|
Post by valentine on Apr 24, 2006 11:50:46 GMT -5
I was wondering what the esteemed board members (of all creeds) think about this. To open up the discussion, I'm going to ask some questions from my Psychology of Gender class and see where that takes us. Please answer as many or as few as you would like. Keep in mind that all of these questions are for ALL members, gender notwithstanding. Everyone is welcome!
How has your life been impacted by the gender that you are?
Have you felt certain advantages, disadvantages, privileges, discrimination or limitations?
Do you think gender is mainly due to biology or culture?
Do other demographic variables interact with your gender to significantly affect your life? (example: sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, etc)
Do you think gender relations are getting better or worse? How so?
How do you perceive the term "feminist" and do you consider yourself a feminist? Why or why not?
And this one is my own, to tie it in with this board a bit better:
How do you feel that the concept of feminism fits in with your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?
Looking forward to your responses! Remember, all members may answer--this is NOT just for the ladies!
|
|
|
Post by ian2400 on Apr 24, 2006 12:53:58 GMT -5
Couldn't say for sure. Probably not much.
Very few. I had good parents.
Both, one can never say fully nature or fully nurture in this regard.
Depends on what part of the world you are in.
I would say better.
Feminism is okay, but I personally feel most feminists want to be treated BETTER than men, not equal. I frown on this as much as I do on chovanism.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 24, 2006 14:21:59 GMT -5
I have no problem with a feminist so long as she is quite, meek, servant-hearted, and submits to her husband.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 14:34:00 GMT -5
How has your life been impacted by the gender that you are? Yes it has. I imagine that it would be quite different were I female. It would be different in the way I developed, the friends I made, the experiences I had. That one's a bit harder to answer. I think that I may have had some advantages because I was male. I think that perhaps the poltical activism and community involvement that I did in High School, the stuff that led to my first professional internship, might have been looked upon differently were I female. I would like to add a corollary to Valentine's question at this point. Please feel free to answer it as well. How was your life impacted because of certain expectations that your gender was supposed to uphold?My life was definitely impacted in this regard. I grew up in rural north Georgia, it was expected that I hunt and fish, that I shoot skeets and brag about which my favorite caliber of weapon was, I was expected to play sports, and drive a pick-up truck. All of these things were detestable to me. Sure, I hunted. I never liked the idea of hunting though. For me the only redeeming value in hunting was watching the sun rise over the beautiful deciduous forests south of Dahlonega. Sure, I fished. I didn't much like that either. It did give me ample opportunities to commune with nature though. I have seen some of the most beautiful mountain trout streams in the Southeast. Sure, I shot skeets. I got pretty good at it, but I felt like it was a waste of money. Plus it bruised my shoulders and damaged my hearing. I never bragged about what my favorite caliber was, although I imagine that I responded when asked that I mostly shot a thirty-ought-six. I did play some sports, mainly rec soccer after school. I never really got into it though. For me it was a way to be on the field getting rid of my energy and forgetting the problems I faced at school. I don't drive a pick-up truck, and never have. When I got to high school, I joined the fine arts program in the form of marching band. This along with my dedication to the Boy Scouts' outdoor programming gave me an excuse to stop hunting--I simply did not have time. I am afraid that I always disappointed my father. He is an avid outdoorsman. He loves hunting and fishing, he loves guns, he even used to coach baseball. In high school, he was a wresler. Because I would rather read than hunt, because I would rather draw than fish, because I would rather be myself instead of a hollow stereotype, I was ostracised. I was called names. Chiefly among those were gay, fag, and queer. I'm not particularly effiminate, but I wouldn't care if I was. What is important is that I be myself, but in so doing, I don't fit the "male stereotype." This has created a lot of heartache in my life. That's mostly over now, though. I understand that it's ok not to hunt and fish, I understand that it is ok to read books and attempt to find an ample form of expression. I think it is a combination of both. However, I think that society has a much larger influence on the concept of gender (as differentiated from biological sex). I'm not sure I completely understand the question. If you mean do I think that homosexuality affects the amount to which gender discrimination occurs, I would say that it does. Gay men are seen as having given up their male priviledge, whereas lesbians are often times seen as trying to claim some sort of authority that women are not supposed to have. I think that they are improving, but they are still far from equal. The fact that people on this board have derided the equal treatment of women, and called feminism feminazism is indicative of the fact that women are still "out of their place." Yes. I am a feminist. I believe that all people, whether male, female, androgonous, or transgendered, should be treated equally as individuals, not as a gender. I don't have religious beliefs. But I do believe in the inherent worth of all people. Women are just as capable as men of doing whatever their heart is contented to do. If anyone argues otherwise, they will have shown their cards. Maybe not all women were cut out to be lumberjacks, but I wasn't either. That doesn't mean that a woman who chooses to be a lumberjack will do any less of a job than a man. In our society, women are making strides in all areas and fields. They are doing good work, wherever they go. There still is a glass ceiling, however, and that is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on Apr 24, 2006 17:12:12 GMT -5
I have no problem with a feminist so long as she is quite, meek, servant-hearted, and submits to her husband. haha. feminism, according to wikipedia dot org is: Feminism is a diverse, competing, and often opposing collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women. Most feminists are especially concerned with social, political, and economic inequality between men and women; some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman," are socially constructed. Feminists differ over the sources of inequality, how to attain equality, and the extent to which gender and sexual identities should be questioned and critiqued. Thus, as with any ideology, political movement or philosophy, there is no single, universal form of feminism that represents all feminists. jesse's idea of a perfect female is someone who will submit to him? yikes!
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 24, 2006 23:12:12 GMT -5
Feminism, according to the world, implies there is inequality and therefore something is amuck. The Bible never speaks of the inequality of men and women, but it clearly teaches differing roles for men and women. I mentioned this in another thread, but will repeat for here:
Jesus was God's Son, but equal with God in all respects (power, divinity, sinlessness, etc.) He was in no way less than God. Yet, He took on the role of Son and throughout the Gospels is recorded as saying "My father's will" "I do what my Father wants" etc. He willingly submitted Himself to the Father. Never was He less in value or character or power. But His role as Son required submission. It was a role.
Same with men and women (specifically marriage) women are of no less value or worth or ability than men, either in the sight of God or in worldly expressions. Yet, God commanded women to submit to their husbands, women not to have authority over a man, etc. Why? Differing ROLES. Same with ranks of angels, differing roles. Different jobs. Different gifts. Different things to do. Women have an enormous amount of influence over men, we see this time and again in scripture. God certainly made us this way. Yet this "power" of influence over men is to be used for God's glory. He buffets it by submission. Boundaries. Restraint. THat is the meek, quiet (in the sense of not falling into sin through the sins of the tongue as women do - gossip, slander, etc.) and submissive.
I would not want the role of a man for anything. They have to answer for their wives spiritually and give an account for them. Even if the wife is in sin on her own will. Adam had ot asnwer for Eve even though Eve sinned apart from Adam. Sin entered the world through ADAM not Eve. Ever wonder why that was?
So rejoice and be glad God made you a woman (if you are a woman) and pray for a godly husband who will follow the Lord so you can follow his lead in faith and with joy.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 25, 2006 8:35:12 GMT -5
The Bible never speaks of the inequality of men and women, but it clearly teaches differing roles for men and women. I'll give you that point, but.... Societies have taken those "roles" and subverted them. They have made Womyn less valuable (at least in Western Societies). In America Womyn still make $0.75 to every $1 a Man earns. Also, Women are more likely to be passed up for raises and promotions. The reason being that Womyn are still forced into the "role" of homemaker. We are supposed to take care of the children, cook, clean, and all that other jazz. The stereotypes of the 1950's perfect Woman still apply today. I acknowledge that I am generalizing and that not all couples hold to these roles. To go back to my point about Western Societies: Most African Cultures revere Womyn and have a special place for them. Many Westerners look at certain practices, like the Bride Price, and scream "THOSE POOR WOMYN ARE BEING TREATED HORRIBLY!! THEY'RE NOTHING BUT PROPERTY!!!" And they would be wrong. The Bride Price is a custom that acknowledges the value of Womyn. The groom must pay the bride's family for the loss of her income. Womyn still do most of the work, but they are respected for it. I'm going to stop before I turn into a Femi-Nazi. If you're really curious about Womyn in African Cultures, read Ake: The Years of Childhood by Wole Soyinka. He has some great insights into Igbo Culture. On that note, if you have ever read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, please ignore everything it said about Womyn (which isn't much).
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 10:00:08 GMT -5
well, sounds like you agree that the problem then lies with society, not the Bible, God, or Christians and how they view the roles. Feminism has come about as a result of society perverting what God intended. Yet, society blames God, the Bible and Christians. Interesting how that works.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 25, 2006 16:30:32 GMT -5
Well, I've finally got a second to respond to my own thread! But the first thing I'd like to do is give the people who have posted against feminism (and the ones who may be reading this who do not consider themselves feminists) a small assignment. Would you please look up the definition of the word "feminism" in your favorite dictionary? If you do not have one available, might I provide this link: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminismMy task for you is simply this: 1. Read that definition. 2. Come back and tell me that you are still not a feminist. This word has been twisted by more people than I care to recall. It's got an awful stigma that is hurting those who actually do care about equality, and that makes me very sad--because the answers I've seen here indicate the same pattern that I see in my own life. It's almost become a curse word. I wholeheartedly suggest that everyone go read that definition. I made the same mistake--I even wrote an essay when I was fifteen explaining why I wasn't a feminist. Yes, you heard right. After I got some more information, I was horrified that I had ever said such things. Of course, there's always the chance that you will look up "feminism" and remain unconvinced that you are one. In which case, I'm sorry if this sounds curt, but I am appalled. Now, to answer my own questions... How has your life been impacted by the gender that you are?Vividly. Being female shaped so many of my past experiences and will continue to shape them for the rest of my life. It's all about perspective--gender one of many variables. My life would not be the same if I had been born a man. Having always been a woman, I cannot say if it would be better or worse, but it would most certainly have been different. Have you felt certain advantages, disadvantages, privileges, discrimination or limitations?I have. Namely, gender discrimination at my job. I have been blackmailed, threatened, lynched, cheated out of paychecks, had my paycheck given to a man, ...and this did not stop until my father threatened to report my employers. Guess where I worked? A children's swim team. Also, in restaurants, I often won't be waited on or seated if I am with my mother and sister, but if my father is with us, the service is much better. This is most likely because of the belief that men make more money and will therefore tip more. I've even seen all-male parties seated before me! By the way, the last time that happened, we lectured the hostess, left the restaurant, and never returned. I've definitely felt advantages, too, though I'm not necessarily proud of them. I've sobbed my way out of a failing test grade before because my high school Chemistry teacher didn't like to see girls cry. I've been given lighter duties than my male friends, especially when physical labor is involved, and I had a lower physical fitness standard to meet than my male classmates (for the record, I could pass the male standard on all but the flexibility category, and I'm just not flexible--couldn't pass the female one, either). So yeah, lots of different treatment, but mostly on the negative end. Do you think gender is mainly due to biology or culture?Gender is completely cultural. This is a definitional thing. "Sex" refers to characteristics and identity rooted in biology. "Gender" refers to characteristics that have been shaped by social and cultural forces. Got ya. Now, if the question was "does sex or gender have a greater impact on one's identity?" I'd have to say it's definitely both, but probably a bit more gender. Lots of studies I remember reading have indicated that it plays a really strong role: parental/societal expectations can really shape a child's conception of their identity. Also, you have to look at the fact that different cultures express their attitudes on gender in drastically different ways: if it was mostly on the sex side of the equation, I think the expression would be more uniform. Do other demographic variables interact with your gender to significantly affect your life?Do I get treated differently because I'm a rich, southern, white chick? You bet. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it fair, but I've seen it. Actually, from my reading on the subject the gender roles among the upper class are even more starkly defined. This is probably due to the fact that these households are less likely to have both parents working out of financial necessity. Do you think gender relations are getting better or worse? How so? They are improving, but as Trekker said, the glass ceiling is still way unacceptable. Also, I'd like to point out that the ERA has still not been passed. That is a little bit scary. How do you perceive the term "feminist" and do you consider yourself a feminist? Why or why not? For the first part of this question, please see my definition link at the top of this post. Yes, I am a feminist. What is it? I'll let Rebecca West answer that one: "I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat"
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 21:46:44 GMT -5
fem·i·nism Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organized around this belief.
I do believe in equality as long as it does not infringe on the Biblical teaching of the proper roles of men and women. Example would be I don't think a woman should ever be President because she would then have decision making authority over a man. So, I guess that means I don't believe in political equality of men and women? And, I don't think there are certain jobs that women should do because they are women, so, I guess that means I don't think women should have equal social standing either? So, I guess I am not a feminist. I look at equality where it counts most: in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of man.
Main Entry: fem·i·nism Function: noun : the presence of female characteristics in males
I DEFINATELY do not agree with this definition of feminism as it is in DIRECT CONFLICT with scripture teachings of men not dressing, or acting like women. (and vice versa)
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
feminism
n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women [syn: feminist movement, women's liberation movement, women's lib]
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 25, 2006 22:15:39 GMT -5
"UN experience shows that in the hands of women, food aid is far more likely to reach the mouths of hungry children. So when it comes to food aid, women are at the top of the food agency's priority list."--BBC News
This was from an article about fighting hunger in Haiti. Something to think about when you say Men should have all power over Womyn.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 10:49:22 GMT -5
elwing - I don't see how that comment falls in line with anything we are discussing here. Passing out food has nothing to do with power or authority. THat is simply service to others, and of course women can do that. I am talking strictly of anything, any role that places a woman IN AUTHORITY over a man, in any setting, where she is the one dictating the decisions and outcomes. That is unbiblical. She is also not to teach a man spiritually in the church, but she can share insight. I do that on this board with men, but I never presume to take on the role of a teacher here....even though Jesse is 21 and I am 34 and older than he is, he is still a man and I am NOT to teach him. Now, if the Lord teaches him through something I have said, that is different. Because teaching in the church is a role of authority.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 26, 2006 11:05:04 GMT -5
Example would be I don't think a woman should ever be President because she would then have decision making authority over a man. So, I guess that means I don't believe in political equality of men and women? And, I don't think there are certain jobs that women should do because they are women, so, I guess that means I don't think women should have equal social standing either? Wow. I...have nothing to say to that. That seriously may be one of the most frightening things I've heard on this board. What jobs, pray tell, should a woman not be able to do if she so desires? I'm pre-law. Is that okay? ...'cos I'm gonna do it anyway. On the president issue, I have some things to tell you. When I was coaching, I spent one year as an assistant working for a guy who was six years older than me. We didn't get along incredibly well and neither of us liked to take direction, so after that year I went looking for leadership positions. This was much more to my skills and personality. I was the head coach of a different team for two years--and if I might say so, I did a fantastic job. My first assistant was a teenage boy two years younger than me. The next year, my -assistant (stupid filter) was a man who was three years my senior. Yes, I was the boss in both cases. I told them what to do, emailed them workout plans and made sure they implemented them properly, supervised and directed--and told them what was up if they ever did something I didn't like. Problems? Should I have let Steve and Jason run the show because they have p-e-n-i-s-e-s, even if I was vastly more qualified and neither of them had ever run a swim team before? They were both nice guys, but neither had very good organization or leadership skills, and were quite uncomfortable with being in charge. They had swimming backgrounds but no experience with summer team or how to approach it, what the rules were, how to deal with the kids (it's different than the year around programs, very different). My strength is leading others, I had thirteen years experience with this specific program, I'd coached before and I knew the environment. What should I have done? What would you have done? Just found another, male coach? I've been told (by people in authority--this is not just me shooting off my mouth) that I was the best candidate in my county of my age group, gender notwithstanding. Can you see a reason why I shouldn't have had the position? With that in mind, should we just take this further and say that I shouldn't have had "power" over my male swimmers? There were some who were my age; my first year, there were a few who were even older than I was! Should I have handed them my whistle and let them run the practice as they wished? 'Cos, you know, my swimmers knew everything there was to know about life-saving skills, swimming and discipline. It's not like they needed a trained lifeguard who happened to be female to make sure they were being safe or anything. Please. It's about your merit and skills, not what sexual organs you were born with.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 26, 2006 20:31:29 GMT -5
elwing - I don't see how that comment falls in line with anything we are discussing here. Passing out food has nothing to do with power or authority. THat is simply service to others, and of course women can do that. I am talking strictly of anything, any role that places a woman IN AUTHORITY over a man, in any setting, where she is the one dictating the decisions and outcomes. That is unbiblical. She is also not to teach a man spiritually in the church, but she can share insight. I do that on this board with men, but I never presume to take on the role of a teacher here....even though Jesse is 21 and I am 34 and older than he is, he is still a man and I am NOT to teach him. Now, if the Lord teaches him through something I have said, that is different. Because teaching in the church is a role of authority. Actually, the quote has a lot to do with what we're talking about. Womyn have been given the AUTHORITY to give the food out. The men in the region cannot be trusted to take care of it. To the Haitian people, giving out food IS NOT A SERVICE. It is a necessity. Food here could be paralleled to money. The women are in charge of the "money." They are being given the POWER AND AUTHORITY to PROVIDE for their families. Biblically, isn't that a man's role? Ok, so I, as a female, can't teach. When the Bible was written, all schooling was accociated with religion. So are all the Womyn working in the schools today heathens going to Hell because they are teaching mixed classrooms? Are you saying that I should not go into my chosen profession for fear of having to teach a man something? Alright, let's get away from the scholastic arena of teaching. What about all those loving mothers who teach Sunday School? Are they allowed to teach the little boys, or only the girls since they are "still [men]"?
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 26, 2006 22:58:19 GMT -5
Example would be I don't think a woman should ever be President because she would then have decision making authority over a man. Actually, I could go for a Margaret Thatcher type as prez. Don't see any woman or man, for that matter, worth a hoot for president right now.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 23:24:06 GMT -5
I said what the Bible says about the roles of men and women. If you desire to please God, you will have to seek His Word for clarification on this subject, because that alone, and not my words, will end all of your concerns. Of course there are areas that don't apply to the teaching, I said it meant "in the church"..so that does not mean the home, or the school. And I said MEN, not boys.
But I am not going to give a long laundry list of what's OK and not, that is what the Bible is for. Discernment, discernment, discernment. But honestly, if you guys aren't believers, then nothing in the Bible will make sense to you anyway because it is spiritually discerned. God said that, in His Word, not me. Go check it out for yourselves if you don't believe me: 1Co 2:13-14 "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Let me save us all some time here: Your greatest need is not to understand why God created differing roles for men and women, and what that means for women today. Your greatest need is to be saved from hell. So until you admit that you are a sinner, confess to God, and repent, you won't understand anything I try to explain spiritually anyway. THAT is also from the Bible, not me. So if that angers you, then take it up with God. He wrote it first. And if it angers then, then you should know He wrote something about that as well, (God covers all the bases) that to those who are perishing we are the smell of death, 2 Corinthians 2:15-17, and also 1 Corinthians 1:18
So, if the truth stinks to you, then you must be perishing, according the the Bible. If something about all these discussions, not just this thread, is pricking your conscience and you are wondering about things, then praise God! He just might be working on you and you are not unable to understand, because He will reveal His truth to you.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 26, 2006 23:44:52 GMT -5
I said what the Bible says about the roles of men and women. If you desire to please God, you will have to seek His Word for clarification on this subject, because that alone, and not my words, will end all of your concerns. Of course there are areas that don't apply to the teaching, I said it meant "in the church"..so that does not mean the home, or the school. And I said MEN, not boys. But you didn't answer any of my questions about my -assistants (filter, argh)--and my situation seemed an awful lot like what you were saying about you and Jesse. So my question to you would be, I suppose: if a woman is more qualified to be in a leadership position than a man, as I was, should the unqualified individual have this position simply because of his biological sex? Notwithstanding the fact that the quality of the service provided will be lower? Even at the risk of the physical safety of children? As none of my questions have even been addressed, I'm going to say that my points still stand. I hope either you or someone else will have the time to answer my questions!
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 27, 2006 12:47:02 GMT -5
Example would be I don't think a woman should ever be President because she would then have decision making authority over a man. So, I guess that means I don't believe in political equality of men and women? And, I don't think there are certain jobs that women should do because they are women, so, I guess that means I don't think women should have equal social standing either? I told them what to do, emailed them workout plans and made sure they implemented them properly, supervised and directed--and told them what was up if they ever did something I didn't like. Problems? Should I have let Steve and Jason run the show because they have p-e-n-i-s-e-s, even if I was vastly more qualified and neither of them had ever run a swim team before? They were both nice guys, but neither had very good organization or leadership skills, and were quite uncomfortable with being in charge. They had swimming backgrounds but no experience with summer team or how to approach it, what the rules were, how to deal with the kids (it's different than the year around programs, very different). My strength is leading others, I had thirteen years experience with this specific program, I'd coached before and I knew the environment. What should I have done? What would you have done? Just found another, male coach? I've been told (by people in authority--this is not just me shooting off my mouth) that I was the best candidate in my county of my age group, gender notwithstanding. Can you see a reason why I shouldn't have had the position? With that in mind, should we just take this further and say that I shouldn't have had "power" over my male swimmers? There were some who were my age; my first year, there were a few who were even older than I was! Should I have handed them my whistle and let them run the practice as they wished? 'Cos, you know, my swimmers knew everything there was to know about life-saving skills, swimming and discipline. It's not like they needed a trained lifeguard who happened to be female to make sure they were being safe or anything. Please. It's about your merit and skills, not what sexual organs you were born with. Do you want my honest critique? I've had over 23 years of senior managerial experience with operations exceeding $80 million in revenues in five different states with responsibilities of managing over 3,000 employees (union and non-union).
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 27, 2006 13:34:21 GMT -5
Do you want my honest critique? I've had over 23 years of senior managerial experience with operations exceeding $80 million in revenues in five different states with responsibilities of managing over 3,000 employees (union and non-union). ....if you really think you know the situation well enough from the very little I've said here, sure, have at it. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person from your posts. Bear in mind that it won't change much because I'm not a coach anymore. I'm always open to advice! ;D PS: My management skills consist of an AP Economics class which I barely received college credit for. I know nothing about business. My statements about my qualifications refer to my coaching abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 27, 2006 13:51:31 GMT -5
I said what the Bible says about the roles of men and women. If you desire to please God, you will have to seek His Word for clarification on this subject, because that alone, and not my words, will end all of your concerns. Of course there are areas that don't apply to the teaching, I said it meant "in the church"..so that does not mean the home, or the school. And I said MEN, not boys. But you didn't answer any of my questions about my -assistants (filter, argh)--and my situation seemed an awful lot like what you were saying about you and Jesse. So my question to you would be, I suppose: if a woman is more qualified to be in a leadership position than a man, as I was, should the unqualified individual have this position simply because of his biological sex? Notwithstanding the fact that the quality of the service provided will be lower? Even at the risk of the physical safety of children? As none of my questions have even been addressed, I'm going to say that my points still stand. I hope either you or someone else will have the time to answer my questions! Sorry, thought I had answered that. I sumbit to Jesse's authority because what we are discussing here is Biblical doctrine and is a group of believers (for the most part) so the church is comprised of people, and is not a building. So even on a message board with Christians on it, a man still should lead, be in charge, and be the authority. Your work situation was not one in which could be considered "church" so it was fine for you to be his boss, in my OPINION. Again, see what the Bible has to say about it. Perhaps others would disagree with me, but when Paul teaches about the roles of men and women and the teaching/authority aspects, he is specifically talking about a church situation.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 27, 2006 13:52:37 GMT -5
I told them what to do, emailed them workout plans and made sure they implemented them properly, supervised and directed--and told them what was up if they ever did something I didn't like. Problems? Should I have let Steve and Jason run the show because they have p-e-n-i-s-e-s, even if I was vastly more qualified and neither of them had ever run a swim team before? They were both nice guys, but neither had very good organization or leadership skills, and were quite uncomfortable with being in charge. They had swimming backgrounds but no experience with summer team or how to approach it, what the rules were, how to deal with the kids (it's different than the year around programs, very different). My strength is leading others, I had thirteen years experience with this specific program, I'd coached before and I knew the environment. What should I have done? What would you have done? Just found another, male coach? I've been told (by people in authority--this is not just me shooting off my mouth) that I was the best candidate in my county of my age group, gender notwithstanding. Can you see a reason why I shouldn't have had the position? With that in mind, should we just take this further and say that I shouldn't have had "power" over my male swimmers? There were some who were my age; my first year, there were a few who were even older than I was! Should I have handed them my whistle and let them run the practice as they wished? 'Cos, you know, my swimmers knew everything there was to know about life-saving skills, swimming and discipline. It's not like they needed a trained lifeguard who happened to be female to make sure they were being safe or anything. Please. It's about your merit and skills, not what sexual organs you were born with. Do you want my honest critique? I've had over 23 years of senior managerial experience with operations exceeding $80 million in revenues in five different states with responsibilities of managing over 3,000 employees (union and non-union). *clap clap clap* good for you. very successful by the world's standards. Again, not in a church setting I'd suspect.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 27, 2006 14:30:20 GMT -5
Do you want my honest critique? I've had over 23 years of senior managerial experience with operations exceeding $80 million in revenues in five different states with responsibilities of managing over 3,000 employees (union and non-union). ....if you really think you know the situation well enough from the very little I've said here, sure, have at it. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person from your posts. Bear in mind that it won't change much because I'm not a coach anymore. I'm always open to advice! ;D PS: My management skills consist of an AP Economics class which I barely received college credit for. I know nothing about business. My statements about my qualifications refer to my coaching abilities. Please understand, my intent is not to hammer you nor be critical of you. I like to help out "young pups". I've seen many of them fail in business because of ego or because they felt they were entitled to something. The thing to remember in any employment situation regardless of position is that we're all hired hands--to use a farming term. In other words, none of us are really that special. If I do a poor job or rebell, then there's always someone out there that will take the job from me. One must maintain one's self as an asset to an organization, not a liability. If one complains constantly, it matters little what one's accomplishments were, people will focus and remember the negative about the person--not the positive. That just seems to be human nature. I've seen people who done great things for organizations, but when it comes time for promotion, the first thing that goes through people's minds are something like "He's a complainer" or "She'll fight you every step of the way if you try to implement something". There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinions to your supervisor, but this is done in private--and in a forum that does not challenge the supervisor's authority. But make it clear, even if you disagree with the decision, you plan on executing the plan with your entire effort and being. You're right, I don't have the full details on what your specific situation was. You could have very well indeed gotten a raw deal. But that's not my focus nor in the long term is it material. The first rule of the business world is to remember that it's nothing more than social interactions. A positive rapport with your supervisor, co-workers, customers, etc, pays off big dividends. But this must be real effort, not put on. I can't tell you how many times I've cringed when I would ask an applicant "why do you want this position" and I get a "Because I like to work with people". You can't imagine how many times I wanted to say "That's good because we only employ people, not sheep". When dealing with your supervisor, your number one priority is to protect and take care of your supervisor. To make your supervisor look good. Develop a trust. This doesn't mean kiss behind or anything, but establish yourself as reliable and trustworthy--a confidant. If you establish such a rapport, generally you won't have to apply for promotions--they seek you. Take every assignment you get and take even more. You'll soon develop yourself as a team player. That's what people want. Someone who will take the load. The business world or any work world is full of enough stress already without having a bitter or disgruntled employee complaining about doing a job, thus making the environment worse. When I was a "kid" not long after getting out of undergrad school, I told my supervisor I'd take any assignment she wanted to give me, even if it was out of my department. Pretty soon, I'm getting the stuff. I didn't complain about it. Sure, it was a pain and I wasn't getting paid for the extra work, but my motivation was the great experience I was getting by doing it. Plus the trust I was establishing by going the extra mile. At age 25, I was running the "joint"--a $5 million business. The bottomline is don't dwell on negative things that have occurred to you. Look at it in the spirit of experience. Even negative experience has it's positive side. When you have an opportunity to be a supervisor, remember the way you felt treated and resolve you won't manage your department the same way. And if it bothers you, never let on that it does. Just get it out of your system or it will drag you down--seriously. When you do become a manager, remember you're a leader. And people expect more from you. Actually they expect you to be better than they are. I hope I'm not being too preachy, but hope it helps you out some. I know it's much easier said than done, but I've had some experience in human relationships and executive committees, etc. We've all had our egos bruised. But seriously, it's not worth it to let it eat you up. It does nothing for one in the long term. I can go into operation I've never been before and size up the attitudes of the employees in about 15 minutes. Many times it's a reflection of management and it's demeanor. And if everyone is sour, then so will it's product.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 27, 2006 14:49:58 GMT -5
Do you want my honest critique? I've had over 23 years of senior managerial experience with operations exceeding $80 million in revenues in five different states with responsibilities of managing over 3,000 employees (union and non-union). *clap clap clap* good for you. very successful by the world's standards. Again, not in a church setting I'd suspect. Jules, the entire world has the potential to be a church to preach the gospel. No reason to limit oneself to four walls, a roof and a steeple.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 27, 2006 15:26:20 GMT -5
wkufan: I'm...really not at all sure what that has to do with anything I said here. It's all great advice, to be sure, and advice that I've received many times before and try to follow. But we're discussing differences in treatment on the basis of gender. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I've acted like a "complainer" on the job. I asked for my paycheck and was told they gave it to Guy X. I really don't see how I was in the wrong by trying to rectify this situation. And yeah, you don't know the specific situation. A summer swim team=/=five million dollar company. My point in bringing it up was that there is a very specific political climate to swim team, which I knew and the boys didn't, therefore it would simply be unreasonable for the blind to lead the one with twenty-twenty vision, so to speak. Also, I don't remember saying that I'm bitter about the experience or that I think I'm the victim of some great social injustice. I wouldn't work for those people anymore because they mistreated me, but I adore coaching, look back on those three years with many wonderful memories and have a great rapport to this day with all but a very few of the board members. That wasn't the point of the thread, though, so I didn't mention it. I guess I'm not sure what you thought I did wrong and where the advice was directed, exactly.
Jules: What if you were clearly more knowledgeable about scripture than Jesse and more qualified to share information? Would you withhold it simply because of your biological sex?
EDIT: Thought of something else. I edit my friends' writing all the time, many of them being male writers. Should I not "teach" them what I know because I am female? By the way, what exactly is the problem with the "teaching" thing? Why are women viewed as inherently unqualified to do this? Is it because they might believe themselves to be more qualified than a man but this is simply not true because their sex negates any knowledge they might have acquired? Or are they deceiving themselves and others by spreading the notion that they know more than men, when they actually do not?
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 27, 2006 16:33:32 GMT -5
wkufan: I'm...really not at all sure what that has to do with anything I said here. It's all great advice, to be sure, and advice that I've received many times before and try to follow. But we're discussing differences in treatment on the basis of gender. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I've acted like a "complainer" on the job. I asked for my paycheck and was told they gave it to Guy X. I really don't see how I was in the wrong by trying to rectify this situation. And yeah, you don't know the specific situation. A summer swim team=/=five million dollar company. My point in bringing it up was that there is a very specific political climate to swim team, which I knew and the boys didn't, therefore it would simply be unreasonable for the blind to lead the one with twenty-twenty vision, so to speak. Also, I don't remember saying that I'm bitter about the experience or that I think I'm the victim of some great social injustice. I wouldn't work for those people anymore because they mistreated me, but I adore coaching, look back on those three years with many wonderful memories and have a great rapport to this day with all but a very few of the board members. That wasn't the point of the thread, though, so I didn't mention it. I guess I'm not sure what you thought I did wrong and where the advice was directed, exactly. No, I didn't mean to imply that you were a complainer. Sorry that wasn't clear, but my point is that one's actions or body language is a reflection of their being. Our stature goes alot in defining to others who we are. However, in considering your example, I was trying to look at the forest, not the trees. I can assure you there is very much a political climate in every environment. I wouldn't dwell on what's considered "bias". We all have a propensity for some kind of bias regardless how enlightened we believe we are. If you dwell this, you'll lose focus. It's not worth it. Really. Just go on and do the best you can and establish loyality and trust with those who are your supervisors. I would have a bias against me--I doubt if I'd be very successfull in getting an executive position in NYC because I was born and live in the "south". There's a bias that everyone in Kentucky has a Maytag washer on their porch and a still in the backyard. Is it right or wrong? It's not material. However, that's the reality. You shake it off and go on. Focus on results and achievement which enhances your skills. Don't give merit to perceptions, real or imagined bias. Your results, stature on how you accomplish goals/objectives will erode bias. Unless you were part of the selection process, no one really knows what went on in the promotion process, what was discussed, what was considered...anything in this regard is subjective and conjecture. And don't put faith in what people have told you "you were much more qualified". Maybe you were--I don't doubt you're not, but don't expect anyone you know to say, you really weren't qualified to your face. I would talk to your supervisor. Don't complain to them about the fact you didn't get a promotion or the responsibilities. Ask your supervisor or the head honcho what burden of theirs can you take off their shoulders. There may not be any, but it'll be appreciated you offered. Tell them you would like to expand your skill and leadership base and ask for their opinion the best way to do this. What can you do to position yourself in the future? If you've had 13 years experience with this organization, there must be some reason why you weren't considered. Sounds like you were a shoe-in to me otherwise. Maybe the person who got the job was friends with someone or someone's parents were someone who knew something. Who really knows? But this will happen many times to us in the future--that's just the way of the world. If you'd been with this organization that long, then surely you can establish a respectful and positive rapport with the management. I didn't really think anything you did was right or wrong--there's not enough information for that conclusion. And frankly, it's not germaine. My suggestions are something I hope that is considered in the long haul. Something to consider to position yourself in a five to ten year time frame payoff. A person can find any reason to they want to blame for an outcome that didn't come to fruitition in their favor.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 27, 2006 17:09:32 GMT -5
You're not listening. I had the job. I always had the job. There was no "promotion." You don't "promote" coaches. They gave him my paycheck. How many more times do I need to say that? That's gender discrimination and is what we are discussing in this thread.
For the record, I personally know every coach my age in my county. Objectively, I am better. Of course I'm not saying I'm the best, but of the teenagers, yes. I'm sorry, but it's true. Take it as ego if you want, but you're not qualified to say that without watching me work.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 27, 2006 17:22:41 GMT -5
You never mentioned any issue in your original description about a paycheck. Only your assumption of gender bias. You aren't very clear. "You're not listening. I had the job. I always had the job. There was no "promotion." You don't "promote" coaches. They gave him my paycheck." And if there was no promotion no change in status, then what did you lose? I've known several coaches promoted to Athletic Directors.
Does this imply a physcial paycheck or in relation to a job. And if so, in what context do you mean "they gave him my paycheck". You failed to mention this in your original subject but concluded there was an issue regarding male appendages. Again, you aren't clear.
Were you the payee on the paycheck you describe? If not, you can't contend it was yours. If so, then you have a legal recourse.
Irrespective of what you meant, sounds like you've solved your own issue. Good luck to you.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 27, 2006 17:17:14 GMT -5
Look, I hate to barge into a wonderful career seminar here, but I think the point of this thread was not how not to piss off your boss/supervisor, but the fact that God is a bigoted, chauvanistic pig who created women to be inherently inferior in their abilities (though not their worth) to men.
So can we get back on topic?
How exactly can you claim that all Christian women should submit to all Christian men? You know, not all men are objective, and you know what they say about power--it's d@mn expensive (j/k)--it corrupts.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 27, 2006 21:13:21 GMT -5
Thank you Trekker. And for the record, I know some of the story. Valentine is refering to a physical paycheck that should have been hers, but was paid to her co-worker instead... simply because they decided not to like her. She DID have legal recorse and I believe she eventually worked things out. They were totally a-s-s-hats to her. But back to the point!
Val and I were talking earlier and we decided that it is rather upsetting that the most important woman in the Bible is known for her meekness, submissiveness, and passivity. Also, her claim to fame is "popping one out." All she ever did was give birth. Woohoo. I'm talking about Mary of course. She was no great orator, she did no mission work... nothin'. We also found it upsetting that she was never asked if she WANTED to give birth to a random baby... it was just assumed that that was her role as a woman in society. What are your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Apr 28, 2006 0:03:19 GMT -5
Look, I hate to barge into a wonderful career seminar here, but I think the point of this thread was not how not to piss off your boss/supervisor, but the fact that God is a bigoted, chauvanistic pig who created women to be inherently inferior in their abilities (though not their worth) to men. . You have a lot of unbridled nerve to blaspheme the name of God like that. The same God who gave you life. I hope you reconsider your thoughts and realize that it's not as cute sounding as you may think. It's obvious you fail to see the link of a human supervisory relationship vis a' vis God, so I won't even attempt to quantify nor qualify this.
|
|