The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Get a Life
 
Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV
 

E901
Level

Join date: Nov 2011
Location:
Posts: 140

Uncle Gabby wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
good stuff


As far as fighting fires, I don't find that very dangerous. What I find dangerous is directing traffic around a car wreck at 2 am on a back country road. This is where, after almost getting run over the umpteenth time I realized how little people really give a shit about what I do. Did you know that the vast majority of line of duty deaths for police officers and fire fighters are due to traffic accidents?

As I said, I'm not knocking the work you do with children. I hope and pray that they grow up to be decent, functional adults.

As for the crazy adults, you have to realise that as an EMT, I deal with them too, often before they are medicated and sent to you. I deal with them in their own homes, where they have who knows what for weapons stashed who knows where, and the nearest deputy is 20 minutes away. I deal with drunk assholes who call us at 3 in the morning for "chest pains", who turn out to just be drunk assholes with a bad case of Hep C who want to fight somebody. Then there's the danger to my back from having to carry some 400+ pounder backwards down a narrow flight of steps. So I know what you're dealing with because your "clients" or whatever you call them were my "patients" first.

Like I said, I don't think that you or I are doing any of these people much good. It's not just the mentally or emotionally disfunctional ones. The vast majority of the people I carry to the hospital don't need to ride in an ambulance. We take them because there is too much civil and legal liability on our heads when we don't take them, and frankly my agency needs the revenue.

But it's depressing to see grown, so called highly functional adults lose all capacity to make a rational decision about their own health and choose to go sit in a miserable ER for 4 hours for an anxiety attack. It's depressing to see people so starved for attention and affection that they become emotionally addicted to our "care" and join the ranks of the frequent flyers. It's depressing to see another piece of shit learn that all they have to do is come up with some imaginary pain and the ER doctors will give them a hand full of Lortabs which they can either use recreationally or sell. So I don't imagine that I'm doing much good, and I'm sure you're dealing with the same people. And they're not going away, so I don't think you're fixing them either.

I don't think you should get paid more, regardless of whether you're a girl or not. I don't think that I should get paid AT ALL. My job used to be done entirely by volunteer staff, and if you eliminated the 80% of bullshit calls we run, it could still be handled by the volunteer staff. But the bullshit calls aren't going away. In fact the bullshit seems to be breeding with other bullshit at an exponential rate. But the system can't afford to pay me a competitive wage, and I don't see how they could afford to hire even more staff to cover more bullshit if this stuff keeps growing at the rate it is.

And the volunteers get burned out dealing with the bullshit. It's not folks bleeding and moaning and screaming and dying that burns you out, it's other people's laziness and selfishness and stupidity. What I do is just a job, it's a very fun and occaisionally rewarding job, but it's not a career. And I would hate to think that anyone should have to pay more taxes or higher insurance premiums to make it a career.

As for paying you more, say, to be competitive with teachers, what are we going to pay you with? Who wants to pay more taxes, and who thinks that we need to go further into debt?


This post reeks of ignorance about mental health issues lol.

And also, let me get this straight.. You your job is dangerous, doesn't pay well, and you think its a waste of your time for the most part since you aren't really helping people? Why don't you take your own advice and find a career then?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

LoRez
Level

Join date: Jun 2012
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 5635

E901 wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:


This post reeks of ignorance about mental health issues lol.


I wasn't going to say anything, but, um, x2.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37137

LoRez wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Cortes wrote:
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.


Yes, this is where I disagree. Not that women may be gentler on average, but that most people, men and women alike, lack leadership skills. I will say that possibly men DESIRE to have leadership qualities in greater numbers than women, given that they have been taught they should. But "desire" and "possess" are not the same. And I agree that aggression runs higher in men, but it is not absent in women. The gas station attendant who goes home to smack his wife and kids is not a leader, despite high levels of aggression.


If I remember correctly, several recent studies actually show that aggression in women is actually higher than in men. Less so in the physical realm, but more so in the emotional, social, group dynamics realms. The stuff most people find hard to quantify, which is why it goes so unseen.

Not that I have any idea how they quantified it. I just found it interesting.

And I find it interesting that it's a bunch of aggressive women, aggressively promoting the idea that men are the aggressive ones. It's so extreme, I'm not even sure I hypocrisy is the right word.

But I still hold onto this idea that the mature adults just sort of figure this stuff out, and they find/work-on/create mature relationships that don't revolve around whatever the popular ideas regarding gender equality are of the day.

I'm not sure you can teach personal responsibility; but you can gently persuade people to be less irresponsible.

--

That being said, with respect to gender roles, I still think there are some very significant factors that derive from biology.

We can argue forever on whether domestic activities like, say, baking, are innately male or female. And my personal view is that when it's an extension of a caring/nurturing role, it's a feminine activity. And when it's an extension of a competitive role, it's a masculine activity.

Measured on an objective basis, I would say that men strive to be "the best" at what they do, more than women. (At least they strive to be seen as the best, as a pure status play.) Women tend to be more musical than men, but the best musicians tend to be men. Women tend to be better at sewing than men, but the best tailors tend to be men.

Extending that same idea... women MIGHT actually be better at leadership than men, but the best leaders will probably end up being men.

Not because men are better leaders, but because men are very good at compartmentalizing things, cultivating a very very narrow focus (to their wife/girlfriend's disappointment), and throwing their all into an activity, at the exclusion of everything else. Women tend to be much better at a well-rounded approach, keeping everything in balance.

And I think that men need women for that balance, women need men for that focus/intensity/strength-through-adversity. When the world around them is going well, women are at their best. When the world starts falling apart, being less predictable, men are at their best.

But that's all my own observation and insight, and I can't back that at all beyond what I just said.


I'm impressed. Good post.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cortes
Level 4

Join date: Mar 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 7145

pushharder wrote:
LoRez wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Cortes wrote:
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.


Yes, this is where I disagree. Not that women may be gentler on average, but that most people, men and women alike, lack leadership skills. I will say that possibly men DESIRE to have leadership qualities in greater numbers than women, given that they have been taught they should. But "desire" and "possess" are not the same. And I agree that aggression runs higher in men, but it is not absent in women. The gas station attendant who goes home to smack his wife and kids is not a leader, despite high levels of aggression.


If I remember correctly, several recent studies actually show that aggression in women is actually higher than in men. Less so in the physical realm, but more so in the emotional, social, group dynamics realms. The stuff most people find hard to quantify, which is why it goes so unseen.

Not that I have any idea how they quantified it. I just found it interesting.

And I find it interesting that it's a bunch of aggressive women, aggressively promoting the idea that men are the aggressive ones. It's so extreme, I'm not even sure I hypocrisy is the right word.

But I still hold onto this idea that the mature adults just sort of figure this stuff out, and they find/work-on/create mature relationships that don't revolve around whatever the popular ideas regarding gender equality are of the day.

I'm not sure you can teach personal responsibility; but you can gently persuade people to be less irresponsible.

--

That being said, with respect to gender roles, I still think there are some very significant factors that derive from biology.

We can argue forever on whether domestic activities like, say, baking, are innately male or female. And my personal view is that when it's an extension of a caring/nurturing role, it's a feminine activity. And when it's an extension of a competitive role, it's a masculine activity.

Measured on an objective basis, I would say that men strive to be "the best" at what they do, more than women. (At least they strive to be seen as the best, as a pure status play.) Women tend to be more musical than men, but the best musicians tend to be men. Women tend to be better at sewing than men, but the best tailors tend to be men.

Extending that same idea... women MIGHT actually be better at leadership than men, but the best leaders will probably end up being men.

Not because men are better leaders, but because men are very good at compartmentalizing things, cultivating a very very narrow focus (to their wife/girlfriend's disappointment), and throwing their all into an activity, at the exclusion of everything else. Women tend to be much better at a well-rounded approach, keeping everything in balance.

And I think that men need women for that balance, women need men for that focus/intensity/strength-through-adversity. When the world around them is going well, women are at their best. When the world starts falling apart, being less predictable, men are at their best.

But that's all my own observation and insight, and I can't back that at all beyond what I just said.


I'm impressed. Good post.


X2, was just about to say the same thing.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

E901 wrote:

And also, let me get this straight.. You your job is dangerous, doesn't pay well, and you think its a waste of your time for the most part since you aren't really helping people? Why don't you take your own advice and find a career then?


Because I do sometimes help people who really need it, and that is extrodinarily rewarding. Have you ever saved someone's life? It makes you feel kind of warm and fuzzy.

As far as ignorance about mental health issues, sure. What I know is we pick up the same people over and over again for the same problems like clock work. Same bullshit slashing the wrists, etc. I'm not talking about the average mostly functional adult who takes wellbutrin for a mild case of depression. I'm talking about the same trainwrecks that Emily deals with, who are too disfunctional to hold a job. People you have probaly never dealt with unless you work in mental health or public safety. I believe in giving these people some help, because you can't leave a human being in the kind of conditions I've found people in. But past a certain point more resources don't equal better outcomes, because once again, the more you do for some people, the less they do for themselves.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

Chushin wrote:

Maybe just that I sincerely hope that, if / when a loved one ever desperately needs psychiatric treatment, you don't deal with them with this same attitude.



I'm sure I will treat them very well, as I treat all my patients. However, when you repeatedly treat some people for the same chronic conditions, and you know they're not eating right, or taking their medications, or whatever it is they need to do to keep themselves out of the ER, you burn out. Or maybe you just reserve your empathy for those who do everything in their power to help themselves, but still need a hand.

I'm not just talking about psych patients, but the diabetic who eats junk and doesn't take his meds, etc.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

E901 wrote:

And also, let me get this straight..


What you need to get straight is, Emily was complaining about how dangerous her job is, and that she doesn't get paid enough because she's just a girl. I like Emily, but her pay doesn't have anything to do with her being a girl. And my job is more dangerous than hers, and I get paid less, yet I love it, and don't expect more than the occaisional satisfaction that comes of having really helped some.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

LoRez
Level

Join date: Jun 2012
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 5635

Uncle Gabby wrote:
And my job is more dangerous than hers, and I get paid less, yet I love it, and don't expect more than the occaisional satisfaction that comes of having really helped some.


While I may somewhat disagree with your approach, I appreciate the fact that you're out there doing it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

EmilyQ
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 4422

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.

I also never complained about my job being dangerous. I offered that there are risks and difficulties that seem to me to be out of proportion to the pay, given as well the educational attainment level required. For example, the Bureau of labor statistics lists Appraisers and Assessors of Real Estate and Food Service Managers $5,000-$10,000 above Child, Family, and School Social Workers for annual wages. I mean, really.

But again, I don't complain about my job very often. I find it hopeful and meaningful and largely enjoyable. Acknowledging poor pay and complaining that one's job sucks are two very different things. I've done the former, you've done the latter.

I would also note that I do not feel that society doesn't value what I do. Perhaps at the government funding level, but on a personal level I feel well regarded by my community and people in general. Teachers, cops, doctors, moms, dads, kids...they all seem appreciative that I am there. What more validation do I need? Which is not to say that I wouldn't like more money. I would. But don't paint me as sharing your despair.

Lastly, I find the persistently or chronically mentally ill deserving of my sympathy, not my derision. To have such limited control of emotion must be hell, no wonder they are so reactive. The thought of my mind playing malicious tricks on me or telling me terrible things I can't discern the reality of...what horror. I would drink/drug, too.

I'm very lucky to have been given the gifts I have. So are you.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Chushin
Level 100

Join date: Feb 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 7301

Uncle Gabby wrote:
Chushin wrote:

Maybe just that I sincerely hope that, if / when a loved one ever desperately needs psychiatric treatment, you don't deal with them with this same attitude.



I'm sure I will treat them very well, as I treat all my patients. However, when you repeatedly treat some people for the same chronic conditions, and you know they're not eating right, or taking their medications, or whatever it is they need to do to keep themselves out of the ER, you burn out. Or maybe you just reserve your empathy for those who do everything in their power to help themselves, but still need a hand.

I'm not just talking about psych patients, but the diabetic who eats junk and doesn't take his meds, etc.


Having spent 7 of my 8 years in mental health working with "the chronics," my experience was that most of them WERE doing everything in their power (and still needed a hand). That doesn't mean that what I / we were doing had no value to society or to their quality of life.

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...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37137

EmilyQ wrote:

...I find the persistently or chronically mentally ill deserving of my sympathy...

...I'm very lucky to have been given the gifts I have...



Ummm....Em...do you believe this gift of sympathy was entirely "nurtured" into you by society or is it possible that indeed nature may very well have played a significant role in granting it?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Chushin
Level 100

Join date: Feb 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 7301

BTW, it was my experience that some of the chronically ill clients had some of the strongest will I've seen.

If many of us had to live with what they constantly put up with, we'd likely have ended it long ago. But these people just keep on going, struggling daily against the voices, the delusions, the mood swings.

I, for one, had a lot of respect for many of the chronic folks that I worked with.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

csulli
Level 1

Join date: May 2012
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 6808

Uncle Gabby wrote:
And my job is more dangerous than hers, and I get paid less, yet I love it, and don't expect more than the occaisional satisfaction that comes of having really helped some.


Fuck you guy; my dad could beat up your dad.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

csulli wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
And my job is more dangerous than hers, and I get paid less, yet I love it, and don't expect more than the occaisional satisfaction that comes of having really helped some.


Fuck you guy; my dad could beat up your dad.


Up yours dude. My dad's arms are bigger than your head.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

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.


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


I also never complained about my job being dangerous. I offered that there are risks and difficulties that seem to me to be out of proportion to the pay, given as well the educational attainment level required. For example, the Bureau of labor statistics lists Appraisers and Assessors of Real Estate and Food Service Managers $5,000-$10,000 above Child, Family, and School Social Workers for annual wages. I mean, really.


Well there's money in real estate and food service. There is no work in social work aside from what the government pumps into it. Money that comes from tax revenue. You're not into socialism are you? I know that what you said about creating dignity and possible future tax revenue is very true, but it's also very abstract and hard to quantify.


But again, I don't complain about my job very often. I find it hopeful and meaningful and largely enjoyable. Acknowledging poor pay and complaining that one's job sucks are two very different things. I've done the former, you've done the latter.


Sure. I do love my job. But I've only been doing it for a year. Almost everyone who gets into EMS loves it at first. After talking to the medics who've been doing it 5 or 10 + years it's almost impossible to find someone who's been doing this for the long term who isn't burned out.


I would also note that I do not feel that society doesn't value what I do. Perhaps at the government funding level, but on a personal level I feel well regarded by my community and people in general. Teachers, cops, doctors, moms, dads, kids...they all seem appreciative that I am there. What more validation do I need? Which is not to say that I wouldn't like more money. I would. But don't paint me as sharing your despair.


People seem to appreciate me too. They say nice things all the time. But saying nice things is easy. When I'm directing traffic on the side of the road and trying to make them slow down or stop it's different. When it comes to translating nice words to actions, it's different. By the way I do appreciate what you do.

I wouldn't call what I have despair. More like sadness. We used to have a wonder Volunteer system in this country, that sprung up almost spontaineously around the time of WWII. I think it's beautiful that people would freely give their time and talent to help strangers. But that system is failing, partially because of the abuses I've reffered to and it's very sad.


Lastly, I find the persistently or chronically mentally ill deserving of my sympathy, not my derision. To have such limited control of emotion must be hell, no wonder they are so reactive. The thought of my mind playing malicious tricks on me or telling me terrible things I can't discern the reality of...what horror. I would drink/drug, too.

I'm very lucky to have been given the gifts I have. So are you.



Sure, but again, the way I see it the more you help some people the less they help themselves. And at some point you have to realize that you're shovelling resources into a black hole. As for the drugs and alcohol, they're adults. They make their decisions. My sympathy is reserved for the children who have to live with them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

EmilyQ
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 4422

Uncle Gabby wrote:
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.


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


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

EmilyQ wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

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...


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

LoRez wrote:
While I may somewhat disagree with your approach, I appreciate the fact that you're out there doing it.


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

LoRez
Level

Join date: Jun 2012
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 5635

Uncle Gabby wrote:
LoRez wrote:
While I may somewhat disagree with your approach, I appreciate the fact that you're out there doing it.


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.


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Uncle Gabby
Level 5

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 3911

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.


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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

debraD
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 7292

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...


Well in short, I disagree :)

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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Makavali
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 15701

debraD wrote:
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...


Well in short, I disagree :)

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.



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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DBCooper
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 10410

therajraj wrote:
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.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/...lth/3044514.stm

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...stosterone.html

'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


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report