Isn't Equality Ultimately in Women's best Interests?

Sounds like a bullsh** line. Let me guess, it didn’t pay well.

 

All correct. The only thing missing is your proof that my disagreeing with you on a political forum constitutes "cyber stalking" and isn't just the whining of an Omega male.

It's not my fault your picture is linked to something sad. Prove it's my fault.

http://thepopularman.com/omega-male-traits-and-characteristics/
Omega males are the last place according to the terms of society (socially, at least). They typically lack drive to succeed in mainstream ways and instead go their own way.

An omega male might not know the line between appropriate and inappropriate or ignores it. Omega males lack common social skills and have an inability to read social cues in others (or don’t care).

If the conversation turns really creepy and awkward very quickly, it’s likely an omega male. In fact, the word creepy is often used of omega males.

The omega personality can’t pick up when someone is getting uncomfortable with them, and they don’t know how to adjust their approach to others, so they may violate body space, stare excessively, and so forth.

 

You CHOSE to become a teacher. That was YOUR CHOICE. You were not forced to become a teacher. You could have studied something else. You are not a victim.

 

An excellent point that cuts both ways. It's not any woman's fault that you are what you are. It's no one's fault but your own. "YOUR CHOICE." "You are not a victim."

 

There are too many people in line to become teachers. No one is going to pay more when there are many others in line who will do the job for less. Thats capitalism. Capitalism doesnt care how important your job is. Capitalism only cares about supply and demandand the supply of teachers is high.

 

Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying are crimes.

"""Third degree felony can result in incarceration for up to ten years. In most states, if a defendant combines the threat with some actual harm to a victim, then the range of punishment and charges could be even higher. Aggravating circumstances significantly impact a defendant’s punishment range.

 

Yes they are. Are you guilty of these crimes? Do you plan on turning yourself in to the Washington State Police?

 

As I said I am old and I did not have the options women have today. It was white male affirmative-action. An example was in New York City boys needed an 88 average to get in to the city colleges and girls needed a 91. The best science high schools , Stuyvesant and Brooklyn Tech excluded girls
You don’t understand the psyche of the past where girls were programmed into one group and boys into another. When I explain to my students how I couldn’t apply to the science high schools they said, “you must have been so angry"..I had to explain to them that I wasn’t angry because my consciousness wasn’t raised.thats the way it was !

 

you happen to be wrong. I work with the new teachers all over the country and one of the biggest complaints is they cannot find good teachers. The best leave sue to the lack of respect for the profession as you illustrate You seem to be defending paying the people less for the most important job without realizing that under paying people pushes them out of a profession that we need them in.

 

I am not avocating for low pay. I am saying that there are many causes for the low pay and the fact that it is a female dominated career path is low on the list of reasons for the low pay.

 

One of the reasons, IMO, is a general social low value of education. Sure, we give a lot of lip-service to it, but don't want to pay for it. Texas is pretty good. It's not just the pay, but the pay compared to the cost of living. Texas is good on both: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/the-5-highest-and-lowest-paying-states-for-teachers-in-the-us.html

http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/

 

The median pay for a teacher in $56k about using the NEA numbers from a few years ago and I assume if one hold a degree and is experienced which isn't a poor income for a bachelors degree holder which seems to me a fair wage and if your spending out of pocket then its your problem to give kids things and if you do work outside of class then fight for more pay for overtime if you want pay for that, you have a union don't you?

But you chose that career which has good benefits and the pay and job security, if you took risks to be a petroleum engineer or something you might have earned more.

 

And that is just what great potential teachers are doing....they’re going into other less rewarding professions.
Why would it take a risk to be an engineer? I wouldn’t want to be one. The risk I took was getting into education and fighting for change.

Yep, just a coincidence that teaching, secretary, nursing , social work were lowly paid and just happen to be female dominated. But now because of the woman’s movement, women are going into professions that pay a lot more . In my day I didn’t have options but my daughter and other young women have options. When my husband worked on Wall Street the only women you saw there were secretaries and now you see traders etc. the median pay you speak of is usually after 10years and with a masters. Teachers should make certainly as much as other professionals
My son-in-law would be an amazing teacher but he went into engineering because he makes triple what he would’ve made as a teacher...And that is happening more and more. Teaching was predominantly women and you got the best and brightest because they had fewer options. Now the best and brightest are going into professions that pay them well

 

What are the reasons? I guess it’s just a coincidence that women dominated professions are the lowest paid

 

The biggest hole in your argument there is male victims of DV largely don't report their attacks.

 

Just because a profession doesn't pay a lot doesn't mean it's easier. Being a teacher is one of the hardest jobs and is severely underpaid... because for a long time it was ok to pay women crap wages, and teaching was a woman's job. If men had run the classroom 100 years ago I'm sure teachers would make a lot more than they do now.

 

Because they'll be seen as weak, spineless Omega males. While I agree in part, I also think, due to biological differences, men are more often the aggressor. A reason to consider why more men make better soldiers, on average, than women. That doesn't mean some women can't do the job, just that, on average, most can't. It does work both ways. The feminists can't have it both ways.

 

Do any of you have any other evidence other than Ad Hominem and anecdotes because this debate seems to be really one sided?

I back up my opinions with evidence from studies in scientific and legal journals and what I get in return is Ad Hominem and anecdotes?

 

Links? Because I saw none in your OP nor several posts after.

You know, a link like I provided about Omega males.

 

A movement that just promotes one gender or one race is by it's very definition not an equality movement.

Equalitarians promote both genders and every race one no more important than another. That is an equality movement.

 

May graduates working in coffee shops and doing retail would likely enjoy $50k a year plus, job security, a pension, health care plan that is decent and even minus the re-certification classes is still a good profession for men and women compared to some with more risk and right now an education degree is very much in demand and can't be outsources as a skill set so your lucky.

Its odd if its such a bad job how come people fight so hard when they might get fired and the union makes firing teachers difficult unless they did some horrible thing.

And it isn't an easy profession but its not horribly paying considering everything.

 

You are a troll looking for anyone to pay attention to you to feel relevant, but you are irrelevant, and have no argument

Bye.

 

Translation: No, I have not links, just opinion.

Your choice, kid.

Here's a link: http://www.apa.org/research/action/boss.aspx
When the Boss is a Woman
Men and women are equally effective in settings that match gender roles.

What the Research Shows
Since women began to climb the management ladder, pundits have asked if they have what it takes to lead groups and organizations. The answer isn't as simple as yes or no. According to the research, while men and women are equally effective in some settings, more often effectiveness depends on the fit between the setting and management gender. For example, women's typically more mentoring, coaching style is more favorably received in female-dominated professions; men's more typically "command and control" style is well received in male-dominated professions.

Thus, all things being equal, men and women are equally effective. But given varied work settings and a workplace whose top managers are still more likely to be male, all things rarely are equal. For example, women are slightly more likely to be "transformational" leaders, serving as role models, helping employees develop their skills, and motivating them to be dedicated and creative. That approach may actually be more effective in today's less hierarchical organizations. But not all workplaces are alike: The participatory style may backfire in traditional male settings such as the military or organized sports. Conversely, the command-and-control style more typical of men may backfire in a social-service agency or retail outlet.

Studies published during the past decade underscore these complexities. A 1995 review by Alice Eagly, PhD, Steven Karau, PhD and Mona Makhijani, PhD, of more than 80 different studies found that when aggregated over the organizational and laboratory experimental studies in the sample, male and female leaders were equally effective. The leaders or managers assessed in the studies were typically first-level or first-line supervisors, with a strong minority of studies looking at mid-level managers or managers of mixed or unknown levels.

At the same time, the analysis revealed that women were more effective leaders in female-dominated or female-oriented settings, and that men were more effective leaders in male-dominated or male-oriented settings. Thus working in a leadership role congruent with one's gender appears to make one more effective -- or at least perceived as being more effective.

To address the question of whether men and women have different management styles, Eagly and Johnson conducted a 1990 review of leadership studies. Interestingly, although lab studies of management styles showed women to be both interpersonally oriented and democratic and men to be both task-oriented and autocratic, field studies found a difference on only one of those dimensions: The women were more democratic, encouraging participation, and the men were more autocratic, directing performance.

A 2003 meta-analysis extended those findings, showing that women were slightly more likely than men to have the transformational leadership style, in which the manager acts more like a good teacher or coach and encourages creative solutions to problems. Research shows that such a style may be especially suited to the contemporary workplace. Women also appeared to reward good performance more than men, a very positive part of transactional leadership. Men were more likely to criticize subordinates and be less hands-on, styles found to be ineffective.

Despite these trends, psychologists caution against concluding that women or men have some sort of natural or innate management style. It's entirely possible that women, knowing how poorly people have responded to "bossy" women, soften their approach. What's more, the research shows only averages, or tendencies, for each sex. Some men will have more "feminine" management styles; some women will have more "masculine" management styles.

Research in the Workplace
Eagly notes that in U.S. organizations overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one of four chief executives is now a woman, "an enormous social change," she notes. Yet many of these women are at the top because they run their own small business. Sandy Shullman, PhD, a psychologist and management consultant who helps major corporations retain women in leadership positions, says that women still hold only about one out of 20 top-management positions in high-profile Fortune 500 corporations - only slightly higher than 20 years ago. Partly, she says that's because as people move up, the pyramid narrows. If women aren't groomed or selected for these top jobs -- despite the evidence of their effectiveness -- they start to fall off the ladder quicker relative to the larger numbers of men.

Also, in those bigger companies, men gain operations experience earlier in their careers, thus qualifying more for top jobs. Still, once decision-makers know that women can manage as effectively as men, it's hoped that they'll give more women greater responsibilities. Psychologists such as Eagly note a vicious cycle: If bias against women as managers restricts women's access to higher management positions, they're shut out from the chance to demonstrate their ability to handle line responsibility and further build their leadership skills.

At the same time, women aspiring to management may consider their sex and their behavioral style in light of where they work. They may get a more positive appraisal in sectors typically populated by women, but if they work in the many areas dominated by men, adapting their style to the more command-and-control approach may help them fit in. Similarly, men taking management jobs in women-oriented industries may tap the interpersonal skills traditionally associated with women in order to be seen as more effective.

Shullman notes the value of this research in helping aspiring women understand why they may feel as if they don't "fit in" as they climb the ladder - it may be due to a mixture of individual and contextual variables that is still being studied.

Eagly's advice is to mind the power of perception. She says that even though the research found some differences in management style, "the sex differences are small because the leader role itself carries a lot of weight in determining people's behavior." She concludes that women are in some senses better leaders than men but suffer the disadvantage of leadership roles having a masculine image, especially in some settings and at higher levels. Stripping organizational leadership of its masculine aura would allow psychologists to get a clearer picture of any true differences between men and women.

Researchers are especially interested in the question of whether a management style more associated with women - a less authoritarian, more nurturing approach - will "click" as the workplace generally shifts to more team-oriented structures that thrive under a less directive approach. In the meantime, both women and men would do well to remember that gender-based bias can help or hinder not only themselves personally, but their organization as well. Dismissing any candidate on the basis of sex, given the findings of overall equal effectiveness, not only denies opportunity to talented individuals but also dries up the management talent pool.

 

...and most Democrats voted against the 19th amendment( women's right to vote) while the majority of republicans voted for women's right to vote.