First of all, your demonstrated ability/willingness to respond here with your opinions in a measured, respectful, non-pompous, non-hyperbolic, non-prick-ish manner is noted, and a welcome breath of fresh air. As such, I will return that courtesy.
As you probably already know, I disagree with your interpretation. This administration starting from the top and all the way down through the various appointees (in this case, the branch starting with SECDEF and going down to the USAFA) have demonstrated that they embrace the ideas shown in those slides (often referred to as one type of âwokeâ ideology). As such, they have earned no âbenefit of the doubtâ that they werenât fully attempting to alter/control the way their subordinates speak in the way shown on the slides.
This is a good thing that I have no problem with. But telling/implying/suggesting/CONDUCTING TRAINING that people need to say âXâ instead of âYâ when Y has been the normal way of speaking for generations is OUTRAGEOUS (to me and many others at least) and needs to be called out/countered/STOPPED. Stopped not just because of this individual issue, but because it wonât stop hereâŚit never does. The people pushing this agenda know no bounds/limits.
Thereâs that word againâŚoutrageousâŚI find this to be outrageous without any convincing needed from any media outlet. What I DO need from media outlets is reporting on things that are going on. And that is NOT what you get from Foxâs competitors on many issues that matter to me.
Do you have evidence that there was a mandate to exclude all candidates of one gender (male) and only choose the other gender? If not, then you have no evidence of a woke policy.
Personally, I find if pretty funny that your statement above pretty much implies you think that an all female crew couldnât have happened without a woke policy in place. You know, it is possible that they screened applicants of all genders and selected the best available candidates (which happened to be all female).
Sure, but I think we all know thatâs not the case. It was done on purpose as a PR stunt, and thatâs fine. Good for them. Just like Captain Kate and her all female bridge crew a while back. The percentages of male/female in our industry donât support the idea that this just âhappened.â Thereâs 30 women in that picture.
I know the Captain of the Doug. Sheâs spent the last 15 years running harbor tugs in Houston. Is she a good tug operator? Sure. Does that mean she was the best candidate for a 300â supply boat? I doubt it.
Agreed that, statistically speaking, it is unlikely that an unbiased candidate search would result in 100% female crew when women make up 11% of US merchant mariners.
Anybody have any other plausible reasons for this other than a mandate to hire an all female crew?
IF such a mandate was implemented, is it legal? Lawsuits coming?
It was international womenâs day. Thatâs the reason. Somehow I doubt there can be lawsuits since nobody cares when thereâs an all male crew on nearly every other vessel in the world.
So, IF a reporter asked, and the SpaceX PR person replied, âoh yeah, we excluded all candidates of one gender in order to hire only candidates of the other gender because itâs international womenâs dayâ, youâre saying that would be legal?
And you might be right due to non-males being one of the protected classes defined in federal law.
20 years ago, I would have agreed. But what we (possibly) have here is a company (maybe) excluding 89% of the eligible people to fill jobs based on gender. In America, that SHOULD be illegal and if it is illegal, it should be pushed back upon.
To bring it home, what if OSG decided they want 50% of their C/M jobs to be women, (because, you know, women make up ~50% of the population weâre all about equity 'n stuff) and your job is one of the ones they decide needs to be ârebalancedâ? Because if you let this (SpaceX) slide, thatâs where this is headed. Then youâll be one of the âsorry malesâ complaining about losing your job.
Then why did nobody huff and puff when Celebrity did the same thing?
âThe line celebrated International Womenâs Day 2020 with Captain Kate leading an all-female bridge and officer team on Celebrity Edge, made up of 26 women from 16 countries.â
Is the Doug going to be continually crewed by all women? Somehow I doubt it. Itâs a PR thing.
As for OSG, good riddance to that dumpster fire. And they donât have enough women to be half of the CMs anyway.
Interesting legal question. If it went to discovery IMO the salient question would be, What is the size of the total mariner work force employed by SpaceX and the % of women in it?
If itâs only three officers, and all the officers are women, and SpaceX owns only one boat, then a plausible case could be made for discrimination against men.
But if the total number of officers employed at SpaceX is a 100, with 10 boats, and the percentage of women is 10%, then a case re: discrimination IMO loses merit. Because the other 9 boats would be wholly staffed with men. The fact that the women are all on one boat wouldnât matter since all the mariners are employed.
Wow, lots to delve into here, so letâs get to it:
For clarity, do you work for SpaceX? From reading your well worded reply, there were a few statements there implying that you do, i.e.:
I donât know if thatâs âweâreâ hired, implying you were one of those hired, or âwereâ hired implying you have direct knowledge on how the process went down.
Would be interested to know which companies you are referring to here. In fairness, my sailing experience is limited to deep sea union companies and I havenât seen any of them not hire women.
Iâm going to go ahead and forward that to the one who commented on all that, Mr. @New3M. (just a note since you havenât posted in 12 years, heâs not a new 3rd Mate anymore and may in fact be a Master as he made mention how heâd fire people in another thread).
No, actually I donât have experience with that. As I said in my other reply to you, Iâve (mostly) only sailed deep sea union, so I certainly canât speak to all the companies south of Hwy. 90 in LA. Maybe @cajaya can speak on that more.
Of what exactly?
My concern is that companies should not be allowed to exclude candidates based on gender. Doesnât matter which gender is excluded, itâs wrong either way.
Again, Iâm not accusing SpaceX of gender-based hiring as I have no data to back that up. I set a prerequisite for this conversation of IF they did explicitly exclude males, is that legal and/or would that be ok with the other posters here.
But since the Captains entire career is on harbor tugs, specifically working for G&H in Houston doing ship assist work, that would make her even less qualified for the position of Master of a 279â OSV towing a barge. Any offshore towing experience? No. Any OSV experience? No.
Donât misunderstand me - Iâm not saying sheâs not smart enough to do the job or to figure it out. Iâm saying that nearly anybody whoâs been to Fourchon more than a handful of times is more qualified for the position, male or female.
A quick google search shows that a gentleman who claims on his LinkedIn to be the Master of the Doug since July â22 holds an Unlimited Master license, spent 10 years working for Chouset, and has an Unlimited DPO cert. These are qualifications more inline with what I would expect somebody in charge of this vessel to have, male or female.
I have worked for several companies that donât put women on thier vessels. There hasnât been any reprecusions for those that donât. If there is a company that puts all Women on thier vessels have at it.
Now play this same game with racial slurs. Generations of people called certain ethnicities Y when they shouldâve called them X. But Y was the normal way of speaking for generations, so I guess we should just go backwards?
Seems silly to be so outraged at a suggestion for inclusion. If you donât wanna do it, then donât. But find something actually important to be outraged about instead of pretending like this is the end of the world.
This thread was about a painting that depicted Jesus in a government building. Last I checked we still have separation of Church and state. It belongs in the chapel anyways.
Of all the things people opine about with absolutely no investment in research or understanding âseparation of church and stateâ is one of the worst.
The term comes from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson regarding establishment of an official religion.
Far from âalways had separation of church and stateâ religious imagery and iconography has been a mainstay of public buildings in America from the beginning. Many states had requirements for membership in a Christian religion well into the 1870s for holding office. Earlier they were required to be Protestant.
If religious imagery disturbs you and you want it hidden in houses of worship thatâs a valid viewpoint and you are welcome to lobby for it, but the rewriting of history should stop.
I didnât ask to rewrite anything. I said put the portrait depicting a religious figure in the religious building associated with it.
This is a federal building and itâs not the 1870âs so I donât think it really matters. Whatâs todays understanding of separation of Church and state or freedom of (or from) religion?
