Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

badtoro

I find CK's show boring. It's Joe Duffy lite. If you include Niall Boylan, it's samey samey radio, there's no variety in those shows.

Bring back Hook, at least he was interesting.

meeeeh

DickSwiveller wrote: »

"Or maybe it's just a particular type of listener that shouts about feminazis every time they hear woman on radio and are actually not enough of them to produce radio targeted at them"

That's a childish slur against people who are merely pointing out the one-sided ideological view that dominates Irish radio. Most people are easygoing and just listen to RTE radio etc so listenership figures probably aren't affected, and a new conservative station probably wouldn't draw a signifigant listenership.

Oh stop whinging, this is from recent posts
'bleeding heart, feminist pc crap that infests the minds of most presenters', 'screeching feminists and liberal loons' and so on...

So you can dish it but can't take it, is that what you are saying?

mollser

I thought she was a disgrace at lunchtime talking about the gender pay gap. It was such a one sided discussion and no counterview would be entertained at all, even though it was fairly clear what the listeners thought of it by the texts coming in, all of them dismissed as wrong. As for her signing off, "stick that up your pipe and smoke it", well if that is what feminism / liberalism / whatever it is has become, I'm out

DickSwiveller

mollser wrote: »

I thought she was a disgrace at lunchtime talking about the gender pay gap. It was such a one sided discussion and no counterview would be entertained at all, even though it was fairly clear what the listeners thought of it by the texts coming in, all of them dismissed as wrong. As for her signing off, "stick that up your pipe and smoke it", well if that is what feminism / liberalism / whatever it is has become, I'm out

Really? This pay gap nonsense has been debunked a million times and yet they still go on about it. Incredible.

VinLieger

Tell me how wrote: »

So why keep listening? That's what confuses me.
Anyway, that is all off topic from this thread I suppose to be fair.

I don't listen thats the point, I used to be an avid listener of newstalk throughout the day but their quality of presenters has declined across the board that now i tune in every so often just to gauge if its still that bad and turn off just as quickly.

I also cannot believe I forgot to talk about williams, the man is just dire in literally ever aspect of radio presenting not to mention a cheap hack who brings shame on the entire journalism profession by claiming he's a part of it.

robbe

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't listen thats the point, I used to be an avid listener of newstalk throughout the day but their quality of presenters has declined across the board that now i tune in every so often just to gauge if its still that bad and turn off just as quickly.

I also cannot believe I forgot to talk about williams, the man is just dire in literally ever aspect of radio presenting not to mention a cheap hack who brings shame on the entire journalism profession by claiming he's a part of it.

In largely the same boat here...used to listen to quite a lot of their output, from when it was McWilliams then Dunphy in the mornings and quite a bit of Hook and OTB. Now really just listen to the odd podcast of parts that I like (some Moncrieff and the OTB football podcasts) and don't bother at all with the rest.

Pretty sure it was always a left leaning station but imho they progressively moved to a more tabloid approach with the level of shock and horror expressed at almost everything dialled up to 11 all the time.

i71jskz5xu42pb

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Really? This pay gap nonsense has been debunked a million times and yet they still go on about it. Incredible.

The gender pay gap is 100% real and backed by data.
You're presumably a bit confused about what the gender pay gap is. The lady who introduced the piece went out of her way to explain what it was and wasn't at the start of the piece.

You can argue all you want about the causes for the gap (e.g. more women taking time out of career for kids, more women in lower paid roles, etc.) and whether anything should be/can be done about it but I don't believe that you can credibly argue against its existence.

ligerdub

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

The gender pay gap is 100% real and backed by data.
You're presumably a bit confused about what the gender pay gap is. The lady who introduced the piece went out of her way to explain what it was and wasn't at the start of the piece.

You can argue all you want about the causes for the gap (e.g. more women taking time out of career for kids, more women in lower paid roles, etc.) and whether anything should be/can be done about it but I don't believe that you can credibly argue against its existence.

There are very few people who deny the fact that the average earnings per annum for men are higher than the average earnings per annum for women. There's no big shock or controversy there that people who are more likely to be career focused than family focused would have higher incomes.

The debunking occurs when feminists claim this is due to inequality or discrimination, when it isn't the case at all. The reasons for the differences in earnings can be reasonably explained by various factors which have nothing to do with discrimination.

Feminists would want to be very careful with their goals here. Fair enough the relatively small number of women who are very career focused that they'll be prepared to sacrifice having children, or maybe having only one child, and then deciding to spend their time at work rather than with their child. A man generally does this of course, but it seems fairly clear for whatever reason that this is a much easier step for a man to take. You'd almost say it's natural. I highly doubt this is what the vast majority of women want.

It seems unwise to me that the people crying out for more women in certain roles generally fall into the category of women in their 20's/early 30's where they are relatively unrushed about starting a family, or women in their 40's and beyond who spend all their energy in their job and their work becomes their baby, and who want the next generation to be just like them.

I've seen it time and time again the go-go attitude of women in their 20's (nothing wrong with that) but quite a lot of them (and I certainly don't disagree with them) that rather than working 10 hour days in jobs where you're a resource to a company and where like 99% of people you don't get everything you wanted and realise that what you're doing isn't hugely important in the big scheme of things - even in the holy grail that is STEM, they'd rather spend their time in more fulfilling, happier pursuits around family and friends.

It's not just certain jobs and income that's the issue, it's the responsibility that comes with it. The issue seems particularly sensitive when it comes to C level executives. I keep wondering, aside from the financial benefits, why would anyone want to be a CEO of a reasonably sized company or larger. I've seen some of these people and literally all they do is work. You couldn't make me do that even if you offered me mad money, so why is it assumed that everyone wants to be this person, much less somebody of a specific gender to do the role?

What's the alternative here? That women should be paid more but still get to play the Mom role and have all the flexibility and shorter hours that come with it. That's not a reasonable decision to force on an employer!

DickSwiveller

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

The gender pay gap is 100% real and backed by data.
You're presumably a bit confused about what the gender pay gap is. The lady who introduced the piece went out of her way to explain what it was and wasn't at the start of the piece.

You can argue all you want about the causes for the gap (e.g. more women taking time out of career for kids, more women in lower paid roles, etc.) and whether anything should be/can be done about it but I don't believe that you can credibly argue against its existence.

I'm not confused. There is an earnings gap, not a pay gap. No-one is being paid less for the same work. That has always been the contention. Now they've realised how ridiculous that sounds and have shifted the goalposts. There will always be a gap because men and women prefer different types of work. There isn't anything that can be done about it.

i71jskz5xu42pb

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm not confused. There is an earnings gap, not a pay gap. No-one is being paid less for the same work. That has always been the contention.

No it hasn't.
And if you'd listened to the show today you'd know that was literally the first point addressed.
But you've a hobby horse to get up on and nothing is gong to stop you from getting up on it.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There will always be a gap because men and women prefer different types of work. There isn't anything that can be done about it.

There's a lot can be done about the pay gap e.g. just off the top of my head:

1. Allowing parents split maternity/paternity leave so childcare is not essentally forced on women
2. Shine a light on the discrepency as they are doing in the UK
3. Doing more to encourage women into higher paid jobs e.g. STEM

the_pen_turner

that woman is claiming that ryanair(i think) has a 70% pay gap . how is that possible. its not.
she went on to say that its based on pilots being mostly men and cabin staff being mostly women. those jobs have diferent saleries . everyone in those jobs are paid the same. if you compare 10 pilots to cabin staff then there is going to be a huge diference. and there should be.
but to say its caused by gender is irresponsible and crazy.


that whole pieces and the attitudes to the texts was horrendious and showed how little all concerned know(or are willing to talk about) about the topic

the_pen_turner

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

No it hasn't.
And if you'd listened to the show today you'd know that was literally the first point addressed.
But you've a hobby horse to get up on and nothing is gong to stop you from getting up on it.


There's a lot can be done about the pay gap e.g. just off the top of my head:

1. Allowing parents split maternity/paternity leave so childcare is not essentally forced on womenmost men would love the opertunity to do that
2. Shine a light on the discrepency as they are doing in the UKyou would have to believe that there is some evidence of a gender pay gap in it for that to happen
3. Doing more to encourage women into higher paid jobs e.g. STEMwhich they are doing all the time.

how about trying to get men into the roles that women tyically have, childcare, education, nursing, ect.

ligerdub

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

No it hasn't.
And if you'd listened to the show today you'd know that was literally the first point addressed.
But you've a hobby horse to get up on and nothing is gong to stop you from getting up on it.


There's a lot can be done about the pay gap e.g. just off the top of my head:

[*]Allowing parents split maternity/paternity leave so childcare is not essentally forced on women
[*]Shine a light on the discrepency as they are doing in the UK
[*]Doing more to encourage women into higher paid jobs e.g. STEM

I've yet to see this clamoring from the vast majority of women seeking their husband to stay and home and look after the baby. As a matter of fact I don't think I've ever heard of an example where a woman argued with her husband that he stay at home and she returns to work. I've also yet to hear why that would be such a good thing! If anything I think it would be fairly harsh on women if there became this expectation that they should get back to work sharpish after having a baby.

Shining a light on the discrepancy? We see a lot of that light shining, it's practically wall to wall floodlights in the media we are exposed to! What we don't hear much of is a reasonable debate breaking down these factors and why it would be so beneficial for women to bridge the gap by spending more time at work, having less children and choosing disciplines of study they have little interest in.

All I see these days are programs encouraging women to enter the STEM field. These are higher paid jobs sure, but maybe women on average aren't focused on salary? Maybe on average women aren't as interested in STEM as men are. Maybe they'd be happier doing something else and they follow their passion and find work they find fulfilling and gives them a better life. We are only short of marching women into offices and forcing them to sign their name to an application form for an Engineering program. There are no obstacles for female students in putting Engineering or Computer Science on their CAO form. If they want to choose that they are free to do so. This isn't some sort of commie dictatorship.

VinLieger

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

No it hasn't.
And if you'd listened to the show today you'd know that was literally the first point addressed.
But you've a hobby horse to get up on and nothing is gong to stop you from getting up on it.

Yes it has they have tried to redefine what "pay gap" means, the discrimination pay gap does not exist however there is and has always been an earnings gap which is now trying to be redefined as a pay gap so they can say "see we were right all along"

DickSwiveller

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

No it hasn't.
And if you'd listened to the show today you'd know that was literally the first point addressed.
But you've a hobby horse to get up on and nothing is gong to stop you from getting up on it.


There's a lot can be done about the pay gap e.g. just off the top of my head:

1. Allowing parents split maternity/paternity leave so childcare is not essentally forced on women
2. Shine a light on the discrepency as they are doing in the UK
3. Doing more to encourage women into higher paid jobs e.g. STEM

Did you read my post? I said they've redefined it because they were called out on their deliberate manipulation of figures. What if women want to stay at home with their child? Are you going to force them into work so you can feel virtuous knowing that the so-called pay gap is closing?

QueensGael

ligerdub wrote: »

There are no obstacles for female students in putting Engineering or Computer Science on their CAO form. If they want to choose that they are free to do so. This isn't some sort of commie dictatorship.

No barriers to applying, but plenty of barriers to completing the degree (not being drinking buddies with the labs techs and getting extra lab times at the weekend, for example) and staying in the profession (not getting the high profile dev projects early on because you're seen as less capable, and then being shoehorned into maintenance/sustaining roles), and the pervasive bro culture in tech companies and VC funding.

Of the 14 women (of a class of 110) who finished an engineering degree with me, only about 5 are still working in tech (including yours truly). Others went into teaching, gardaí, banking. If being an engineer was as easy as slapping down course on your CAO form at age 17, sure we'd all be one.

DickSwiveller

QueensGael wrote: »

No barriers to applying, but plenty of barriers to completing the degree (not being drinking buddies with the labs techs and getting extra lab times at the weekend, for example) and staying in the profession (not getting the high profile dev projects early on because you're seen as less capable, and then being shoehorned into maintenance/sustaining roles), and the pervasive bro culture in tech companies and VC funding.

Of the 14 women (of a class of 110) who finished an engineering degree with me, only about 5 are still working in tech (including yours truly). Others went into teaching, gardaí, banking. If being an engineer was as easy as slapping down course on your CAO form at age 17, sure we'd all be one.

This presumes that men and women are exactly the same and are interested in the same things. They aren't.

ligerdub

QueensGael wrote: »

No barriers to applying, 1. but plenty of barriers to completing the degree (not being drinking buddies with the labs techs and getting extra lab times at the weekend, for example) and 2. staying in the profession (not getting the high profile dev projects early on because you're seen as less capable, and then being shoehorned into maintenance/sustaining roles), and the pervasive bro culture in tech companies and VC funding.

3. Of the 14 women (of a class of 110) who finished an engineering degree with me, only about 5 are still working in tech (including yours truly).

4.Others went into teaching, gardaí, banking.

5. If being an engineer was as easy as slapping down course on your CAO form at age 17, sure we'd all be one.

Bold point 1: Pretty sure drinking with lab techs isn't a module on the course.

Bold point 2: As is the case with pretty much every graduate in every discipline. You can come out with a first class degree in all sorts and the first job you'll go into you're the coffee gopher! I myself had to do this after getting an undergraduate and Masters degree, even after picking up some professional qualifications beyond this.

Bold point 3: Yes, there were only 14 women in the course, because on average women have a lower propensity towards the subject.

Bold point 4: The others went into more secure employment? Maybe they valued security. Maybe they realised they weren't that into the discipline as a career either. Both of which are valid reasons to change paths. Plenty of people changed paths, I change paths myself.

Bold point 5: No it wouldn't, because as it what happens in reality, not everyone wants to study and/or work in engineering!

mollser

Good discussion this, sadly lacking in Ciara's propaganda piece yesterday!

DickSwiveller

mollser wrote: »

Good discussion this, sadly lacking in Ciara's propaganda piece yesterday!

Just listened back to the section on the paygap. You could tell she was getting annoyed by all the texts disagreeing with her! The texters are the ones who provide some balance on that station!

quintana76

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just listened back to the section on the paygap. You could tell she was getting annoyed by all the texts disagreeing with her! The texters are the ones who provide some balance on that station!

Well observed. It is ironic that the texters are effectively the moderators. Shows how far the media bubble has floated away from real public opinion.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Great new lads: Legislation to reduce gender pay gap set for this year

More Music

QueensGael wrote: »

Of the 14 women (of a class of 110) who finished an engineering degree with me, only about 5 are still working in tech (including yours truly).

That's about a 40% "success rate" of employment in a related field for female students. What's it like for the male students who finished their degree?

QueensGael wrote: »

If being an engineer was as easy as slapping down course on your CAO form at age 17, sure we'd all be one.

Agreed. Some people just aren't suited to a job in STEM. Unfortunately they only find out when it's too late.

DickSwiveller

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

Great new lads: Legislation to reduce gender pay gap set for this year

I'm thinking of emigrating if this nonsense continues.

ligerdub

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm thinking of emigrating if this nonsense continues.

Same......but there's a problem......to where? This **** is almost everywhere now.

Grolschevik

ligerdub wrote: »

Same......but there's a problem......to where? This **** is almost everywhere now.

I think they've found a portal back to the '50s just outside Antwerp.

ligerdub

Grolschevik wrote:

I think they've found a portal back to the '50s just outside Antwerp.

I see what you've done there, well done. This isn't some cry for "the good old days". It's more a plea for common sense, free will, meritocracy and leaving the government out of privately made legal agreements.

Grolschevik

ligerdub wrote: »

I see what you've done there, well done. This isn't some cry for "the good old days". It's more a plea for common sense, free will, meritocracy and leaving the government out of privately made legal agreements.

So 19th century Liverpool, then, as long as you end up in the right class. Sorry I got it wrong.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

I think they've found a portal back to the '50s just outside Antwerp.

Sounds great. Do Ryanair fly there?

pconn062

I officially "switched the dial" away from CK this week. I did give it a good run but some of the biased nonsense I heard this week was the final straw. It's a shame as 12-2pm is a bit of a dead slot now. Oh well, it's not the worst, back to Lyric!