Feminization of America?

[rgraham666]

Personally, I've always found women more reliable, harder working and a great deal easier to work with than men.

As I said earlier, I find most men to be testosterone addled fuckwits.

And since they don't have to put up with half the shit women put with, men are generally weaker as well.

But I'm prejudiced.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Halo, can you not see how this Barbie person has affected your viewpoint on women?

Your distaste for women in the workplace comes through loud and clear.

Hate the Barbie-clone, of course. She's worthless. But then, many places of employment have worthless people. Someone had to graduate last in the class.

It isn't always a women.

Back up. Regroup. When did I say anything about having a distaste for women in the workforce??? I don't. Never did. Probably never will. That Barbie chick is, at best, an extreme example. She's not the norm.

How about if you go back and read what I wrote about compartmentalizing emotions from logic? Your reactions to what I've been saying have suddenly come through loud and clear as very emotional. I haven't gotten emotional about this yet.

I've read articles. Seen stats and graffs and charts and all the fancy ways that these simple things get illustrated. I've seen the examples first hand, some more extreme than others. Where I live, or at least with the other men I've worked with, we don't take time off for illness unless its causing a trip to the hospital. Here, we've all seen women take time off for a pretty broad spectrum of reasons that usually stem from things that are only conducive to being a woman. The breast augmentation one is news to me, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Also, if you've read everything I posted here, I didn't say that I agreed with it, so much as if I were the guy in charge of a company that I wanted to be successful, these are decisions that I would have to make. No one starts a company so that it will lose money (unless they're laundering). And for an entrepreneur, the belt has to be kept even tighter. Try it some time. Its not as easy to as you think.

I'll be back in while. Going to spend some quality time with my son.

 

[garbage can]

My vagina is starting to pucker.

As in putting lime juice in it?

 

[entitled]

It was suggested i post this story. It has more to do with what this thread has turned into then what a person would first believe.

This tale begins when King Arthur was hunting. And with his great bow he wounded a magnificent white stag. And as hunters will do, even to this day, Arthur followed the stag deep, deep, deep into the woods, into a small glade shaded by eighteen great oak trees laced with mistletoe.

Suddenly King Arthur was confronted by a huge, giant knight dressed in shimmering green armor. "Ah, who dare hunt the stag in my wood?"

"I am King Arthur, Pendragon of these lands this be my wood."

"Arthur you are not my King Pendragon. This ancient sacred wood be my domain, my kingdom, and here I be the Wood Lord, and the old laws against poaching is death by beheading!"

The green knight began to draw his great broadsword, King Arthur dressed for hunting, without battle armor would only stand tall with the courage of knighthood. "Green knight, I hear your birds singing in yon tall trees, I see your aged Oaks are festooned with mistletoe, and your meadow with it's twisting, gurgling brook bedecked with bowers of flowers, hovering butterflies, buzzing bees and sheltered under white clouds floating through your blue sky. If Arthur must stand and die, what better day could be chosen so fair, for even the sweet fragrance of honeysuckle is in the air!"

"Ah, Arthur you have the courage of a warrior king. I'll tell you what I'll do. I will parole thee with riddle. Return within one year and a day, on your word, and bring a true answer to this riddle question. Arthur, what thing is it that all women desire above all else. A false answer Arthur will be your death be it rain or shine. A true answer will be your pardon for poaching."

King Arthur agreed and gave his word to return by the appointed time. During the year King Arthur, his knights and advisors went forth, north, south, east and west asking the riddle question and many, many, many answers did they receive. The year was near spent when King Arthur returned to the wood, mulling over in his mind the numerous answers, uneasy in thought, wondering if he had the true answer to the riddle question.

As Arthur reached the edge of the forest he came upon a hideous looking woman seated between a tall oak tree and a green holly tree, dressed in bright scarlet red. She was incredibly ugly. Green tusks grew from her mouth and curled toward her ears. Her face was shaped with a snout with little red beady eyes. Her hair was matted with filth and little creatures crawled among the strands. Her bent and twisted hairy body with crocked legs and massive ankles was covered with open oozing sores. Her dugs hung below her knees.

As Arthur was riding past the woman spoke."Arthur hold and look on this grim personage. I am Ragnell. Dame Ragnell and I am sister to the Green Knight. Arthur I know the true answer to your riddle. And Arthur, I would trade what I know for what I want, if you want to see the sun rise tomorrow."

"Dame Ragnell, for my life, what thou want, on my oath, if able I will give."

"Arthur what I wilt, for your life, is for thee to ask, thy nephew Sir Gawain, to wed me and become husband to Dame Ragnell."
"Dame Ragnell, I will ask Sir Gawain to be thy wife but I will not command, it will be his choice."

Dame Ragnell smiled and nodded her head and told King Arthur the true answer to the riddle question.

Arthur entered the forest and again found the Green Knight. He answered the riddle and defeated the Green Knight.

He sought out his nephew Sir Gawain and told him of his agreement with Dame Ragnell and described her in all her odorous foulness. And Sir Gawain said, "Be not concerned uncle I will wed the lady." And he persisted, and Arthur reluctantly consented.

The wedding day arrived and the wedding took place on the rising sun but not with the usual jocularity. All had a heavy heart at this wedding for even after cleansing Dame Ragnell was unsightly.

That afternoon Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell talked of many things and as the sun set, they retired to their rooms. Sir Gawain turned to fall asleep. "Sir Gawain, be it not your duty on your wedding night to bid thy wife a good night before sleep?"

And Sir Gawain answered, "Aye, It be my duty to bid my wife a good night, and to kiss my wife and to hug my wife and more too and all that I will do!"

And turning hand and eye to his wife he found beauty! "Ahhh, husband, you like this form? But first you must choose. I can be beautiful for you at night or beautiful for your friends by day, but not both, I must share my other form."

"Lady Ragnell. You have your own will I yield to your choice."

And the Lady Ragnell having sovereignty recognized, chose to be beautiful both day and night. And the handsome Sir Gawain and the beautiful Lady Ragnell choose to be faithful to each other throughout their lives.

 

[garbage can]

It was suggested i post this story. It has more to do with what this thread has turned into then what a person would first believe.

Thanks for posting entitled..........

 

[BlackShanglan]

I suspect that the objections to Halo's statistics/experience arguments stem from the two-pronged approach being taken. Halo cites statistics about a number of topics. On the whole, I'm inclined to accept that there may be statistics out there for some of these issues - although I'd be curious to know how one might measure something as non-empirical and nebulous as "compartmentalization of emotions." I do recognize that one may recall facts and general statistical data without being able to cite it.

However, Halo's reaction to my own recollection of other statistics introducing a broader picture - that is, not directly refuting Halo's statistics, but suggesting that in other areas men had weakness where women had strengths - the reponse was not statistical, but personal:

Originally Posted by sweetsubsarahh (with reference to my own post):

You didn't read the rest of this thread.

Women do not take more time off for illnesses. Men do.

I've never met those men. I have met a number of women who take a great deal of time from the companies they work for because of circumstances that are only condicive to being female.

Here, a suggestion that statistics exist to support a counter-viewpoint is ignored in favor of one person's limited experience.

I suspect that that is why some posters have objected to Halo's use of statistics. It's not that they're definitively not there or inaccurate - they may or may not be - but that the same standard of evidence is not being applied to each side of the argument. If one wants one's own statistics to be accepted without a citation, one must extend the same optimism to others.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Some figures

I didn't expect a debate on men's and women's earnings, and the 'gender gap.' References to statistics are hard to incorporate in discussion even when presented. Clearly personal recollection is not adequate.

However, here is a url for a report from the General Accounting Office of the US Gov., where the obvious contributing variables to a wage gap were examined, and their effects quantified, based on data from more than 8,000 persons, about evenly split by gender. The question was, in controlling for all these variables--such as length of time worked, time out of the workforce-- is there a residual difference not accounted for.
I've included a para about the possible sources of the difference, namely life pattern choices and/or discrimination.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

{October 2003}
WOMEN’S EARNINGS:
Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings


The third set of independent variables included labor market activity reported in a given survey year. Variables included hours worked in the past year, weeks out of the labor force in the past year, and weeks unemployed in the past year. For our analysis, we considered time spent unemployed and time out of the labor force as work “interruptions,” but we did not include time off for one’s own illness or a family member’s illness, vacation and other time off, or time out because of strike.

We also included a variable that accounted for an individual’s full-time or part-time employment status, defined as the average number of hours an individual worked per week on his or her main job. Individuals were considered to have worked part-time if they worked fewer than 35 hours per week and full-time if they worked 35 hours or more per week.


[Results]


Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Selected PSID {Longitudinal Survey} Variables
==========

Workers only {broken down according to gender--I have used labels in place of the columns lost in copying from the document}


Annual earnings (in 2000 dollars) {MEN} 40,426 {WOMEN} 22,782


Full-time main job (percent) {MEN} 87.6 {WOMEN} 66.8
Time unemployed (in weeks) {MEN}1.8 {WOMEN} 1.9
Time out of the labor force (in weeks) {MEN} 0.91 {WOMEN} 2.8
Annual hours worked {MEN} 2,154 {WOMEN}1,672
Job tenure (in months) {MEN} 89.3 {WOMEN} 74.1
Work experience (in years) {MEN}16.4 {WOMEN}12.1
Highest education (in years) {MEN}13.2 {WOMEN}13.1


Number of individuals {MEN} 4,477 {WOMEN} 4,884


We found that before controlling for any variables that may affect earnings, on average, women earned about 44 percent less than men over the time period we studied—1983 to 2000. However, after controlling for the independent variables that we included in our model, we found that this difference was reduced to about 21 percent over this time period. The model results indicated a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over this period.

====

{Explaining the difference}
Working women make a variety of decisions to manage both their work and home or family responsibilities. According to some experts and literature, some women work in jobs that are more compatible with their home and family responsibilities. In addition, some women use alternative work arrangements such as working a part-time schedule or taking leave from work.

Experts indicate that these decisions may result in women as a group earning less than men. However, debate exists about whether women’s work-related decisions are freely made or influenced by discrimination.

Some experts believe that women and men generally have different life priorities—women choose to place higher priority on home and family, while men choose to place higher priority on career and earnings. These women may voluntarily give up potential for higher earnings to focus on home and family.

However, other experts believe that men and women have similar life priorities, and instead indicate that women as a group earn less because of underlying discrimination in society or in the workplace.

========================

 

[amicus]

I saw a Bill Maher special, and he spoke of his position that the US has become 'feminized' over the last 20 years. He is apparently referring to 'values'. I'd like to leave the term a bit open to interpretation, but here are two examples of his, and one example, from recent news, which I think might fit:

In the last presidential election, the candidates tried to outdo each other on their devotion to 'monogamy', or as Maher put it, to the message "I fuck only my wife".

In the most popular sit coms, like "Raymond," the male is a not-so-bright bumbler, esp. in comparison to his wife.

Recently the army, in its official regulations made consorting with a prostitute a court martial (and dis honorable discharge) offense.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=33300&archive=true

(Sweetsubsarahh) Originally Posted by entitled
Are you indicating this is a bad thing?



Is this amicus?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can visualize the chagrin on Pure's face...

I scanned all four pages of this thread and cannot really believe my eyes, that you really question the feminization of America.

When a flaming Liberal such as Maher, even dares approach the question, it is long acknowledged fact.

I am not going to dig up the 'statistics' as someone demanded of another, as I heard this on this news in the past week or so, college graduates in the US last year, 131 females for each 100 males.

Consider that in the 1930's and all times before, a woman in college was a rarity.

Women as a percent of the work force, look up the numbers...a steady increase.

Daycare at the jobsite? Uheard of in the 1950's.

"Deadbeat dads", state and federal legislation enforcing child support decrees in court, a 'modern' phrase.

Shopping malls are for men? Yeah, sure.

Even the style of automobiles, like the Jag, the Austin Heally, the Ferrari and Maserati, used to be sensual, flowing, graceful, sexual...cars are now stubby butted styles attractive to females.

Half of each new car line is 'esthetically' designed to please women.

The 'no winners, no losers' concept in sports and all competition in schools, brought forth by the non masculine, non aggressive, non confrontational, ameliorative demeanor of the 'gentle sex'.

It has gone so much farther than the 'feminization of America', my dear friend, Pure, it has proceeded even past the emasculation of America so that a man living off a woman's wealth, aka Kerry, could run for the highest office in the land and a wimp such as Bill Clinton can be outclassed by Hillary.

I have suggested before, (and been ridiculed for) the idea that the 'feminization' of America has led to the explosive growth of the 'gay' community, men and women whose sexual identity has been so challenged by the emergence of the dominant female and the decline of the dominant male, that the genders turn to each other for comfort in their confusion.

Yes, I know, you don't see it all all.

What else is new?

amicus...









And why have you kidnapped Pure?

 

[Lisa Denton]

I have suggested before, (and been ridiculed for) the idea that the 'feminization' of America has led to the explosive growth of the 'gay' community, men and women whose sexual identity has been so challenged by the emergence of the dominant female and the decline of the dominant male, that the genders turn to each other for comfort in their confusion.

Yes, I know, you don't see it all all.

What else is new?

amicus...

My dear Amicus, perhaps you are the confused one.

Maybe women really do have half of the money and all of the pussy.

Is this really so threatening to you?

Or was letting women be able to vote the downfall of the arrogant abusive male americana, and life as you think it should be?

I am usually nice to you, don't make me mad.

 

[amicus]

My dear Amicus, perhaps you are the confused one.

Maybe women really do have half of the money and all of the pussy.

Is this really so threatening to you?

Or was letting women be able to vote the downfall of the arrogant abusive male americana, and life as you think it should be?

I am usually nice to you, don't make me mad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would remember if you were usually nice to me, I suggest you might have refrained from commenting from time to time.

Accuracy is important...it is true that women have all the pussy, but, according to statistics, they also have 62 percent of all the money.

And no, women nor feminization does not threaten 'me', I know who I am, but they do threaten my innocent children and grandchildren who are naive enough to think that the feminist agenda includes the concept 'justice', it does not.

For example: the consequences of an abortion or the consequences of a fatherless family will determine the future of all involved and those consequences are not always beneficial.

I would put no impediments in front of a woman, or women's quest for equality, however, with independence comes responsibility and with responsibility, obligation to duty, things the 'movement' has scarce considered.

And...there is much to consider.

amicus...

 

[Lisa Denton]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would remember if you were usually nice to me, I suggest you might have refrained from commenting from time to time.

Accuracy is important...it is true that women have all the pussy, but, according to statistics, they also have 62 percent of all the money.

And no, women nor feminization does not threaten 'me', I know who I am, but they do threaten my innocent children and grandchildren who are naive enough to think that the feminist agenda includes the concept 'justice', it does not.

For example: the consequences of an abortion or the consequences of a fatherless family will determine the future of all involved and those consequences are not always beneficial.

I would put no impediments in front of a woman, or women's quest for equality, however, with independence comes responsibility and with responsibility, obligation to duty, things the 'movement' has scarce considered.

And...there is much to consider.

amicus...

What? I was bein nice and you never noticed?

The "feminist agenda movement conspiracy" without justice which threatens your children and grandchildren, and knows nothing of responsibility, obligation, and duty, is something you should consider much longer before you blurt it out loud.

Someone might offer you a straightjacket.

Yes, I am bein nice.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Strange how I just got gay-bashed anonymously somewhere else. If I was paranoid I would think it was a conspiracy. but I figure it was just some childish, immature, and insecure individual. Probably totally unrelated to this thread.

 

[amicus]

Okay...I will accept that you are being nice and be grateful for it.

 

[Lisa Denton]

You pig.

I never would have thought you would stoop that low.

I had very little respect for you, I have none now.

 

[entitled]

amicus, me dear, my question that you quoted was asked because the original post wasn't clear in whether it was a simple question or whether this was being judged as either a good or bad thing. Once it was espablished that we weren't supposed to be passing judgement, i answered.

As for the rest of it - i can see both good and bad points to the way things have gone in recent years. It's good for women, but not necessarily good for the family structure. Anything past that might degenerate into an argument, and i got that out of my system yesterday.

 

[Pure]

Enter Ami,

Just when some were wondering, "Isn't what Maher calls 'feminization' just the old refrain of "Feminists are taking the US to hell in handbasket", you turn up and clarify things wonderfully:

ami opined,
When a flaming Liberal such as Maher, even dares approach the question, it is long acknowledged fact.

I am not going to dig up the 'statistics' as someone demanded of another, as I heard this on this news in the past week or so, college graduates in the US last year, 131 females for each 100 males.

Consider that in the 1930's and all times before, a woman in college was a rarity.

Women as a percent of the work force, look up the numbers...a steady increase.

Daycare at the jobsite? Uheard of in the 1950's.

"Deadbeat dads", state and federal legislation enforcing child support decrees in court, a 'modern' phrase.

Shopping malls are for men? Yeah, sure.

Even the style of automobiles, like the Jag, the Austin Heally, the Ferrari and Maserati, used to be sensual, flowing, graceful, sexual...cars are now stubby butted styles attractive to females.

Half of each new car line is 'esthetically' designed to please women.
---

Response by Pure: The above list, where accurate, certainly contrasts with Maher, who has no problem with women in college or even their 'disproportion' there, given that the boys in h.s. are gangbanging and video gaming instead of studying.

Dubious claim of ami: "{There has been a steady increase in} Women as percent of workforce" .

Response: Women have, at various times been 50% or more, for instance the working women in the factories in the late 19th century. In every farming society also, women are 50% of the workforce. WWII inducted a great proportion of women into the workforce, again to constitute (iirc) the majority of factory workers.
----

ami I have suggested before, (and been ridiculed for) the idea that the 'feminization' of America has led to the explosive growth of the 'gay' community, men and women whose sexual identity has been so challenged by the emergence of the dominant female and the decline of the dominant male, that the genders turn to each other for comfort in their confusion.

[another posting]
And no, women nor feminization does not threaten 'me', I know who I am, but they do threaten my innocent children and grandchildren who are naive enough to think that the feminist agenda includes the concept 'justice', it does not.

Response by Pure, Ah, the feminist agenda and the gay agenda overlap, twin evils besetting American manhood.

Here's the slight problem of reasoning: If the 'dominant female' (like Theresa Kerry or Hillary Clinton) makes men go gay (like their husbands?), wouldn't this female attract others to the *straight* life, where wimpy husbands would cater to her every domming wish??

-----
Pure: As I've stated, it's hard to make out (clarify) the 'feminization' thesis, esp. to separate it from Rush Limbaugh talk of evil feminists. But almost all of amicus peeves are not Maher's.

Pure: My own peeve is not with feminists who've lobbied antistalking laws and anti-discrimination (in hiring and promoting) laws. It's with the efforts emanating from the puritanical strain within feminism (and supported by family values males[Dobson] and political opportunists like GWB). The current 'anti-obscenity crusade' is one example. The effforts to criminalize (or keep criminalized) prostitution relation offenses under the guise of fighting 'trafficking' is another prime example. Bush and Dobson, etc., have co opted the moral discourse of 'abolitionism' and 'human rights' to further laws harming both women and men.

Bush in 2003:

in a speech on the subject at the United Nations last September [2003], Bush intoned: "Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was officially ended, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in our time" (www.usembassy.it).

---
Pure's comment: He is piggy backing his agenda on the 'trafficking' feminists like K. Barry:
----

The feminist guru of the crusade against "sex slavery" is Kathleen Barry, professor of sociology in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Her book Female Sexual Slavery (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1979) is considered the seminal work in the anti-trafficking movement. Barry later updated her views to cut a wide swathe indeed in the definition of "sex slavery":

"Female sexual slavery includes not only women in prostitution who are controlled by pimps but wives in marriages who are controlled by husbands and daughters who are incestuously assaulted by fathers. My definition...breaks away from traditional distinctions between 'forced' and 'free' prostitution and between wives and whores. When women and/or girls are held over time, for sexual use, they are in conditions of slavery....Slavery is one aspect of the violation of women and children in prostitution, in marriage, and in families."

—The Prostitution of Sexuality (New York: New York University Press, 1995)

[italicized passages above, from the ICL website]

Pure's comment: For instance, recent laws requiring programs not 'promote prostitution' or legalizing it, have resulted in cuts of funds to AIDS/HIV programs in places like India (the argument being that since they did not try to persuade the prostitutes to give up the profession, they were implicitly promoting that line of work).

Pure: Here is some commentary on recent 'anti trafficking legislation'

http://www.bayswan.org/end_demand/

Compiled by Prostitutes' Education Network

Repressive Commercial Sex Law Sails Through US House of Representatives

as Part of Trafficking Victims Protection Act Re-Authorization Bill H.R.972

Below is commentary on original "End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005"

200 Human Rights Organizations Protest Bush Administration Anti-Prostitution Policy

http://hrw.org/campaigns/hivaids/hiv-aids-letter/

-----

Pure's comment: As to my original example of new military regulations involving prostitution:


Stars and Stripes Headline
Patronizing a prostitute is now a specific crime for servicemembers


By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, January 7, 2006

[start verbatim excerpt]

[Stars and Stripes excerpt] ARLINGTON, Va.
" For the first time, the Department of Defense has specifically made it a crime for a servicemember to patronize a prostitute. The punishment: up to a year in prison, forfeiture of pay and dishonorable discharge.


The formal order came in a presidential executive order signed without fanfare Oct. 14, directing changes in the Manual for Courts-Martial. It is part of an assault the military has been waging against human trafficking.
A Defense Department spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, said in an e-mailed response to questions that "prostitution" and "pandering" will now be among the offenses covered by Article 134 of the courts-martial manual.

Paying for sex used to fall under the "Solicitation of Another to Commit an Offense" listed as part of Article 134, which executes the corresponding section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Krenke said.
It prohibits "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and "all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

But the October executive order makes prostitution and pandering specific offenses, she said.


Krenke said that the DOD made the change as part of its effort to combat human trafficking by taking on the sex exploitation industry, as set forth in a December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive that says in part:


"Our policy is based on an abolitionist approach to trafficking in persons, and our efforts must involve a comprehensive attack on such trafficking, which is a modern day of slavery. In this regard, the U.S. Government opposes prostitution and any related activities, including pimping, pandering, or maintaining brothels as contributing to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons."

[this S&S excerpt is verbatim, first half of article]

 

[rgraham666]

Very funny to hear our 'friend' blather on about responsibility and obligation of duty.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I suspect that the objections to Halo's statistics/experience arguments stem from the two-pronged approach being taken. Halo cites statistics about a number of topics. On the whole, I'm inclined to accept that there may be statistics out there for some of these issues - although I'd be curious to know how one might measure something as non-empirical and nebulous as "compartmentalization of emotions." I do recognize that one may recall facts and general statistical data without being able to cite it.

However, Halo's reaction to my own recollection of other statistics introducing a broader picture - that is, not directly refuting Halo's statistics, but suggesting that in other areas men had weakness where women had strengths - the reponse was not statistical, but personal:



Here, a suggestion that statistics exist to support a counter-viewpoint is ignored in favor of one person's limited experience.

I suspect that that is why some posters have objected to Halo's use of statistics. It's not that they're definitively not there or inaccurate - they may or may not be - but that the same standard of evidence is not being applied to each side of the argument. If one wants one's own statistics to be accepted without a citation, one must extend the same optimism to others.

Shanglan

So when one sees something first hand, as well as sees stats that support what one is seeing, one should still ignore what one has seen to give the benefit of the doubt to someone else's argument?

To be completely fair I would like to say that I am very aware of how possible it is to skew the final results of any statistic. Despite the the things that I've read having appeared in rather reputible publications, I don't off hand recall the demographics of the polls that generated the stats. There could have easily been a whole slew of of factors ranging from political, social and/or finacial backgrounds to race, religion and color that may have changed outcomes that would have been different elsewhere.

I've also cited that in the area that I live in, and more specifically, with the co-workers I've been around, men don't take time off for illness unless it is next to life-threatening. I personally have been to work and not missed any time despite pneumonia and 101.2 fever, though not at the same time. The one time I missed some work due to illness was because food poisoning buckled me over in the mens room of my work and I couldn't get back up. I was taken to the hospital and returned to work the following day.

I once witnessed a man on a construction site saw his thumb off. He ripped off a piece of his T-shirt and duct-taped it over the wound. Then he threw his thumb in his lunch cooler and had someone drive him to the hospital. He returned to work within a few days, albeit on limited duty.

Point being that a poll taken in my area might generate different final results than a poll taken elsewhere. How is one really to know?

I could be completely wrong ... except for what I've seen with my own eyes. But still, that is just me.

 

[cloudy]

So when one sees something first hand, as well as sees stats that support what one is seeing, one should still ignore what one has seen to give the benefit of the doubt to someone else's argument?

To be completely fair I would like to say that I am very aware of how possible it is to skew the final results of any statistic. Despite the the things that I've read having appeared in rather reputible publications, I don't off hand recall the demographics of the polls that generated the stats. There could have easily been a whole slew of of factors ranging from political, social and/or finacial backgrounds to race, religion and color that may have changed outcomes that would have been different elsewhere.

I've also cited that in the area that I live in, and more specifically, with the co-workers I've been around, men don't take time off for illness unless it is next to life-threatening. I personally have been to work and not missed any time despite pneumonia and 101.2 fever, though not at the same time. The one time I missed some work due to illness was because food poisoning buckled me over in the mens room of my work and I couldn't get back up. I was taken to the hospital and returned to work the following day.

I once witnessed a man on a construction site saw his thumb off. He ripped off a piece of his T-shirt and duct-taped it over the wound. Then he threw his thumb in his lunch cooler and had someone drive him to the hospital. He returned to work within a few days, albeit on limited duty.

Point being that a poll taken in my area might generate different final results than a poll taken elsewhere. How is one really to know?

I could be completely wrong ... except for what I've seen with my own eyes. But still, that is just me.

And I've been at work during a bout of food poisoning that was so bad I couldn't do anything but lay on a piece of cardboard in the stockroom - but there had to be a manager in the building.

What's your point?

We all could come up with anecdotal evidence to support our own position.

 

[entitled]

OK, i lied. i can't resist.

H&H, i've seen men do similar things. Not necessarily missing thumbs, but a certain logger i had the pleasure to know quite intimately had a number of nasty scars from things such as chain saws that he got at work. Despite those accidents he stayed on the job and didn't miss as much as a full day. i've also seen women do similar things. One particular lady stayed at work, on her feet, while she was in labor. She left early to go to the hospital when she timed her contractions at about 45 minutes apart. Her water broke on the way there, and it was three blocks away. My own mother used to work at a metal shop using a handheld grinder. She shut it off and set it down on her leg for a moment before it had come to a complete stop. Her foreman made her take the rest of the day off to go to the hospital.

Then again, i've known men who have called in sick to work for two or three days at a time because they had a slight limp and "didn't know why, so they needed to get it checked out" (which was ridiculous because everybody that worked there knew he had an arthritic knee) or for similar reasons. i've known women that have called in for piddly stuff, too.

These are just my personal experiences. Again i say that you are right in some ways. So am i.

 

[rgraham666]

The biggest problem with statistics is that you can only generate stats for the things you measure.

All those stats were in the workplace.

Women, from what I've seen, do a lot more work outside the workplace than men do. They don't get paid for it.

My anecdotal evidence is, as I said, that women are harder working, more reliable and easier to work with than men.

But since I like women better than men, I'm prejudiced.

 

[Pure]

hi rg,

rg: The biggest problem with statistics is that you can only generate stats for the things you measure.

All those stats were in the workplace.

Women, from what I've seen, do a lot more work outside the workplace than men do. They don't get paid for it.

This "unpaid labor" problem, an old one noted by feminists, for centuries, can be quantified. It's not really that difficult to measure hours spent at home in housework or childrearing. IIRC, it's quite common, where husband and wife both work full time [~40hrs] , for the wife's hours, total (outside and inside the home), to come to at least an additional half time (~20hr/wk) job [i.e. total ~60hrs], far less than the man's work plus home hours. Stats also show that work weeks are longer now, around the 47 hr mark for all persons.

But it's kinda boring going over stats and arguing about which gender is healthy and hardworking and which is prone to illness, slacking or malingering. I doubt that old debate is what Maher had in mind. We do know for certain that characters like Raymond and Tim the Toolman seem like general slackers, and characters like Homer Simpson do the job job, but sit in the easy chair with a beer, when home. These portraits are clearly unfair to men--some sizable minority-- who juggle work outside, home work, and childcare.

 

[cloudy]

These portraits are clearly unfair to men--some sizable minority-- who juggle work outside, home work, and childcare.

I agree. There's several commercials running currently that just make me grit my teeth every time I see them, for that exact reason.

 

[cantdog]

During WWII in Europe, many soldiers were incapacitated for action by venereal diseases. The public information films of that time are fascinating but didn't do much to stop the infections.

If the US Army had discharged every soldier in Vietnam who had 'consorted with a prostitute' the war might have ended for lack of soldiers...

Prostitutes and soldiers (and sailors and airmen and marines) have been together throughout history. A US Army regulation is unlikely to make much difference.

Og

It would be a cheap and easy way out, though, and you'd get laid, besides.

I agree with you, though. It sounds like a peacetime-army sort of regulation.

 

[cantdog]

Pure makes a good point about the schizophrenic nature of the situation. The country is certainly acting testosterone-driven internationally.