quite the beat down you gave me!

I employ quite a few people myself. In my case, maybe I am unusual, if there are three candidates with identical qualifications relevant to the position and background and one is a guy, the second is an ugly lady and the third is a pretty lady? I'm hiring the pretty lady because that makes HR happy (I'm hiring a woman) and we get some eye candy too. Now the reality is usually (in my field) the more qualified candidate happens to be male and we will always hire the more qualified applicant. Just recently I hired an ugly woman who was the more qualified candidate. So I assure you I am not an unfair person. Just being honest, given the choice I will hire the more attractive woman every time.

Now I am not in the aviation industry. If you are telling me that male pilots prefer to work with ugly ladies then perhaps that is good I am not in aviation... :rofl: That and the lack of, um, money. ;)

I am not a pig. Just honest. All these males coming on here and saying "the right thing" are being dishonest we all know the way we REALLY feel.
Click to expand...

I was trying to give you a somewhat graceful way to clarify your remarks. Rather you chose to wrap the rope around you neck and jump off the chair. So be it.

If you are in the U.S, you are probably already open to a gender discrimination suit. If you hire "eye candy" over better qualified females who do not rate on your "petermeter", then if one of them whom you didn't hire can sue you up one side and down the other. I would take the case with pleasure.

I do commend your honesty at so openly confessing how much of a pig you really are. I haven't run into anyone that seems quite as proud of it as you are. Most men in responsible positions, can manage to make executive decisions using their larger head, and not their smaller one. There are of course some who find that difficult to impossible. In this country, they put their employers in a lot of jeopardy.

I don't know what industry you are in. If it is the porn industry, then you are on safe ground as looks are a bona fide occupational qualification. Ditto fashion modelling, etc. I am not sensing that such is the case with you as you claim that only men are actually qualified, though I guess if you were into gay porn that would cover you as well.

However, in the airline industry, and most other industries with which I have experience, coworkers don't make the hiring decisions. Management makes the hiring decisions. That is certainly true of the airlines. Now if I was running recruitment at an airline, I would be more worried about having some pig in the cockpit who might be so focused on the looks of the other pilot that they would be unable to perform their tasks in a competent manner.

My experience with guys like you is that they are mostly all over the half century mark in age. You are not likely to find that the younger generation of men diving in to wallow in the same attitudinal slop that you find so enjoyable.
 
ClimbnSink said:
http://www.economist.com/node/21551535
There is a bunch more out there showing it is overwhelmingly women who discriminate based on looks. Men appreciate beauty, women unfairly punish it. Damn humans all humany and stuff.
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't rate that one study as the holy grail, there is no question that women also engage in discriminatory behavior. The researchers here assume jeolously, but IMX, that is not as big a factor as others, at least not in America.

It is ironic, but the most sexist person I ever worked for was a woman. She was a Kiwi, though I don't know whether that had any bearing. She hired me and a guy right out of grad school. She immediately put him to work do substantive projects and assigned clerical projects to me. She was enfuriated that I was not good at it. Mind you, there was not a thing on my CV to suggest that I would have any clerical skills. She just assumed and acted on it.

I think we all have stereotypes that we carry around with us. Some try to see past them. Some embrace them and refuse to consider that they are ruled by bias, which even if often true, are not always true.
 
If you hire "eye candy" over better qualified females who do not rate on your "petermeter", then if one of them whom you didn't hire can sue you up one side and down the other. I would take the case with pleasure.
Click to expand...

Bill jumped Monica from intern to GS-12 ahead of a few thousand better qualified women.

Millions of women cheered them on.
 
Kristin said:
If so it was by someone who probably didn't research the law very well. Things might be a bit different in Canada, but down here, hostile workplace requires some malfeasence on the part of the employer, in order to hold the employer liable. That typically means that it has to be the employees that are doing the harassing, not the customers. In general, the only way that the employer gets tagged for what the customers do is if they knew about it and didn't do anything or actively set things up to make it more likely that harassment was going to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm somewhat familiar with the law. Fortunately most who attempt these sorts of scams aren't. I don't know whether harassment was the planned endgame; that's just one possibility. But I'm strongly in the "hoax" camp.
 
Kristin, logic and facts will only serve to confuse. You gotta understand the mentality of most men, especially here.

neanderthal-man-15370308.jpg
 
whiteknighting will get you nowhere. girls want caveman.
 
ClimbnSink said:
whiteknighting will get you nowhere. girls want caveman.
Click to expand...

LOL New one. "Whiteknighting". I like it. I've always tried to figure out a way to encapsulate what I would otherwise describe as "public beta male behavior". That term coins it very well. Well done. :yes:
 
Come on guys.....Jenkins may be a troll but I do see his point.

If two women are applying for a job with equal qualifications but one is a super model and the other is your average wal-mart denizen I would certainly not be hiring hogger.
 
We all know that, some don't realize that you can say it out loud and nothing happens. Besides it needed pointing out that women being more petty are likely to discriminate in the opposite direction. Remember boys when making hiring decisions. Skinny is healthy, healthy is productive. All about the bottom(line.)
DavidWhite said:
Come on guys.....Jenkins may be a troll but I do see his point.

If two women are applying for a job with equal qualifications but one is a super model and the other is your average wal-mart denizen I would certainly not be hiring hogger.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't read this whole thread. I am just going to add that I have seen unqualified girls get hired time and time again to sit right seat in the 135/91 world just because they are attractive and the left seat guy wants something pretty to look at while on the road. Ive seen this happen with anything from a King Air to a Gulfstream.

While qualified pilots sit around and might even find some jobs hard to come by, these girls go from a 172 to a Gulfstream and into a poor crew environment considering the captains obviously dont care about having two qualified people in the cockpit.

Its not the girl's fault either...what are they supposed to do, say no?

For every woman out there that you think didn't get a job due to sexism...there is some pretty girl walking into the right seat of an airplane she's not experienced enough to be in.
 
jenkins said:
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm just the only one brave enough to talk up about the truth that is all.
Click to expand...
The only one who not only thinks that way but assumes every other guy thinks that way, is more like it.

My father often said, "Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
 
JimNtexas said:
Bill jumped Monica from intern to GS-12 ahead of a few thousand better qualified women.

Millions of women cheered them on.
Click to expand...

What millions? Do you have a citation for that alleged fact?
 
Kristin said:
What millions? Do you have a citation for that alleged fact?
Click to expand...

If you want to see an excellent example of why some men think some women haven't "earned their seat" you just need to look at Global Girl. (Formerly known as Gulfstream Girl before she got a scare-o-gram from the legal department at Gulfstream)
 
timwinters said:
Kristin, logic and facts will only serve to confuse. You gotta understand the mentality of most men, especially here.
Click to expand...

Tim,

Actually, it is a lot better than it used to be. Back in the old days I have been told in no uncertain terms that women had no business flying airplanes. This by old veterans who may have been good in their day, but were substantially less competent in the modern airspace than I.
 
DavidWhite said:
Come on guys.....Jenkins may be a troll but I do see his point.

If two women are applying for a job with equal qualifications but one is a super model and the other is your average wal-mart denizen I would certainly not be hiring hogger.
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely that super models would be applying to work for you, unless you are in the fashion industry, I which case you are probably gay.

You and Jenkins make a set of bookends.
 
Kristin said:
It seems unlikely that super models would be applying to work for you, unless you are in the fashion industry, I which case you are probably gay.

You and Jenkins make a set of bookends.
Click to expand...

Well.....you do understand what I mean though, right?
 
lr60plt said:
I didn't read this whole thread. I am just going to add that I have seen unqualified girls get hired time and time again to sit right seat in the 135/91 world just because they are attractive and the left seat guy wants something pretty to look at while on the road. Ive seen this happen with anything from a King Air to a Gulfstream.

While qualified pilots sit around and might even find some jobs hard to come by, these girls go from a 172 to a Gulfstream and into a poor crew environment considering the captains obviously dont care about having two qualified people in the cockpit.

Its not the girl's fault either...what are they supposed to do, say no?

For every woman out there that you think didn't get a job due to sexism...there is some pretty girl walking into the right seat of an airplane she's not experienced enough to be in.
Click to expand...

You got any data to support that last assertion? I can tell you that I have talked to many corporate operations where the main/chief pilot confessed that they would not hire any woman because it would do in his marriage. These are largely the small to mid-sized operators, but that is where you get the time to get hired by the Fortune 500 flight departments.
 
DavidWhite said:
If you want to see an excellent example of why some men think some women haven't "earned their seat" you just need to look at Global Girl. (Formerly known as Gulfstream Girl before she got a scare-o-gram from the legal department at Gulfstream)
Click to expand...

Well, if women manage to get jobs on their looks, for which they are not qualified, we can be assured that there was a male involved who was thinking with his endocrine system. How you can whine about that fact and then state that you give preference to looks, is a hallmark of hypocrisy.
 
Kristin said:
You got any data to support that last assertion? I can tell you that I have talked to many corporate operations where the main/chief pilot confessed that they would not hire any woman because it would do in his marriage. These are largely the small to mid-sized operators, but that is where you get the time to get hired by the Fortune 500 flight departments.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, why did they think that? Did they think that they would end up with an adulterous relationship with their female coworkers, or that their wives would leave them?

I've never been married nor in a super serious relationship so I'm legitimately curious.
 
DavidWhite said:
Well.....you do understand what I mean though, right?
Click to expand...

I understand that you, Jenkins, and others have provided the topic title, notwithstanding whether the original incident discussed was a hoax. I am less inclined to think it a hoax after reading you guys, than I did originally.
 
Kristin said:
Well, if women manage to get jobs on their looks, for which they are not qualified, we can be assured that there was a male involved who was thinking with his endocrine system. How you can whine about that fact and then state that you give preference to looks, is a hallmark of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I said I would never hire someone who is less qualified because of looks. How does that make me a hypocrite?
 
Kristin said:
I understand that you, Jenkins, and others have provided the topic title, notwithstanding whether the original incident discussed was a hoax. I am less inclined to think it a hoax after reading you guys, than I did originally.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof rests firmly on your shoulders. I have never said anything to the degree of what was written on that napkin, all I said is that I would hire the more attractive applicant given their qualifications being identical. You are projecting.
 
DavidWhite said:
I said I would never hire someone who is less qualified because of looks. How does that make me a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

My comment was generalized. I will let you decide whether it applies to you or not.

However, no two candidates are ever equally qualified. If physical attractiveness is in the mix, it will get rationalized to cover more than the mythical "equally qualified".
 
DavidWhite said:
The burden of proof rests firmly on your shoulders. I have never said anything to the degree of what was written on that napkin, all I said is that I would hire the more attractive applicant given their qualifications being identical. You are projecting.
Click to expand...

No, I am not projecting. There is a significant difference between your stated criteria for hiring and what was alleged to have been written in the story that started this thread. However, it is a matter of different positions on the same spectrum, not a fundamental difference.
 
Kristin said:
My comment was generalized. I will let you decide whether it applies to you or not.

However, no two candidates are ever equally qualified. If physical attractiveness is in the mix, it will get rationalized to cover more than the mythical "equally qualified".
Click to expand...

Well, this is a hypothetical interwebz scenario so for the sake of the story we'll say they are equal.

If I was the head of a flight department (and I'm not, just some dumbass 19 year old kid) I would hire whoever I thought could do the job best. My emphasis is safety and good decision-making. If I thought the bearded lady from Ripleys believe it or not would be the better candidate, then that is who I would want.

I know three professional female pilots. I mean like IRL friends. One of them is a training director for one of the most well known flight schools in the country, another is a King-Air/Citation pilot, and the third is a DPE with about 40,000 hours that has flown everything under the sun. They have all earned everything that they have, and I would consider the third woman to be one of my aviation role-models. If you throw all of my acquaintances who are female and also pilots into the mix there are probably a dozen if not more, and I've never heard any of them say that anyone had tried to discourage them.

You (just guessing from all the fancy letters by your name) are from a different generation and dealt with a different set of challenges than my generations female aviators will.
 
Kristin said:
Well, if women manage to get jobs on their looks, for which they are not qualified, we can be assured that there was a male involved who was thinking with his endocrine system.
Click to expand...

Also I forgot to add that you are more correct with this statement than you know. GGs boss got sent to the pokey for thinking with his endocrine system (and his endocrine system apparently includes a gland that makes middle aged bald men attracted to 16 year old girls)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top