Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[Guest guest]

At 11:29 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> > Irrational discrimination makes no financial sense, and must be

>legislated,

> > because even very strong mores and cultural norms will not otherwise stop

> > everyone from behaving according to enlightened self-interest.

>

>

> Mona, I think you're rewriting American history on this one.

> If white business owners were concerned about losing business due to

>Jim Crow laws, they had the political power to change them. After all, the

>ruling class in the South was comprised of white male business owners.

>Literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks (and poor whites)from voting.

> The self-interest at the time was in preserving the status quo;

>businesses that were not segregated risked loss of the white clientele and

>valdalism (or worse) by the Klan or other similarly motivated individuals.

Even leaving the Klan out of the picture, there would be plenty of

whites who wouldn't want to eat, shop, etc., with " those people. "

And since the white folks had more money, it made more sense to

seek white business than black business. If that meant banning

blacks -- well, that was what made economic sense at the place and

time. Such a system can become self-perpetuating, by reinforcing

the idea that there's something wrong with a place which allows

anyone to come in.

That said, I tend to think that gradual social change is better in the

long run than trying to force social change with laws. The latter

leads to a lot of resentment, some of which has apparently lasted

to this day.

[Guest guest]

At 11:29 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> > Irrational discrimination makes no financial sense, and must be

>legislated,

> > because even very strong mores and cultural norms will not otherwise stop

> > everyone from behaving according to enlightened self-interest.

>

>

> Mona, I think you're rewriting American history on this one.

> If white business owners were concerned about losing business due to

>Jim Crow laws, they had the political power to change them. After all, the

>ruling class in the South was comprised of white male business owners.

>Literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks (and poor whites)from voting.

> The self-interest at the time was in preserving the status quo;

>businesses that were not segregated risked loss of the white clientele and

>valdalism (or worse) by the Klan or other similarly motivated individuals.

Even leaving the Klan out of the picture, there would be plenty of

whites who wouldn't want to eat, shop, etc., with " those people. "

And since the white folks had more money, it made more sense to

seek white business than black business. If that meant banning

blacks -- well, that was what made economic sense at the place and

time. Such a system can become self-perpetuating, by reinforcing

the idea that there's something wrong with a place which allows

anyone to come in.

That said, I tend to think that gradual social change is better in the

long run than trying to force social change with laws. The latter

leads to a lot of resentment, some of which has apparently lasted

to this day.

[Guest guest]

At 12:03 AM 5/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

>This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

>the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

>to zero.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want a program to " help " me into

anything. If I can't succeed without special favors, I don't deserve

to be there.

[Guest guest]

At 12:03 AM 5/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

>This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

>the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

>to zero.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want a program to " help " me into

anything. If I can't succeed without special favors, I don't deserve

to be there.

[Guest guest]

At 12:03 AM 5/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

>This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

>the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

>to zero.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want a program to " help " me into

anything. If I can't succeed without special favors, I don't deserve

to be there.

[Guest guest]

You know, it really depends simply on how the company (or the

industry) defines the risk pools. The idea of insurance is to spread

risk. When my husband retires, our health insurance premiums will

sky-rocket because we will be in the " retiree " pool. That pool is

defined as much higher risk than that of people who are employed, and

actuarially this will obviously be true. Yet if I get a job that has

health benefits I will pay lower premiums for as long as I am

employed, even if I work till I am 80, and he will be secondarily

ensured under that plan if I so choose.

>

> > This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ

ethnicity

> as a

> > factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a

> hue and

> > cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if

> they did so.

> > Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group

> characteristic it

> > does not follow that the rest should be disallowed.

>

> It does for consistency. Maybe w e men ought to raise a hue and cry

to

> stop the discrimination against us - but then there would be an even

> bigger hue and cry to say it should go on.

[Guest guest]

You know, it really depends simply on how the company (or the

industry) defines the risk pools. The idea of insurance is to spread

risk. When my husband retires, our health insurance premiums will

sky-rocket because we will be in the " retiree " pool. That pool is

defined as much higher risk than that of people who are employed, and

actuarially this will obviously be true. Yet if I get a job that has

health benefits I will pay lower premiums for as long as I am

employed, even if I work till I am 80, and he will be secondarily

ensured under that plan if I so choose.

>

> > This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ

ethnicity

> as a

> > factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a

> hue and

> > cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if

> they did so.

> > Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group

> characteristic it

> > does not follow that the rest should be disallowed.

>

> It does for consistency. Maybe w e men ought to raise a hue and cry

to

> stop the discrimination against us - but then there would be an even

> bigger hue and cry to say it should go on.

[Guest guest]

Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

engineering. " Many, many women in the past have given up options

that are available today, because back then those options did not

exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to be

much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering, medicine,

law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations have

forgotten it.

> >This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows

that

> >the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was

cut

> >to zero.

>

> Speaking only for myself, I don't want a program to " help " me into

> anything. If I can't succeed without special favors, I don't

deserve

> to be there.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

engineering. " Many, many women in the past have given up options

that are available today, because back then those options did not

exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to be

much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering, medicine,

law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations have

forgotten it.

> >This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows

that

> >the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was

cut

> >to zero.

>

> Speaking only for myself, I don't want a program to " help " me into

> anything. If I can't succeed without special favors, I don't

deserve

> to be there.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> If some supergenius chimpanzee wants to give medical school a

> shot, hiring a translator for sign language and keeping the " Ook

> ook " to a minimum, who am I to stand in the way? :-)

Apparently pigeons have been shown to be superior at assuring quality

control in a pill factory than human beings (who get bored and chat

and miss things) but no company will dare risk using them.

P.

[Guest guest]

> If some supergenius chimpanzee wants to give medical school a

> shot, hiring a translator for sign language and keeping the " Ook

> ook " to a minimum, who am I to stand in the way? :-)

Apparently pigeons have been shown to be superior at assuring quality

control in a pill factory than human beings (who get bored and chat

and miss things) but no company will dare risk using them.

P.

[Guest guest]

> You know, it really depends simply on how the company (or the

> industry) defines the risk pools. The idea of insurance is to

>spread

> risk.

OF course it does/is. The issue is whether and to what extent they

should be allowed to do that defining. Imo you can either do the

laissez faire capitalist thing and let them do what they want to, or

you can actively intervene, but then if you actively intervene then

there should be consistency. If it isnt ok for them to refuse to pool

risk associated with race, then why should it be ok for them to refuse

to pool risk with regard to gender? Generally speaking I'm against

intervention because I think there should be universal social

security provided for everyone by the State and poling risk across

everybody, hence all that anyone else could want might be kind of

luxury top-ups in which case no-one would suffer particularly from

these being completely laissez-faire.

P.

[Guest guest]

>Apparently pigeons have been shown to be superior at assuring quality

>control in a pill factory than human beings (who get bored and chat >and miss things) but no company will dare risk using them. > >P. >

By "pigeons" do you mean the birds, or do you mean newcomers to AA? I was referred to as a pigeon for the first six months and wasn't so sure. . . .Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

At 05:28 PM 5/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

>aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

>you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

>engineering. "

I hear ya. My brother and I both had the urge to take apart

everything in sight, to see how it worked. When he was caught

doing it, it was cute. When I was caught doing it, it was " *Smack*!

That's not a toy! "

> Many, many women in the past have given up options

>that are available today, because back then those options did not

>exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

>engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to be

>much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering, medicine,

>law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations have

>forgotten it.

I haven't forgotten it. I just insist on being evaluated on my own merits.

[Guest guest]

At 05:28 PM 5/16/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

>aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

>you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

>engineering. "

I hear ya. My brother and I both had the urge to take apart

everything in sight, to see how it worked. When he was caught

doing it, it was cute. When I was caught doing it, it was " *Smack*!

That's not a toy! "

> Many, many women in the past have given up options

>that are available today, because back then those options did not

>exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

>engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to be

>much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering, medicine,

>law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations have

>forgotten it.

I haven't forgotten it. I just insist on being evaluated on my own merits.

[Guest guest]

> >Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

> >aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

> >you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

> >engineering. "

>

> I hear ya. My brother and I both had the urge to take apart

> everything in sight, to see how it worked. When he was caught

> doing it, it was cute. When I was caught doing it, it was " *Smack*!

> That's not a toy! "

>

> > Many, many women in the past have given up options

> >that are available today, because back then those options did not

> >exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

> >engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to

be

> >much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering,

medicine,

> >law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations

have

> >forgotten it.

>

> I haven't forgotten it. I just insist on being evaluated on my own

merits.

>

>

Hi ,

I'm curious about your assumption that a woman in one of these

programs would not be evaluated on her own merits. The program I

attended consisted of an informational meeting where the specifics of

the various trades were discussed, including basic information about

what the job entailed in terms of skills and aptitudes and some ways

to get the experience needed to gain admission into the various

apprenticeships. Members of Oregon Tradeswomen, the group I attended,

also went to the highschools to give demonstrations to all the

students about what the trades entailed, including pay structures.

These professions make excellent wages and people entering them can

earn some wage while they are learning the profession. Sheetmetal

worker journeymen make between $30 and $35 per hour. This is after a

five year apprenticeship program where they are paid $8.00 per hour.

Women can and have done this work very well, witness WWII. Basic

information of this sort isn't a special favor and does not relate to

work performance OTJ.

I heartily wish I had this information in highschool! I would at

least have been able to make an informed decision about it. No doubt

everyone was just assuming that girls wouldn't be interested. :^\

[Guest guest]

I didn't say I have any answers, and I don't. I suppose that anyone

who feels discriminated against in this country can sue under

anti-discrimination provisions, I don't know how it stands in the UK.

> > You know, it really depends simply on how the company (or the

> > industry) defines the risk pools. The idea of insurance is to

> >spread

> > risk.

>

> OF course it does/is. The issue is whether and to what extent they

> should be allowed to do that defining. Imo you can either do the

> laissez faire capitalist thing and let them do what they want to, or

> you can actively intervene, but then if you actively intervene then

> there should be consistency. If it isnt ok for them to refuse to

pool

> risk associated with race, then why should it be ok for them to

refuse

> to pool risk with regard to gender? Generally speaking I'm against

> intervention because I think there should be universal social

> security provided for everyone by the State and poling risk across

> everybody, hence all that anyone else could want might be kind of

> luxury top-ups in which case no-one would suffer particularly from

> these being completely laissez-faire.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

I didn't say I have any answers, and I don't. I suppose that anyone

who feels discriminated against in this country can sue under

anti-discrimination provisions, I don't know how it stands in the UK.

> > You know, it really depends simply on how the company (or the

> > industry) defines the risk pools. The idea of insurance is to

> >spread

> > risk.

>

> OF course it does/is. The issue is whether and to what extent they

> should be allowed to do that defining. Imo you can either do the

> laissez faire capitalist thing and let them do what they want to, or

> you can actively intervene, but then if you actively intervene then

> there should be consistency. If it isnt ok for them to refuse to

pool

> risk associated with race, then why should it be ok for them to

refuse

> to pool risk with regard to gender? Generally speaking I'm against

> intervention because I think there should be universal social

> security provided for everyone by the State and poling risk across

> everybody, hence all that anyone else could want might be kind of

> luxury top-ups in which case no-one would suffer particularly from

> these being completely laissez-faire.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

How wonderful that you are allowed to insist on it.

> >Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

> >aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

> >you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

> >engineering. "

>

> I hear ya. My brother and I both had the urge to take apart

> everything in sight, to see how it worked. When he was caught

> doing it, it was cute. When I was caught doing it, it was " *Smack*!

> That's not a toy! "

>

> > Many, many women in the past have given up options

> >that are available today, because back then those options did not

> >exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

> >engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to

be

> >much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering,

medicine,

> >law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations

have

> >forgotten it.

>

> I haven't forgotten it. I just insist on being evaluated on my own

merits.

>

>

[Guest guest]

How wonderful that you are allowed to insist on it.

> >Oh, come on. When I was a senior in high school we all were given

> >aptitude tests, and the guidance counselor said to me, " ly, if

> >you weren't a girl, you profile suggests you would be best at

> >engineering. "

>

> I hear ya. My brother and I both had the urge to take apart

> everything in sight, to see how it worked. When he was caught

> doing it, it was cute. When I was caught doing it, it was " *Smack*!

> That's not a toy! "

>

> > Many, many women in the past have given up options

> >that are available today, because back then those options did not

> >exist. I would have to have been a genius to be admitted to an

> >engineering program back in those days. Women did indeed have to

be

> >much, much better than men to achieve goals in engineering,

medicine,

> >law. This is so recent that I am surprised younger generations

have

> >forgotten it.

>

> I haven't forgotten it. I just insist on being evaluated on my own

merits.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I didn't say I have any answers, and I don't. I suppose that anyone

> who feels discriminated against in this country can sue under

> anti-discrimination provisions, I don't know how it stands in the

>UK.

I am 99% certain that if such a thing could fly, someone would have

done it. I strongly suspect that UK anti-discrimination laws just

either arent applicable to the issue or insurance policies were

specifically excluded.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I didn't say I have any answers, and I don't. I suppose that anyone

> who feels discriminated against in this country can sue under

> anti-discrimination provisions, I don't know how it stands in the

>UK.

I am 99% certain that if such a thing could fly, someone would have

done it. I strongly suspect that UK anti-discrimination laws just

either arent applicable to the issue or insurance policies were

specifically excluded.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I didn't say I have any answers, and I don't. I suppose that anyone

> who feels discriminated against in this country can sue under

> anti-discrimination provisions, I don't know how it stands in the

>UK.

I am 99% certain that if such a thing could fly, someone would have

done it. I strongly suspect that UK anti-discrimination laws just

either arent applicable to the issue or insurance policies were

specifically excluded.

P.

[Guest guest]

They called you a pigeon at AA? I happen to have raised pigeons for over 30 years, and I never saw one pigeon with any kind of substance abuse problem, or , in fact, any kind of emotional or mental problem that required any help from any other person or animal. I would take being called a pigeon as a compliment. Mike.

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

>Apparently pigeons have been shown to be superior at assuring quality

>control in a pill factory than human beings (who get bored and chat >and miss things) but no company will dare risk using them. > >P. >

By "pigeons" do you mean the birds, or do you mean newcomers to AA? I was referred to as a pigeon for the first six months and wasn't so sure. . . .

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

They called you a pigeon at AA? I happen to have raised pigeons for over 30 years, and I never saw one pigeon with any kind of substance abuse problem, or , in fact, any kind of emotional or mental problem that required any help from any other person or animal. I would take being called a pigeon as a compliment. Mike.

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

>Apparently pigeons have been shown to be superior at assuring quality

>control in a pill factory than human beings (who get bored and chat >and miss things) but no company will dare risk using them. > >P. >

By "pigeons" do you mean the birds, or do you mean newcomers to AA? I was referred to as a pigeon for the first six months and wasn't so sure. . . .

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com