Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
541

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Whoa, whoa…I was asked why I think women are over-represented in my field and I stated that it is because of low pay relative to educational requirements, risk factors, and emotional drain. I never complained, and I never stated that I want to “catch up to teachers.” I offered them as a gender comparison. I knew my pay going in, and in fact DO have some choices. Medical social work pays better at the master’s level. If I wanted to be a teacher I would be one. But I like what I do, and for now am comfortable.[/quote]

My mistake. I read your earlier post as being more women in the job = less pay.[/quote]

You know what, that is where I started. You weren’t mistaken. The various threads of this conversation are tangling for me. I apologize.

My original contention was that men don’t want to do it because of “girl pay,” which is due to its traditional female association. Then somewhere along the line you indicated that it doesn’t deserve high pay given its lack of value and the powderpuff nature of the thing. To which I responded with risky, difficult, and societally valuable.

I have a lot more to say in response to your post and LoRez’s, as well as going into the nature/nurture thing with Push (just had days-long fight with boyfriend, throughout which I exemplified “female” to his total “male”) but no time right now.

542

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Whoa, whoa…I was asked why I think women are over-represented in my field and I stated that it is because of low pay relative to educational requirements, risk factors, and emotional drain. I never complained, and I never stated that I want to “catch up to teachers.” I offered them as a gender comparison. I knew my pay going in, and in fact DO have some choices. Medical social work pays better at the master’s level. If I wanted to be a teacher I would be one. But I like what I do, and for now am comfortable.[/quote]

My mistake. I read your earlier post as being more women in the job = less pay.[/quote]

You know what, that is where I started. You weren’t mistaken. The various threads of this conversation are tangling for me. I apologize.

My original contention was that men don’t want to do it because of “girl pay,” which is due to its traditional female association. Then somewhere along the line you indicated that it doesn’t deserve high pay given its lack of value and the powderpuff nature of the thing. To which I responded with risky, difficult, and societally valuable.[/quote]

Again, you’re throwing in the powderpuff thing. That’s just you.

But you don’t need to apologize because I did insult your job as not being societally valuable. What I was thinking/referring to in my muddled way is what you referred to yourself when you commented on how people in real-estate and food service make more money than you. Well, they make more money than you because they make more money. They are in a profitable enterprise. You and I are not.

Actually, EMS is becoming more profitable, and that’s part of what bothers me about it.

[quote]
I have a lot more to say in response to your post and LoRez’s, as well as going into the nature/nurture thing with Push (just had days-long fight with boyfriend, throughout which I exemplified “female” to his total “male”) but no time right now.[/quote]

As always I look for to your response. No clever quips from you!

543

[quote]Chushin wrote:
In any case, I have no real argument with what you’ve written here, but some of your ealier statements would seem to indicate that you know little about MH treatment, lack in the compassion department, and /or are burned out.

Or maybe you were just having a bad day… [/quote]

I’m not burned out. I think I’m repeating myself, but the reason I don’t consider my job a career is because it’s so hard to find someone who’s been doing it long term who isn’t burned out. I love it now, but I know I’ll probably hate it in a few years.

544

[quote]LoRez wrote:
While I may somewhat disagree with your approach, I appreciate the fact that you’re out there doing it.[/quote]

Thanks, but just slow down. And if something’s been bothering you for the past 4 days, don’t wait til 3 in the morning to call 911.

545

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
While I may somewhat disagree with your approach, I appreciate the fact that you’re out there doing it.[/quote]

Thanks, but just slow down. And if something’s been bothering you for the past 4 days, don’t wait til 3 in the morning to call 911.[/quote]

But what if it’s not really a problem until 3am?

I say that mostly joking, but there is an element of truth. Sometimes things build up for awhile, but they don’t cross that threshold until some random point in time. Panic attacks work that way, and make absolutely no sense. Give it another couple hours, and things just calm down again.

546

[quote]LoRez wrote:
But what if it’s not really a problem until 3am?

I say that mostly joking, but there is an element of truth. Sometimes things build up for awhile, but they don’t cross that threshold until some random point in time. Panic attacks work that way, and make absolutely no sense. Give it another couple hours, and things just calm down again.[/quote]

There is absolutely an element of truth, most people die at 3 o’clock in the morning, not 3 o’clock in the afternoon. And a legitimate problem is a legitimate problem at any hour. However, some people wait days, and then call at three in the morning. They refuse to see a doctor, until it’s time to go to the ER, that’s worse for the patient’s health and wallet, and ties up limited resources.

As for panic attacks, I usually try to talk people into going to the ER even when I know it’s a panic attack. A panic attack is a real problem, it’s not “all in your head”. And seeing a doctor helps releave the anxiety because at least you know it’s not your heart. But if you have a history of panic attacks, please tell me up front, don’t hide it until I start giving you nitro. You’d be amazed at some of the bizarre stories people tell to cover up what’s really going on.

editted for clarity

547

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I definitely agree that shaming doesn’t work. Or, rather, we’re well past it’s effectiveness point. The level we’ve reached now is justification. Many people on both sides have just given up and don’t believe they could ever succeed anyway, so, like so many other minority special interest group, they’ve begun doing what works: Redefining words and demonizing people for using OldSpeak or having the wrong ideas. The shame now flows the other way, as both a deflection and a defensive devise.

As Debra guessed, though, no, this is NOT where the heart of the matter under discussion lies.

I’ll restate it once more so that it’s clear for anyone who has joined us late:

Men and women are biologically different creatures, with inclinations, strengths, weaknesses, characteristic traits, desires and dislikes that can generally be found in more or less similar degrees in either sex.

No one has once insinuated that nurture, modeling and the inclination to fulfill the expectations of one’s peers do not strongly influence the sexes. However, this is not enough to account for the degree of difference that has existed relatively unchanged for the 10,000 plus years of verifiable history.

I’m not really sure why it’s taken 20 pages of arguing back and forth about this when the stuff seems like common sense on its face to me, but it has been posited by me, orion, raj, and I get the impression LoRez and even Emily pretty much agree with us, males and females, again speaking GENERALLY, are inclined toward a certain set of traits we call for the sake of simplicity, masculine and feminine, respectively. It is further posited that each sex, GENERALLY SPEAKING will tend both to do better at certain tasks that align with their particular gender, and, perhaps even more importantly, will be happier when engaged in activities and lifestyles that conform to these trait sets.

I believe one of the sparks that set this whole wildfire ablaze was my (?) insinuations that men tend to be more suited to leadership roles (war, politics, business, family, crises, etc.), whereas women tend to do far better than men in nurturing roles such as, of course, mothers, care givers, social workers, nurses, those who work with the physically and mentally handicapped, &c.

Now that the core has been reiterated, Debra, I’m genuinely interested in what you think on the matter.

So far the only other two women in the thread have not seemed to really have much of an issue with the overarching theme of the thread. DB Cooper, on the other hand, not only claims that we are dead wrong, but has actually preemptively declared victory multiple times now. None of us are unfurling our white flags just yet, though, I don’t think…
[/quote]

Well in short, I disagree :slight_smile:

I’m not really into the debate but I’ll just say this. My experience as a woman largely contradicts your observations of women. By our current society’s definition I am physically very feminine. From a soft voice to my jawline to my shape and walk etc. But mentally I have more in common with my brother, my husband and male buddies than I have with my stereotypically female buddies. I know why this is and I’m satisfied with that. But I also find that as I get older I find I can have something in common with anyone if I am willing to be open minded.

I’ve dabbled in many things both masculine and feminine and the circumstances that has led me to have the perspective I have were probably not ideal but I am grateful to have the experience that has allowed me see things this way because I think my life has been enhanced by it. Getting older and discarding more ‘truths’ is what it is all about…But if you really believe you’re hardcoded and are dead set in believing that then…I guess you might as well be. It saddens me that the men in this thread might have daughters that will suffer from what I see as a limiting view.

As an aside, I am in a leadership role professionally and my organization is led by probably more than half women (never counted though) but we are not in any stereotypically female field. I also lead mostly men.

Like I said, I’m not really interested in debate but I can explain more if you like. I don’t get on here very often anymore so forgive me if I miss a response.

548

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I definitely agree that shaming doesn’t work. Or, rather, we’re well past it’s effectiveness point. The level we’ve reached now is justification. Many people on both sides have just given up and don’t believe they could ever succeed anyway, so, like so many other minority special interest group, they’ve begun doing what works: Redefining words and demonizing people for using OldSpeak or having the wrong ideas. The shame now flows the other way, as both a deflection and a defensive devise.

As Debra guessed, though, no, this is NOT where the heart of the matter under discussion lies.

I’ll restate it once more so that it’s clear for anyone who has joined us late:

Men and women are biologically different creatures, with inclinations, strengths, weaknesses, characteristic traits, desires and dislikes that can generally be found in more or less similar degrees in either sex.

No one has once insinuated that nurture, modeling and the inclination to fulfill the expectations of one’s peers do not strongly influence the sexes. However, this is not enough to account for the degree of difference that has existed relatively unchanged for the 10,000 plus years of verifiable history.

I’m not really sure why it’s taken 20 pages of arguing back and forth about this when the stuff seems like common sense on its face to me, but it has been posited by me, orion, raj, and I get the impression LoRez and even Emily pretty much agree with us, males and females, again speaking GENERALLY, are inclined toward a certain set of traits we call for the sake of simplicity, masculine and feminine, respectively. It is further posited that each sex, GENERALLY SPEAKING will tend both to do better at certain tasks that align with their particular gender, and, perhaps even more importantly, will be happier when engaged in activities and lifestyles that conform to these trait sets.

I believe one of the sparks that set this whole wildfire ablaze was my (?) insinuations that men tend to be more suited to leadership roles (war, politics, business, family, crises, etc.), whereas women tend to do far better than men in nurturing roles such as, of course, mothers, care givers, social workers, nurses, those who work with the physically and mentally handicapped, &c.

Now that the core has been reiterated, Debra, I’m genuinely interested in what you think on the matter.

So far the only other two women in the thread have not seemed to really have much of an issue with the overarching theme of the thread. DB Cooper, on the other hand, not only claims that we are dead wrong, but has actually preemptively declared victory multiple times now. None of us are unfurling our white flags just yet, though, I don’t think…
[/quote]

Well in short, I disagree :slight_smile:

I’m not really into the debate but I’ll just say this. My experience as a woman largely contradicts your observations of women. By our current society’s definition I am physically very feminine. From a soft voice to my jawline to my shape and walk etc. But mentally I have more in common with my brother, my husband and male buddies than I have with my stereotypically female buddies. I know why this is and I’m satisfied with that. But I also find that as I get older I find I can have something in common with anyone if I am willing to be open minded.

I’ve dabbled in many things both masculine and feminine and the circumstances that has led me to have the perspective I have were probably not ideal but I am grateful to have the experience that has allowed me see things this way because I think my life has been enhanced by it. Getting older and discarding more ‘truths’ is what it is all about…But if you really believe you’re hardcoded and are dead set in believing that then…I guess you might as well be. It saddens me that the men in this thread might have daughters that will suffer from what I see as a limiting view.

As an aside, I am in a leadership role professionally and my organization is led by probably more than half women (never counted though) but we are not in any stereotypically female field. I also lead mostly men.

Like I said, I’m not really interested in debate but I can explain more if you like. I don’t get on here very often anymore so forgive me if I miss a response.

[/quote]

Exceptions to the rule, no matter how good their ass looks, do not disprove the rule.

549

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I don’t know how biology comes into play. Testosterone is present in men much more than women. Okay. What does that have to do with the fact that women have been kept out of politics and business for a long time and now that they’re gaining more access than ever before they’re getting better and better positions and so forth.

[/quote]

Women MPs ‘ask for testosterone’

A leading HRT specialist says that he has prescribed male sex hormones to female politicians to help them “compete” with men.

‘I have prescribed testosterone implants for female politicians in Westminster who want to compete better with their male colleagues in committee meetings and parliamentary debates,’ he said. ‘They claim the hormone boosts theirassertiveness and makes them feel more powerful.’

Let me guess you’re either going to claim these women are merely victims of the patriarchy or that there’s no connection between assertiveness and leadership?

LOL[/quote]

SInce when does a group of female politicians in one country mean anything? Oh, I get it. Because the MPs felt that testosterone would make them more competitive then it must be so.