How did you become a Feminist?

[Black Tulip]

Sarahh,

You are still missing my point. Never mind.

I am not working in health-care however.
I'm a teacher.

Let's have a cup of coffee.

 

[Guest]

(Ah, the problems of on-line communication!)

Love a cup, thanks!

 

[Gary Chambers]

Maybe it all comes down to those body parts Black Tulip was talking about. I've been a naturist by inclination for many years, but have not had the chance to live that lifestyle as often as I would have liked to. To a naturist I suspect the gender of a midwife urolodoc or gynodoc would probably matter less than it might to others. Being forced to wear clothes all the time even the most liberally minded people can't help but become somewhat self conscious, and even a little ashamed of their bodies. It's one of the first things governments must do to maintain control over us: make us feel ashamed and inadequate, therefore, reliant upon their leadership. Under these conditions we forget the body is just the body. It's functions just happen or don't happen, depending on mood, physical need, stimuli etc. Perhaps it's just the irrational fear of our own bodies that makes us even consider the gender of the midwife. Strangely enough though, if I had to go to a doctor and have my penis examined, I think I'd prefer a female doctor. Why? Her own curiosity or fascination over the supposed seat and symbol of manhood, should encourage her to set both social discomfort and sexuality aside, and concentrate on her science to a level the male doctor might be too cynical or bored to achieve. Each to their own I suppose. Anyway, I have to go to work again tomorrow so it's time for bed. Night all.

 

[oggbashan]

Doctors

When I want to consult a doctor I ring the local practice.

It doesn't bother me which of the three doctors I see. They are two men and one woman.

If I want to choose the woman doctor I will have to wait at least two days for an appointment to see her. If I choose the younger man I will have to wait half as long. If I choose the older man I will be seen today.

I asked some of my friends who use the same practice why this was. The response was not related to the doctor's sex but to the doctor's manner.

Those seeing the woman doctor thought she spent longer with them and was concerned with them as individuals. Those seeing the younger man enjoyed his repartee but felt he was less caring and quicker to push patients through his office than the woman. Those who saw the older doctor thought he was brusque and abrupt and spent far too little time with them.

The appointments are all for the same length of time and all three doctors overrun slightly so all the patients get the same amount of face to face contact. The difference is PERCEPTION.

I asked another question: Which doctor would they want to see if my friends thought they had a serious illness such as heart disease or cancer? The answers were in the reverse order.

People are odd.



Og

 

[raphy]

Raphy,

I sure hope you don't count me in on the man-bashing crowd. Damn, I thought I made it clear I was glad we have some men in Lit who speak their mind about things like this.

Have a nice day.

BT, not counting you in that crowd at all .. There are people in the AH who firmly believe that women are superior to men, as opposed to 'equal but different'.

As a man, and a man who has preached equality for years, it's very hard to engage in productive discussion with someone who says that simply by virtue of my being a man, my arguments are worth less, and that everything I say is motivated by my dick.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: gender issues

We will not have a Sex Discrimination Act. Such a thing could occur state-by-state, but the fundamentalists set the agenda to a great extent now, and it would not now happen nationally or even, I'm afraid, in most states.

Look how difficult and uphill the ERA has been. I envy you that. On the other hand, you could use a Freedom of the Press Act to kill the Official Secrets Act. You can have our First Amendment! We're not using it for anything right now!

cantdog

Cant, I don't know if you are aware or not, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlaws sex discrimination in employment and some other things, just like it outlaws discrimination by race, religion or national origin. Obviously, exceptions can and will be made, such as a prostitute in a legal brothel and some other things.

 

[Mhari]

I've been hesitating to post on this thread, since I lot of my thoughts are similar to others posted, but...since I've really only been posting in the fluffy threads recently, I thought I'd go ahead and post here anyway.

I have for a very long time called myself not-a-feminist. This is mostly because I've had too much exposure to the "bad" kind of feminist. The ones who think that a thing is useless just because a man said it, or did it, or whatever. Sexism is sexism, whether it comes from a male or a female. And I have *never* wanted to be lumped in with that kind of feminist. It seems to me that they do more damage to the pursuit of equal rights than anyone. If you want to be accepted as equal, you need to *accept* as equal.

However, I was fortunate to be raised by parents who think their three daughters could (and should) do anything they wanted. It shouldn't be a surprise that all three of us wound up in male-dominated professions and have no problems with it. Well, okay...I do have problems with the men who dismiss my ideas because they came from the mouth of a woman, but I tend to dismiss those who do that as jerks anyway, and not worth my time.

Not only do I think I should be equal to any man, I *know* I am. I don't feel the need to prove myself to anyone. I'm smart and strong and damned good at what I do. I don't need anyone's approval. I'll confess to a bit of...something, not sure if it's sexism or elitism or what, but I do tend to dismiss those sexist males I encounter as easily as they dismiss me. As I said, I mentally attach a "jerk" label to them, but I'm also somewhat amused by their ignorance.

I don't know if I'm really a feminist or not. I am what I am, whatever that is!

~M

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: gender issues

Cant, I don't know if you are aware or not, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlaws sex discrimination in employment and some other things, just like it outlaws discrimination by race, religion or national origin. Obviously, exceptions can and will be made, such as a prostitute in a legal brothel and some other things.

Yeah, but everybody does it. The kind of categorical proscriptions Og listed just don't apply here, IMHO.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: Re: Re: gender issues

Yeah, but everybody does it. The kind of categorical proscriptions Og listed just don't apply here, IMHO.

The Sex Discrimination Act is a help, but it doesn't stop women being paid less than men.

The employer redefines the job, or there is the 'glass ceiling' beyond which women rarely go.

The average woman's wage in the UK is still less than the average man's. A major factor is the low pay for part-time work, particularly part-time work that fits around children's school hours.

Another problem is the long hours of work which are the norm in the UK. Many workers do 70 hours a week. That isn't family friendly.

40 years ago a man could earn enough in a mundane office job to keep his wife and family and hope to buy their house. Now he doesn't earn enough on his own. If the woman isn't earning then the family will struggle financially.

40 years ago the reverse wasn't true because women were paid less for the same work. If the woman worked, the man would have to work too because she couldn't earn enough to support him.

Now one of my nieces and two of my daughters are the major earners in their households. Two of them are earning at least twice the amount their partners are paid - but they work 70 hours a week. One of them has live-in child care. The other has dogs instead of children - so far.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boxlicker101
Cant, I don't know if you are aware or not, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlaws sex discrimination in employment and some other things, just like it outlaws discrimination by race, religion or national origin. Obviously, exceptions can and will be made, such as a prostitute in a legal brothel and some other things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cantdog answered:

Yeah, but everybody does it. The kind of categorical proscriptions Og listed just don't apply here, IMHO.


I don't think is is very widespread, except maybe in very low paying jobs. Americans are sue-happy and will take anybody to court if they think there has been discrimination. And, sometimes there is. Men, for instance, have applied at Hooters for jobs as servers and sued when they were turned down. This is an instance where I believe gender is a job requirement.

The highest paid employees are probably professional athlets, and they are all men because women are not good enough to compete with men in the NFL, major leagur baseball and other top sports. Some of the best women athletes have tried but just weren't good enough. There are professional womans leagues but they have never been very successful. Top woman athletes who compete in individual sports such as tennis and figure skating do about as well as men do financially but they are not employees, they are self-employed.

If men and women are doing the same work, they will usually get paid the same, after allowing for seniority. If they don't the lesser paid one will sue. I was discriminated against in favor of women a few years, and it was not a matter of affirmative action, so I officially complained and got the promotion I should have gotten years earlier.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Re: gender issues

Yeah, but everybody does it. The kind of categorical proscriptions Og listed just don't apply here, IMHO.

As someone who worked in management, and made the hiring/firing/promotion decisions, I can't believe you actually said that!

Do you have any idea how employers have to walk on eggs nowadays to avoid a discrimination lawsuit? The list of do's and don'ts is endless. I believe discrimination against women/men/whatever is wrong, but it's almost to the point of being ridiculous.

I've met with discrimination. I don't like it. But, it was a long time ago. It still happens, I'm sure, but an employer would have to be damn sneaky about it to get away with it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Is this feminism?

To my way of thinking, it is extremely chauvinistic to equate her sophistication only with her sexuality, and downright oppressive to suggest that she should alter herself to become more like her peers. It isn't up to a woman to lower her standard of femininity. It's up to men to see the person within that cloak of attractiveness and treat her accordingly. As far as I'm concerned the man who told her she needs to tone down if she wants to be treated the same way as her peers is just a silly old fart. A woman is a woman.

I'm not saying women are perfect nor that being elegant and charming necessarily makes one woman a better person than another woman. I'm just saying that female attractiveness is a product of nature. For a woman to suppress that side of herself is sadly defeatist, and for man to suggest such a thing is at best stupid and at worst oppressive.

If that's feminism then I'm a feminist.

Yes. the best kind.

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

ridiculous.

I've met with discrimination. I don't like it. But, it was a long time ago. It still happens, I'm sure, but an employer would have to be damn sneaky about it to get away with it.

I worked in a place which seemed to us to be doing it. All they did was define each job. The jobs with the women were defined a particular way, and another job held by a man defined another way. They were not actually quite identical, no. What is? But the pay and benefits packages differed according to what compensation went with each. That's not particularly clever, but it works. I believe it's widespread. It defeats equivalent pay rules with the burden of proving equivalency left for the employee.

About the only way out of it is unionization, individual negotiation, or the lawsuit process. Under Reagan, in our state, no case brought before the Labor Relations Board was won by anyone but management through the entire eight years, so that particular safeguard depends who's in.

The same with glass ceilings. And only a whiner would file a complaint, and only a troglodyte believes we still need unions.

This government has already acted to roll back overtime. Perhaps these rules will become less ridiculous shortly.

 

[sweetnpetite]

As a man, and a man who has preached equality for years, it's very hard to engage in productive discussion with someone who says that simply by virtue of my being a man, my arguments are worth less, and that everything I say is motivated by my dick.

I get the idea that you are refuring to me, because of what I said about men being 'fertile' all the time, vs. women being fertile only certain times of the month.

I did mean to say that men are simpler, and have simpler motivations in general than women. However, I did not mean to say that sex was your *only* motivation. Rather, I just meant to point out that while women's bodies urging us to seek to mate on a periodic basis, men's bodies are continually urging them. It's not just a matter of 'society teaches us that men should be studs and women should be dumure.' Men have a biological reason to be preocupied with sex most of the time just as women have a biological reason to be precupied with sex at certain times. This was meant to be in contrast that men think about sex just because they have 'dirty minds' or because they are 'dogs' or 'pigs' The ulitmate sexual satisfaction is pregnancy- in that the body has fulfilled its desire to procreate, and no longer has to try. Men never get that, their bodies don't get a break from the biological drive to mate like women's do, through pregnancy and through monthly cycles.

I also don't think that your oppinions or arguments are of any less worth because you are a man. If I did, I wouldn't have spent so much time arguing with you on the depression thread. I admit that i do have sexist attitudes. But I think that women are superior because of the things that only they can do. As to the things that we all can do- think, have oppinioins, play tennis or whatever else- superiority and inferiority are on a case by case basis. I have no doubt that you are a superior musician than I, for example. I don't think women are better at eveything than men or that there thoughts, feelings or opinions are worth more or more capable. In most things I think that men and women are equally capable and valuable, and should be given equal chance and opportunity.

I just also happen to think that our differences that have been traditionally regarded as 'weaknesses' or things that make us inferior, are actually our strenths- our greatest strengths and in fact, humankind's greatest strengths. This is far from traditional feminism as I have seen it, which seems to often agree with the idea that our *femaleness* is a weakness, and seeks more to compete with men as if we were men- to forgo children, to hide our beauty to downplay our sexuality, to prove that we can be just as 'balsy' 'cocky' or whatever as any man. (as if man were the standard that we all should measure ourselves against [well in a 'man's world' it is])

Women have a 'power' that is greater than what any man has, and that is over men. Most men know it and fear it. (Wanna insult a man, call him 'pussy whipped') But rather than being tought that our unique qualities are strengths, we have been tought to regard them as weaknesses or sins. IMO it is because men are pretty much terified that when we realize how much power we actually have, we really will 'pussy whip' them and they will be slaves to there every whim. There are probably only a handful of women who actually want that, but why take the chance. I have heard *men* say that if women only knew the power we had over them, we would rule the world. Well, if I were the 'ruling class' I sure wouldn't want that.

I could go on and on trying to expain why I think the things I do, but I'm sure that each word would probably offend you more rather than less. I admit that I have sexist attidudes, because I know that there are many women and feminists who definitley don't want to be lumped in the same group as me and I think it's only right to identify myself as different from them. It's not right for feminists to all be accused of being something they are not. I try to identify myself clearly, rather than having a 'women are superior' agenda while claiming that I believe something else. When I give my oppinion, you know were I am coming from. Just as I might discount your opinion because you are a man (which I don't do) you are free to discount my opinion because I am a self-avowed 'female supremisist.' Or on the other hand, you can listen to what I have to say and just take it with a grain of salt. The same way as if a sexual supmissive says, "i love it when he hits me, the harder the better' -- you know were that's coming from.

Like perdita mentioned- I should have just kept my more radical oppinions to myself. But they don't mean that I don't respect yours. And it doesn't mean that mine won't change from my conversations with you. I have learned a lot from people who disagree with me here, especially on the topic of my attitudes towards men. Despite the fact that my attitude is offputing, I don't believe that everything needs to be 'boys vs. girls' Which is another thing I see in the womans movement. I think we all need to learn to live, work and exist together.

Probably it just sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I can't help it, it's difficult to really explain yourself well on the internet. And it's really easy to say the wrong thing, and just make it worse. So I'm just going to end now by saying that you've always been one of my favorite posters, and I've always been very interested in what you have to say, because it's always been worth reading- not because or in spite of your gender. I hope that we can agree to disagree and still be friends.

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

I worked in a place which seemed to us to be doing it. All they did was define each job. The jobs with the women were defined a particular way, and another job held by a man defined another way. They were not actually quite identical, no. What is? But the pay and benefits packages differed according to what compensation went with each. That's not particularly clever, but it works. I believe it's widespread. It defeats equivalent pay rules with the burden of proving equivalency left for the employee.

About the only way out of it is unionization, individual negotiation, or the lawsuit process. Under Reagan, in our state, no case brought before the Labor Relations Board was won by anyone but management through the entire eight years, so that particular safeguard depends who's in.

The same with glass ceilings. And only a whiner would file a complaint, and only a troglodyte believes we still need unions.

This government has already acted to roll back overtime. Perhaps these rules will become less ridiculous shortly.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you. Neither was I trying to be insulting, I promise, but please don't quote something I said out of context, okay?

I agree. I'm sure it still does go on, but the reverse is also true. I've had to go to court I don't know how many times because someone that was legitmately fired, pulled the "race card." Race had nothing to do with it, but they sure took it to court anyway. One very large corporation I worked for actually settled because the whole thing dragged out so long it was costing them more in legal fees than it would to just settle and have it done with.

Don't get me started on unions. I have a degree specializing in Labor Relations. Unions were necessary, at one time, but they've outlived their usefulness. I'm not talking about skilled workers here, that's a whole 'nother story, but it seems just a tad crazy for someone who may not even have a high school diploma to make more money than me, when I have two university degrees, just because they belong to a union. What ever happened to being paid what you're worth?

Edited to add: I said what I did in the post above because I've been on the other side, and I know exactly how hard it is to comply with all the anti-discrimination laws. Not that I discriminated, but I had to be damn careful that no one even had the perception that I had, or my butt would have been hauled into court with no delay. Saying we have no working discrimination laws wasn't getting close to the issue. We have them - are they perfect? Of course not, but you'd better make sure you comply with them!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

I worked for a company who never had a female higher than store manager. Everyone knew that the owners had sexist attitudes. They broke other rules too

As someone who worked in management, and made the hiring/firing/promotion decisions, I can't believe you actually said that!

Do you have any idea how employers have to walk on eggs nowadays to avoid a discrimination lawsuit? The list of do's and don'ts is endless. I believe discrimination against women/men/whatever is wrong, but it's almost to the point of being ridiculous.

I've met with discrimination. I don't like it. But, it was a long time ago. It still happens, I'm sure, but an employer would have to be damn sneaky about it to get away with it.

 

[Ms_Kat]

I grew up Southern and Catholic, which is a pretty good helping of female subservience. I admit to trying to live up to that idealistic picture in my head. It almost put me on medication.

I don't remember a single event or book that made me a feminist, although sometimes I am ashamed at what is done in the name of that cause. I consider myself to be an egalitarian more than anything else. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated equally as a human being. It just shouldn't matter what color your skin is, how you talk, where you were born, or what sex organ is between your legs.

I am incredibly fortunate. I was able to marry a man who supported my decision to go to college and could pay for it, though it made things tight. In my career as a social worker, I have seen many women who live a life of humiliation and de facto slavery because they simply lack the resources to leave their husband and/or they refuse to leave their children behind.

Social work is one of the few areas where women have pay equity with men, but it is also a very underpaying job. It is also a job that has a high level of personal risk. Think about how much you would fight to keep your children from being removed from your house and consider that I've had to do it several dozen times. I've been threatened many times, a few times when weapons were immediately available.

I would love to see women reach pay equity with men, as well as finding their way through school at all levels is some equitable level. However, I also believe that if women want this type of equality, then they must also shoulder an equal responsibility for other areas as well. Even in office settings men are much more likely to be injured on the job because they are more likely to be asked to help move furniture or other heavy objects.

Women should be required to sign up for the selective service, and those who serve in the military should be forced to stand in combat situations and should not have favorable rotation schedules in the military. Equality should be in all areas, not just the ones that are pretty. There should be equal measures of physical fitness.

On the other hand, even in the military, women in general have newer and better quarters than men. This is not egalitarian.

I'll quit rambling now.


Hugs,



Kat

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

I worked for a company who never had a female higher than store manager. Everyone knew that the owners had sexist attitudes. They broke other rules too

No one had the guts to take them to court? Of course, I live in the state with the ridiculously high tort awards. People slap lawsuits on each other around here like they were calling cards.

Public corporations tend to be much stricter about compliance than others. More to lose, perhaps.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

No one had the guts to take them to court? Of course, I live in the state with the ridiculously high tort awards. People slap lawsuits on each other around here like they were calling cards.

Public corporations tend to be much stricter about compliance than others. More to lose, perhaps.

People don't sue much here- although they like to threaten to.

Your probably right about the public corporations thing. IN adition to having more to loose they are more- um, well, public!

I didn't mean to end my post there , my keyboard locked up and I had to log off and back on again. Most people around here don't think they could really win against a company, any way. At least mmost people i know.

Anyway, they don't even have the posters up that they are required to post- the minimum wage poster and such. They might have them in some stores, but they never had one in the one I worked for.

As to the sexism and so forth, I think they protect themselves by having an 'unwritten policy' and most people around here just have a 'that's just the way it is' mentality. Anyone actually suing for social change in these parts would probably be considered a real crusader. (and this isn't an entirely apolitical area either, just not so much as a sue happy one, marching on the state capital is much prefered.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Of course they have newer facilities- they haven't been in as long. And the military isn't going to build all new facilities for the men until they have a need for new facilities. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of inequality in the military that goes both ways. (sometimes for and sometimes against) Personally, I think not being trained for combat is *against* since any woman in the millitary might find herself in a combat situation, regardless of the intent- it is far better than she should be trained than for her to be unprepared.

On the other hand, even in the military, women in general have newer and better quarters than men. This is not egalitarian.

I'll quit rambling now.


Hugs,



Kat

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

People don't sue much here- although they like to threaten to.

Your probably right about the public corporations thing. IN adition to having more to loose they are more- um, well, public!

I didn't mean to end my post there , my keyboard locked up and I had to log off and back on again. Most people around here don't think they could really win against a company, any way. At least mmost people i know.

Anyway, they don't even have the posters up that they are required to post- the minimum wage poster and such. They might have them in some stores, but they never had one in the one I worked for.

As to the sexism and so forth, I think they protect themselves by having an 'unwritten policy' and most people around here just have a 'that's just the way it is' mentality. Anyone actually suing for social change in these parts would probably be considered a real crusader. (and this isn't an entirely apolitical area either, just not so much as a sue happy one, marching on the state capital is much prefered.)

All it would take, sweet, is one person with rock solid statistics, and that company would find itself in serious trouble. Labor law is not to be played with, and the fines are gigantic. In most instances each problem with compliance is double the first, i.e. with the I-9 form. Make a mistake on it, and it costs the company $1000, make a second mistake, the fine is $2000, added to the first fine, and so on. It increases exponentially and can wind up costing a company a huge amount in fines in a very short length of time....one badly filled out I-9, for example.

 

[cantdog]

Everyone always sounds angrier than they intend to.

I believe your every word, Cloudy. Picking a fight is the furthest thing from my intent. I can't listen supinely to the word that they've outlived their usefulness, though.

I worked in city government, as a firefighter. We had no right to strike, no right to work actions, no right even to binding arbitration. It was collective begging. But ordinarily we were able to secure a contract. Once you have one, contract law is a formidable ally and we were very fortunate year in and year out that we did in fact have one.

I handled grievances for many years, and never got a promotion, consequently, for twenty years, despite teaching credentials and a degree in fire science, and a lot of responsibility training people.

But I would make the same choice again. I am a middle class boy, my parents were teachers and my grandfathers government officials. I left the fire service and was able to live well, but no such cushion existed for the men I worked with. These men were high school grads, most of them, and in a dangerous job working for fools promoted out of nepotism and for having done favors for people in positions of influence.

City government, even in this little burg, is a corrupt and foul work environment. Incompetent leadership was the rule, and these men needed someone who could defend them. Even without any leverage, as I say.

We needed a union every day. Our pay diminished year by year because we could do nothing but slow that process down, but our negotiations seldom hinged on pay issues, but on safety ones. We risked our asses by definition, but there were a lot of sloppy, incompetent, unnecessary-- but constant-- threats from the way the city handled things.

I tell you these people would do anything you couldn't stop them from doing. Slimy stuff, deals with slumlords and people trying to duck out of safety regulations.

Unions are the only friend a working man has. Ours never had any money; we gave our time free to defend these guys and to carry on with negotiations stalled for years sometimes. We helped them because they were us. All the union money went to the labor lawyers we hired. We helped with school, too.

The pay rate declined every year, in real terms. I believe they still risk their health and lives for around eleven or twelve dollars an hour. I hope you do better than that, because they too ought to have been able to.

I feel the way I do about unions because of my experiences, just as you, dealing with bureaucrats, can speak on a case-by-case basis about the way a decent intention, to stop discrimination, became a silly, frustrating mass of actions having little to do with that. I sympathize. I promise not to doubt your story if you will give mine some thought. Let us not poke sticks at one another again.

with respect

cantdog

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gender issues

All it would take, sweet, is one person with rock solid statistics, and that company would find itself in serious trouble. Labor law is not to be played with, and the fines are gigantic. In most instances each problem with compliance is double the first, i.e. with the I-9 form. Make a mistake on it, and it costs the company $1000, make a second mistake, the fine is $2000, added to the first fine, and so on. It increases exponentially and can wind up costing a company a huge amount in fines in a very short length of time....one badly filled out I-9, for example.

They are big enough that the rules apply, but small enough for it to look like 'coincidence' that no woman had been promoted. Also, you'd have to show that their was a woman who worked for them who was qualified, and wanted the job (It sure ain't me!) who had been discriminated against. Everyone acts like this stupid place has so much power, like if you cross them they will destroy you. I don't know if they have that kind of power- I doubt it, but being on the low end of the foodchain, people don't like to make themselves known as "troublemakers." Plus everyone knows for sure that they can afford more/better attorneys than the rest of us. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure any one really cares. Certainly not to the point of doing anything about it. And so it continues.

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and so on

They are big enough that the rules apply, but small enough for it to look like 'coincidence' that no woman had been promoted. Also, you'd have to show that their was a woman who worked for them who was qualified, and wanted the job (It sure ain't me!) who had been discriminated against. Everyone acts like this stupid place has so much power, like if you cross them they will destroy you. I don't know if they have that kind of power- I doubt it, but being on the low end of the foodchain, people don't like to make themselves known as "troublemakers." Plus everyone knows for sure that they can afford more/better attorneys than the rest of us. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure any one really cares. Certainly not to the point of doing anything about it. And so it continues.

Sounds like possibly a union might be just the thing. IMHO.

cantdog

 

[magichandslee]

Hello.

When fresh out of College I worked with a legal firm. I was passed over not by men, but by other women with breasts and pretty hair.

Oh, how some nights I wished for breasts.

But in time, truth came out, and I was finally promoted. Management realized who did all the work, I think. There was no union to help or protect me, before or after.

I also knew what part of the job entailed. I am not proud of that but it is true.

After my second education, I went into medical. Some men will not accept me as their doctor. Oddly, some women will not, also. But I see that improving. Sexism? Feminism? It used to anger me, now I just say, "Next case."

I do not know the answers, taking advantage of others or rejecting them without chance seems to be more normal than not.

I do know it hurts to be passed over because one lacks beauty. But then sometimes I saw the expectations, and was grateful.

Lee