Councillor feels wrath of "Jordan Peterson and Tories across the land" by saying gritting routes “can be sexist” and “must change” to help cyclists and pedestrians

And data exists showing that women suffer more from public spending cuts.

You risk stumbling headlong into an unintended consequence whereby your desire to bring gender equality to the snow gritter leads to greater inequality overall.

What neither you nor I have access to is a direct comparison of the relative harm caused to women by our proposed approaches.

The reason for targeting maximum economic benefit is that it helps to grow the economy, and subsequently the tax take, enabling greater public spending (including on more gritting!).

Public spending benefits women more than men (lots of data on this). If we were taking a gender neutral approach to public spending we'd have to fire an awful lot of women and cut spending on an awful lot of public services. This would free up a lot of money for gritting the pavements so the newly unemployed women could go for a nice walk when it snowed but I'm not sure they'd be too happy about that even once you'd explained how it was good for equality.

Rich_cb wrote:

And data exists showing that women suffer more from public spending cuts.

You risk stumbling headlong into an unintended consequence whereby your desire to bring gender equality to the snow gritter leads to greater inequality overall.

What neither you nor I have access to is a direct comparison of the relative harm caused to women by our proposed approaches.

The reason for targeting maximum economic benefit is that it helps to grow the economy, and subsequently the tax take, enabling greater public spending (including on more gritting!).

Public spending benefits women more than men (lots of data on this). If we were taking a gender neutral approach to public spending we'd have to fire an awful lot of women and cut spending on an awful lot of public services. This would free up a lot of money for gritting the pavements so the newly unemployed women could go for a nice walk when it snowed but I'm not sure they'd be too happy about that even once you'd explained how it was good for equality.

I'll say it again because you must have missed it the first time...

You assume that the benefit to the female gender from increased public spending outweighs the loss to the female gender from biased action. If you have data to back that up, you could solve this problem right now and do your bit for a fairer society. Care to share?

You seem to think that the data you do not have is more valid than the data that we do have and upon which a book has been written.

You assume that the benefit to women from equalising gender biased road gritting outweighs the loss from decreased public spending.

Do you have any data to back that up?

Rich_cb wrote:

You assume that the benefit to women from equalising gender biased road gritting outweighs the loss from decreased public spending.

Do you have any data to back that up?

You made the claim, you back it up. The claims that I have talked about (note that I have not made them, I merely refer to an authoritative source - a published book) are backed up with supporting data.

You have no evidence that your approach will not cause more harm than good.

You have no evidence that the current approach causes more harm than good.

All you can say is that the current gritting routine benefits men more than women.

Ironically that makes it one of the few areas of public spending to actually do so. If we're aiming for gender equality in public spending we need more male orientated gritting...

Rich_cb wrote:

You have no evidence that your approach will not cause more harm than good.

You have no evidence that the current approach causes more harm than good.

All you can say is that the current gritting routine benefits men more than women.

Ironically that makes it one of the few areas of public spending to actually do so. If we're aiming for gender equality in public spending we need more male orientated gritting...

I'm not saying that one way is 'better' than another, or that one way causes "more harm than good". To do so, one would have to define what metric(s) we, as a collective, consider important. Please bear in mind that you or I are not able to define what we, as a collective, consider important. The councillor, as an elected representative would however be more able to represent a group than I. Therefore the councillor's views are more valid than mine or Jordan Peterson's (or yours, assuming you're not an elected representative).

What I am able to say, which you seem to agree with, after initially disagreeing with that book that you haven't even read, is that the current approach is gender biased.

Whether the current approach is 'good' or even 'better than a certain alternative' is another matter entirely.

I've never disagreed with the fact that the gritting main roads benefits more men than women.

I've disagreed with the idea that correcting that inequality by reducing the number of main roads being gritted is 'a good thing'.

More women use GP services than Men. If we decided to reduce the number of GP practices and open more Urology clinics that would help to reduce equality but most people would agree that it wasn't beneficial to society as a whole.

If we want equality in our gritting we should put in place systems to encourage more women to work and more men to take childcare responsibilities.

If we want equality at the GP practice we should encourage men to access healthcare more.

Do you seriously think that the sensible way to manage the gender bias of gritting roads and marginalising people who feel like they can't get from A to B safely in snow and ice (predominantly women) is to "put in place systems to encourage more women to work and more men to take childcare responsibilities"? And not to just treat the pavement?

You must be bonkers.

It's called addressing the root cause of the problem.

If you want to grit the pavements what cuts are you going to make to afford the extra gritting?

Rich_cb wrote:

It's called addressing the root cause of the problem.

If you want to grit the pavements what cuts are you going to make to afford the extra gritting?

Do tell how encouraging women to work more addresses gender bias in data collection and exploitation. Unless those jobs are in the transport department at the council (rewriting policies that prioritise the needs of men over women) I don't see the connection.

If men and women made up equal proportions of those commuting to work and equal proportions of those using the pavements then the current gritting strategy would have no gender bias.

Please explain what service you are going to cut in order to expand the gritting service to pavements?

Rich_cb wrote:

If men and women made up equal proportions of those commuting to work and equal proportions of those using the pavements then the current gritting strategy would have no gender bias.

Please explain what service you are going to cut in order to expand the gritting service to pavements?

The point is (for me at least) is that a course of action is taken and a result of that action is that a disproportionate amount of women are harmed.

No one intended to harm women (at least, not in this specific circumstance). But that's what is happening.

As such, in order to justify the disproportionate harming of women, it would be good if there was data justifying the economics of the course of act being taken. Which hasn't been done. We can spaff on about big boys in cars driving to very important jobs that can only be done on site but the economic benefits of clearing the road for cars, and not acting for pedestrians has not been done.

And that is the point. When women are being harmed, assumptions are generally fine.

Personally, I'd like the roads and the pavements cleared.

And much better data.

And for Jordan Peterson to suck his own dick so he'll shut the fuck up.

If the data demonstrated that clearing the pavement was more economically beneficial then I'd happily support a change in priorities.

We don't have specific data for snow but we have data from bank holidays when roads are used far less for work purposes and pavements are, usually, nice and clear. The negative effect on GDP is significant.

You might not like Jordan Peterson, I find him a bit preachy myself, but the reason he's popular is that there are millions of young men who lack direction and feel alienated by society. Better they turn to Peterson than Andrew Tate or similar.

Rich_cb wrote:

If the data demonstrated that clearing the pavement was more economically beneficial then I'd happily support a change in priorities.

We don't have specific data for snow but we have data from bank holidays when roads are used far less for work purposes and pavements are, usually, nice and clear. The negative effect on GDP is significant.

You might not like Jordan Peterson, I find him a bit preachy myself, but the reason he's popular is that there are millions of young men who lack direction and feel alienated by society. Better they turn to Peterson than Andrew Tate or similar.

I'll say it again: the fact you are so focussed on economics and GDP is proof of the gender bias. Your view of what is important is irrelevant.

The fact that you consider economics/GDP to be male areas is proof of your own gender bias.

Rich_cb wrote:

The fact that you consider economics/GDP to be male areas is proof of your own gender bias.

If you read the book, you'd know that's not my gender bias.

If you agree with it, then it's your bias too.

Last para: You forgot Islam! *

There are a bunch of ways people can find themselves and not simply find instant-community by being angry or hateful on behalf of some partly-understood leader or principle.

We should acknowledge this is a very common pattern throughout history however.

* other ideologies and religions available.

People tend to gravitate towards charismatic leaders. Twas ever thus.

Peterson seems to emphasise self worth and personal growth which I think are 'good things' in general but I don't read enough of his stuff to know a lot about him. He definitely seems a safer bet than Tate though.

The certain are always sought by the unsure - or those who've found their original gods / idols / parent-figures have feet of clay.

Dunno much about him, really.  I note in passing he's had several natters with Stephen Fry now and the BBC did a thing on someone who was very keen on him and tried to follow his business model if that's of interest (could just be a bit "BBC" though)?

The New Gurus - Gazing into the Abyss.

If you want a firm moral compass, value the family, the rule of law etc. there are no shortage of sources espousing "traditional" values who won't leave you with a feeling of doubt.  There are plenty in the US and then abroad there are probably foreign-language offerings from Saudi Arabia, Iran, some African churches, China (not so big on religion there though)...

Rich_cb wrote:

there are millions of young men who lack direction and feel alienated by society.

Oh boo hoo. Women have been oppressed for countless generations, and still are in many parts of the world. A bit of grit and the suggestion that their contributions to society are in the same ballpark as men's is NOT too much to ask. Your continued insistence in economic contribution is insulting to everyone who has other stuff to give.

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." - Franklin Leonard

Intersectionality would be a good thing for you to look up.

Whilst many men enjoy privilege, many more find themselves amongst the most disadvantaged groups in our society.

White working class boys being a very good example of the latter.

Dismissing the concerns of a huge number of people who are far more disadvantaged than you've ever been with a curt 'boo hoo!' reveals your own inherent biases.

Rich_cb wrote:

If men and women made up equal proportions of those commuting to work and equal proportions of those using the pavements then the current gritting strategy would have no gender bias.

Please explain what service you are going to cut in order to expand the gritting service to pavements?

No, the decision-making process would still be informed by the same biased data and priorities. In your scenario only the outcome would be more fair. Not the process to get there.

Women: "can you spend some of our taxes on some salt for the pavement please, instead of using it all on the road?"

You: "best I can do is a STEM outreach programme so that maybe your daughter (or granddaughter, or even great-granddaughter) might be more inclined to work".

I do love the idea that even if the outcome of the process produced perfect gender equality it would still be flawed because reasons...

The process is designed to produce maximum economic benefit. Whilst mem outnumber women in the workforce that will produce a gender bias in the result but it doesn't mean the process is sexist it means that there is systemic sexism affecting the ability of women to access work.

As I mentioned earlier women make far more use of the GP service than men. That doesn't mean the provision of a GP service is sexist. It means there is systemic sexism affecting men's ability to access healthcare.

It's the systemic problems that need addressing.

Rich_cb wrote:

I do love the idea that even if the outcome of the process produced perfect gender equality it would still be flawed because reasons...

The process is designed to produce maximum economic benefit. Whilst mem outnumber women in the workforce that will produce a gender bias in the result but it doesn't mean the process is sexist it means that there is systemic sexism affecting the ability of women to access work.

As I mentioned earlier women make far more use of the GP service than men. That doesn't mean the provision of a GP service is sexist. It means there is systemic sexism affecting men's ability to access healthcare.

It's the systemic problems that need addressing.

It's an interesting example. Men are absolutely at a health detriment with regards to GP outcomes, largely because they attend less. I agree with you that in and of itself is not systemic sexism.

The difference in outcomes has resulted in numerous studies to quantify the issue and target interventions accordingly with an aim to reducing the gender based health inequality. As it should be.

Sexism comes in when women are dying and the response is, yeah, too expensive to do any thing sbout it, without actually having any meaningful data on what the real expense of either approach us. The absence of data is the sexism. A bank holiday is not data for this, I'm assuming that you're not seriously suggesting it is, that just party of the argyy on thos thread.

A bank holiday is a good proxy for the economic effect of a day when fewer people can get to work.

If anything a significant snow day will have a far larger economic effect than a bank holiday.

Men make less use of GP services but nobody calls for the existing GP services to be cut in order to fund health services that are predominantly used by men.

Women make less use of gritted roads and people call for the number of gritted roads to be reduced in order to fund gritting in areas predominantly used by women.

Encouraging people to make use of the services provided and exploring the barriers to that is a valid and fair approach to both issues.

Rich_cb wrote:

A bank holiday is a good proxy for the economic effect of a day when fewer people can get to work.

If anything a significant snow day will have a far larger economic effect than a bank holiday.

Men make less use of GP services but nobody calls for the existing GP services to be cut in order to fund health services that are predominantly used by men.

Women make less use of gritted roads and people call for the number of gritted roads to be reduced in order to fund gritting in areas predominantly used by women.

Encouraging people to make use of the services provided and exploring the barriers to that is a valid and fair approach to both issues.

As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting that funding is cut for women to equalise outcomes. Though... I wouldn't bet against it if the current think they can save money have people die quicker.

In all seriousness, in your example, money is found with no objection to study and mitigate the inequality. Women dying on pavements based on "economics" without any data on the economics... how hard can it be to actually study how and why people are dying and determine if it would, in fact, be worth saving lives. Because the bitches don't pay no tax argument in itself is a stupid fallacy. Women dying on pavements do, in fact, support the economy prior to death, both directly and indirectly. And their deaths and injuries come at a cost to the economy. But it isn't studied because bias intrinsically values their lives and contributions less so who needs data.

I can't even be arsed with the snow = bank holiday. They are just not in anyway comparable.

Snow day leads to fewer businesses opening, less economic activity takes place. There is a measurable drop in GDP.

Bank holiday leads to fewer businesses being open, less economic activity takes place, there is a measurable drop in GDP.

People are suggesting we cut funding for gritting that benefits men disproportionately in order to fund gritting that women benefit from.

Nobody is suggesting cuts to things (like GP services) that women benefit from disproportionately in order to fund services for men.

Strange that.

Rich_cb wrote:

The process is designed to produce maximum economic benefit.

Jesus wept. Yes, that is the problem and your continued insistence that the approach taken is the best is exactly the point. The ability for women to access work is not the issue being discussed. The ability for them to have their taxes spent in a way that is fair to them is.

You think that the ability for people to get to work is more important than the ability for people to take their kids to school, raise their kids and look after their loved ones.

That's the gender bias.

And your suggestion that moving grit from the road to the pavement is in any way related to the suicide rates of young males is laughable.

You might want to read over what you've written.

You've presented 'work' and 'child care/looking after loved ones' as gendered roles.

Prioritising one over other can only be an example of gender bias if we accept those roles as inherently gendered.

We shouldn't do that. That is inherently sexist.