Is This Billboard Offenisve?

Off Topic
201

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

This is true to a degree, but sometimes you have to take the long view. Men and women are increasingly crossing over into the other side’s realms, and with very good results. Would you have said the same of nursing or teaching 20 years ago, that men would just disrupt an established dynamic?

[/quote]

Em, seriously. You don’t see the distinctions between firefighting and nursing/teaching?
[/quote]

Of course I do. What’s your point? Mine is that change can be stressful but the stress doesn’t last forever, though the change may.[/quote]

And sometimes you realize that you were heading down a dead end street and that all your efforts were wasted.[/quote]

NOPE.[/quote]

So, whatever road you take is automatically the right one?

You are truly gifted. [/quote]

Are we talking in generalities or are we discussing this specific road (men and women crossing into one another’s realms, change stressful)?

You’ll need to be clearer in order for me to respond to your second question. For the first I assumed that you were referring to the exchange quoted above. But perhaps not, in which case my response may differ. [/quote]

So explain to me why having more male maternity nurses is going to lead to meaningful positive outcomes.[/quote]

Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing?

202

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces.

203

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.

204

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.

205

No

206

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

And history is also littered with tremendous failures that led to other tremendous failures. The key is figuring out which is which.

207

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

And history is also littered with tremendous failures that led to other tremendous failures. The key is figuring out which is which. [/quote]

Most of it is clearly identified in hind sight. If you are able to figure that out before it happens, you’re alone among us all. You’ll be paralyzed into inaction if you are afraid to act, change, or make decisions.

208

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
Most of it is clearly identified in hind sight. If you are able to figure that out before it happens, you’re alone among us all. You’ll be paralyzed into inaction if you are afraid to act, change, or make decisions.
[/quote]
By no means am I alone. The ability to make judgments about what is likely to happen in the future is one of the key components to human success. That doesn’t mean predictions are infallible. But anybody can think of dozens of examples of potential changes that are obviously really bad ideas to implement.

There is no logical rule as to whether change is good or bad. We have to judge changes individually.

209

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end.

210

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

211

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

And history is also littered with tremendous failures that led to other tremendous failures. The key is figuring out which is which. [/quote]

Can I just say that I get happy every time I see your name, and also that I’m really impressed by your incredible progress?

212

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

[/quote]

213

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

[/quote]

J. D. Unwin - Wikipedia [/quote]

Well, I found his seminal work and it appears to be quite dense. No problem, thought I, and worked feverishly to get it downloaded to my Kindle, that I might study it in detail before posting again. But something screwed up and unless I read photos of it online, it’s not going to get read, I don’t think.

214

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin[/quote]

This title reads like blaxploitation porn: Dark Rapture: The Sex-life of the African Negro

Not so sure I agree with his claim that no society becomes civilised unless it is completely monogamous. It seems to me that nearly all ancient civilisations, with the notable exception of Rome, practised polygyny to some degree or another.

215

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

[/quote]

J. D. Unwin - Wikipedia [/quote]

Well, I found his seminal work and it appears to be quite dense. No problem, thought I, and worked feverishly to get it downloaded to my Kindle, that I might study it in detail before posting again. But something screwed up and unless I read photos of it online, it’s not going to get read, I don’t think.

[/quote]

216

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Also (great, now I’m getting all worked up, thanks!) who says there has to be a meaningful positive outcome? If a man wants to be a maternity nurse the question should be whether or not he is capable of meeting the requirements of the job, full stop. Why should there be an expectation that he be some sort of hero of maternity nursing? [/quote]
You said that encouraging gender mixing in jobs that are typically gendered is the right path. In order for it to be the right path it has to have a meaningful positive outcome (or be easier than the alternative, which in this case it isn’t).

Very rarely is a job about meeting the bare minimum requirements. Instincts, societal norms and biases, potential personal experience, and inertia make female maternity nurses better performers out of the blocks. The decision to hire a male nurse is based on whether or not a candidate has enough other benefits to outweigh the lead that a female maternity nurse is going to have. So no, it’s not enough to just meet the minimum requirements of the job. He has to be able to perform better in the job role than any other candidate and that includes all of the externalities that his sex introduces. [/quote]

“Encouraging gender mixing” is not the same as allowing it, which is what I am for. So to clarify, I am against discouraging qualified candidates on the basis of factors that are unrelated to job performance. I don’t believe they should have to have special above-and-beyonds. Let the most qualified candidate win, and if that means people shift around in confusion for three or four minutes and a flimsy wall added to the maternity nurse’s locker room to separate off a small area, then it does.

So we disagree.[/quote]

I’ll jump in here but less specific to gender roles. We have no idea if there will be a positive outcome or negative outcome any time we make a change. History is littered with a multitude of failures on the road the tremendous success. We would be no where if we didn’t do things that had the potential for failure.
[/quote]

What if I tell you that we know exactly what will happen if women get the same rights as men and the gender roles start to become interchangeable?

That happened several times, no society survived it.

3 generations or roughly a 100 years from start to end. [/quote]

Could you expand on the most recent such society? Because I feel there must surely be differences between then and now - anything begun 100 years or more ago would have significant differences. I would also hold up as completely dysfunctional some of the current highly gender-roled societies, though of course others are ticking along nicely.

[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin[/quote]

This title reads like blaxploitation porn: Dark Rapture: The Sex-life of the African Negro

Not so sure I agree with his claim that no society becomes civilised unless it is completely monogamous. It seems to me that nearly all ancient civilisations, with the notable exception of Rome, practised polygyny to some degree or another.[/quote]

I dont agree with a lot of his assumptions and conclusions.

He just compiled data like a maniac that makes it abundantly clear that without strict sexual mores (patriarchy!!!) it all goes down the drain.

217


Offensive ?

219

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Offensive ?[/quote]

Ha! I saw that van a few months ago and even took a pic if I remember correctly.[/quote]

After they clean your house, you can always get some taco here Push

220

Attention ladies. You aren’t competent to negotiate your own salaries, so your betters are going to do it for you.

Neo-Feminism, making sure women are looked at as victims and inferior for perpetuity, so that people can still get paid to whine about what they perpetuate.