Erm, it’s spiderlady I’m with, but I agree with monstro, as well. Actually, I’ve only regularly experienced two symptoms of PMS: slight cramps and increased horniness. The former can be taken care of with ibuprofen on the extremely rare occaisions when they’re that bad; as for the latter, if that manifests itself at work, I’d say PMS is the least of my worries! :eek:
CJ
No where did I say that a woman can not be as smart as a man, nor did I imply or mean to imply it, how you infered that is beyond me.
As for as competent, in some jobs men in general will, on others women will be generally more competent. It depends on the job and how it is se up.
And you don’t think being away from your workstation is not noticable to the (generic) boss?
Exactly my point, it does affect your work life, as for how it: 1 affects your job and 2: how your ‘boss’ perceives it affecting your job is mainly job and boss specfic - and you even state that you are not that affected by PMS.
I am not assuming that you will, nor the ‘average’ women does, but I will assume that it does happen from time to time.
Again this proves my point, you work less consistant. My point about this single aspect of the OP is that a more consistant worker is usually more valuable to an employer. If you have more productivity then a person who is more consistant that should be a plus for you.
I am talking from the point of the employer, you say it doesn’t have to hurt, but compared to someone who doesn’t have these issues does put you at a disadvantage.
Also I wonder how much the conventional ‘work week pattern’ has to do w/ it. It seems like the pattern of sunup to sundown 6 days / week and 1 day off was developed with male workers in mind and may give them a natural advantage in today’s 8h 5 days/ work week. Another system may have developed in matriarcial systems.
Among other things:
While I see the orginal femionists as trying to equalize the genders, but has evolved into providing easier access for females to male dominated aspects of modern day life.
What’s the difference?
Although this has already been addressed, I feel it is necessary to comment.
Yes, I know PLENTY of women who for a week a month do nothing but whine, complain, and use the fact that they are bleeding out their crotch as an excuse to be complete idiots socially. Are these women drama queens? Biologically set to be like that? Maybe a combo of both. The point is: I HATE women like this. Why? They make people like you think that the rest of us are just as bad.
I have never so much as laid in bed for an afternoon because of my “cycle”. I don’t get moody (whether angry or sad), I don’t get especially bitchy, and I don’t get any more or less lazy. I’m just me (but with, ya know, blood shootin’ out of me).
My point is: it is unfair to say that ALL women are going to be inconsistant workers because of their periods. Certainly the lazy people who are already looking for an excuse are going to, clearly, use their- er- condition as an excuse; but the rest of us are going to be just like you.
And BTW, what reason do you have to believe any women fitting such a characterization actually exist – or, if they do, that they are of any importance in modern feminism?
What would happen if women were as horny as men?, a thread in this forum, raises the question to me:
Does this difference in sexual urges between men and women cause men to be less productive and a liability at work? This is the same sort of question raised about PMS by kanicbird.
[QUOTE=Spider WomanDoes this difference in sexual urges between men and women cause men to be less productive and a liability at work?[/QUOTE]
I doubt it, but it does give rise to sexual harassment – that is, men are much more likely than women are to sexually harass coworkers and subordinates. And that’s probably bad for productivity, even if the harassed party puts up with it and doesn’t sue.
I guess my point was that if men are thinking about sex all the time, could this make them less productive than women, who only have hormonal problems once a month?
I really don’t believe either has much to do with productivity, but was trying to make the point that women are no more of a liability to productivity than men.
I’m not kanicbird, nor will I defend kanicbird’s posts, but I can personally see a difference in “feminism” and “working to give women easier access to male-dominated areas.”
I worked with a woman from Russia for a short time who was very direct about it. She came to America, she said, because she really liked the concept of equal treatment and job opportunities and education for women. But she didn’t want to give up all the chivalrous treatment, having men buy her expensive things and pay for all dates, hold the doors and chairs for her, and so on.
She was very direct in wanting to have all of the benefits of equality for women — gaining access to things men could have and do — as long as it meant she got to retain all of the benefits of inequality for women (women-only health clubs, maternity leave, being treated like a princess, never paying for anything, men falling over themselves to talk to her instead of risking rejection herself).
I’m not saying that all modern feminists feel this way, or that this woman from Moscow is somehow representative of all American women (or all Russian women, for that matter). Her position highlighted to me how such a person might think.
The arm-grabbing sisters-are-doing-it-for-themselves open-your-own-door version at least has a consistent message: equality means women give up the things men don’t have, and men give up what women don’t have. Like the Russian woman I met, might the hypothetical young woman in the OP simply disagree, and want to have her cake and eat it too?
I forgot to address this. Unless you can convince me that 1) women are more variable in their work performance than men and 2)this variability is linked to the menstrual cycle, I’m not going to change my mind about this being an irrational fear.
One could easily say that the work performance of men (who tend to watch sports more than women) varies with whatever ballgame is on TV the night before. I know the productivity in my lab drops whenever the 'Fins lose, with all the guys spending an hour or so talking about who’s to blame and who should be kicked off the team, etc. And don’t even think about playoffs! How do we get any work done?
Of course, I don’t have data backing this observation. But it should make you wonder about the possibility, shouldn’t it?
If it happens all the time, then yes. If I have the squirts for a few minutes a single day out of the month, then no. It shouldn’t be noticeable and as long as I turn in top-quality reports, my boss shouldn’t care.
Well, I was using hypotheticals, not examples of what I actually do.
If someone is fatigued, of course they aren’t going to be at their best. But fatigue is not something limited to women, I hope you realize. (I’d say I usually have more energy than my coworkers (young guys, all of them), who spend their nights covorting at bars, picking up ladies, and drinking. They also play sports and lift weights. So it’s not unusual that they are usually irritable and slow-moving in the morning while I’m full of pep and energy). And when I’m tired, no one knows about it unless I tell them. So no, my boss has no cause to perceive anything about my fatigue or lack thereof.
But will you assume that it will happen if you’re evaluating me as a candidate for a higher-level position? If I have shown consistency in my job performance, will you assume that it will change? If not, then I suppose I’ve been arguing with you for no reason. But if you think it’s safe to assume that because Jane Smith is a woman, she’s at high risk for “variable” behavior, so therefore she’s no good–then I can’t get behind this at all.
I disagree with this assumption. Variability in production says nothing about value, IMHO. There’s bad variability (Employee X meets the quota 3 days out of the week but fails to meet it the rest of the days) and there’s good variability (Employee Y meets the quota 3 days out of the week and surpasses it the rest). The overall productivity is what matters. Not the variability.
If I put in 8 hours for 15 days out of the month, and put in longer hours the rest of the month, this is a GOOD THING. Yes, it is affecting my job performance, but in a positive way. So no, you haven’t proven your point, kanicbird.
You keep saying that women may be more variable in their job performance simply because their bodies undergo changes, but why are you assuming that men are not just as variable in their performance? Without a cite showing that women are more variable, isn’t this just a meaningless hunch of yours?
Have you ever woken up tired?
Have you ever been in a foul mood?
Have you ever had an upset stomach?
A headache?
Or are you always in tip-top health?
No, I don’t feel like I’m in an disdvantage. Blood-soaked pants (in alligator-infested waters, mind you) have not kept me from doing my job and doing it well, that’s how hardcore I am. If I have a headache, I trudge through it with a smile. I don’t complain about it (usually) nor do I ask for sympathy or leniency. I do know that my male coworkers don’t have qualms calling in sick or complaining about their ailments, so if they can do it and be successful, why should my health quirks be seen as setbacks?
I don’t think I have any more or less issues than anyone else. These may different ones, but they aren’t worse.
I don’t really think that at all. Women have traditionally labored just as hard throughout the day as men have. It’s just that women labored with children strapped to their backs or within eye- and earshot.
I know looking at my parents, one would come home after work and take an hour nap before cooking dinner and sitting in front of the TV. The other would work late and eat a quick dinner before taking off for a late night meeting. Guess which parent was which?
Perhaps if this were a matriarchy, there would be more flexible scheduling throughout the week or month. I can envision a system like in work-a-holic Japan, where women are allowed to take off a few days for their periods, without question. Maybe in a matriarchy, we’d all be allowed to do this, for everyone’s benefit. Who knows?
I like the concept of anyone helping anyone else who needs a door opened or help carrying packages. I am perfectly capable of opening a door myself, but I assist my elderly father and his lady friend with doors and steps.
Courtesy does not need only to extend to one gender.
Fish, the person you describe sounds like an opportunist. I was a little surprised that she would want to come here for more equal opportunity, however. I thought that with a large percentage of doctors being female, they had achieved greater equality than here. I was wrong. And further, Russian Women Struggle to Survive Domestic Violence
Wow, aren’t we behind on the research by a few decades. I went to graduate school at Dartmouth in the behavioral neuroscience of sexual differentiation. The fact that most major research universities have researchers working in that subfield and have for decades should be “cite” enough for you. There are literally hundreds of sex differences in morphology of the brain and behavior.
I can’t correct all of your missing knowledge in one post because the topic is so large and the research so voluminous and encompasses neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and biochemistry. However, here are some well-documented samples:
This is the only the tip of the iceberg. This is a rather mature although still dynamic field. You really should familiarize yourself with it. It contradicts earlier thought that differences in brain and behavior between the sexes were due to socialization only. Some tragic medical cases with people born with ambiguous genitalia and raised as the wrong sex are glaring examples this isn’t so.
Most of feminist theory and psychology were based on these incorrect assumptions.
According to Wikipedia, the jury is still out as to how much of our gender related behavior is hard-wired. There is a difference between fact and opinion.
However, even if it is eventually established that women and men think differently because of biology, I don’t think that would disqualify either gender from most jobs/careers, but possibly add to diversity of strategies in carrying out daily work.
I think that your last sentence is a bit sweeping. Whether or not males and females are different because of nature or nurture still does not justify discrimination because of gender.
Could you cite the source where you found your listed information please?
Personally, I would like a cite for this being true and/or important.
The radicals are important, not just because they make the moderates looks sane, but because they are quite willing to be vocal. They get heard. They get seen. They get the dialog started when no one is willing to start the conversation.
Stonewall happened because there was a bunch of drag queens who were so angry at being harrassed that they rioted. That was the loud and painful birth that gave us the whole political movement that is making progress towards full civil rights for gays, lesbians, transgendered, queer etc. The bra burning feminists and their equally radical predecessors were needed for the same reasons.
Most transsexuals that I hear about these days, at least the MTFs, fall into the category of nice women or even ladies who have or had penises. They really don’t want to make a fuss or draw attention to their incongruous body parts, they really just want to live their life, get their surgeries and hormones, and work and live like anyone else. Increasingly, the law is allowing this and what is as important, the people in their communities are too. They have some not so nice women and men to thank for it. I don’t see rioting as nice or generally beneficial, but in this case it worked.
Generally, nice ladies don’t go kicking up such a fuss that they can change the law. Sure women have had successful political movements, say like the hell that was Temperance, but Carry Nation was hardly a nice lady. Nice gentlemen don’t go challenging the social order either, as it just is not nice and those supporting the status quo make damn sure it is unpleasant. I have read about 19th and mid-twentieth century feminists who were commited by their husbands or families, not for behaving radically, but for believing radically and having the audacity to speak up. Others are beaten, some are murdered. Speaking up goes against the grain for those that don’t like ruffling feathers.
Today, women whose families follow the old partriarchal traditions, but choose to live as modern women anyway, all too often are murdered by their families. After one case recently in Great Britain where a father murdered his daughter for dating without his permission, the police reopened 109 cases from the previous year that were similar and had been disguised as either accidents and stranger murders, but on just a little bit of reflection look very much like murder. As far as I can tell these are nice women who chose to do as they wish in ways that are not at all shocking or wrong to most in modern society. Do you think that if they chose to speak up they would survive long? How long do think such murders have been going on? The police, whose job it is to prevent this sort of thing and find the murderers when it does happen, are just now noticing these crimes. I doubt seriously that any nice lady that would like to speak up feels safe doing so.
On this we quite agree. That doesn’t change the fact that some areas of gender interaction are still locked at 1950. In my unsupported opinion, it seems that despite other advances in equality, most of the dating burden still is on the shoulders of men — risking rejection by being the one to approach her, calling the woman and driving her to the date, paying for dinner, and so on. Some women let this continue because, well, it feels good to have someone pay attention to you, rejection is scary, and benefits are hard to give up.
Definitely. I’m just of the opinion that she’s not alone.
Much feminist theory and psychology of the 1970s and 1980s - and into the 1990s - were based on these incorrect assumptions. Feminist theory nowadays seems to have more to do with the whole “diversity is good” thoughtlines. i.e. women are better compromisers, men better risk takers, both are valuable in running a business or a country, etc. Oh, and the current wave of “sex freedom feminism” which really got traction in the 1990s through people like Susie Bright - “Its my body and I’ll sleep around if I want to.” Also the “individualism” factor. Frankly, Carly Fiorina has balls to go with her breasts - I’d rather have her run my company than 95% of the men. (Well, maybe not, the whole Compaq thing was not a good decision, but it did take balls). If your choice is an exceptional woman or an average man, you’re stupid to go with the man because he won’t be on the rag once a month. But in order to find the exceptional women, they have to be given the opportunities to become exceptional. Prior to the 1970, most feminist theory was based more along the ideas that “hey, women are actually human beings! And as such they should be able to get a divorce, hold property, hold a job, have credit, be given opportunities to pursue athletics in schools, etc.” But at its core, Women’s Studies is a social science - like Econ or Sociology - where it takes the acedemics a while to catch up to the work done in the hard sciences.
But it really doesn’t make any difference if women are biologically different (duh! stupid to argue we aren’t, I look way better in a bra and panties than any guy I’ve ever seen). The vital part of feminism for this generation to recognize is that it doesn’t really make any difference if at that time of the month we can’t match clothes, think epulets are attractive, and overcharge on our Visa, its OUR DAMN VISA! Something my mother couldn’t say when she got married.
(The epulets are a 1980s Cynthia Heimel thing).
Agreed about the VISA, and also, I don’t think PMS makes women any less capable of doing their jobs than men’s libido prevents them from doing theirs.
I find it very disturbing when people do this on this topic. My source was whole bodies of work that I learned about and actually did experiments with during my undergraduate and graduate career. They weren’t based on one experiment. I picked some of the oldest, most obvious, and easiest to understand examples and I didn’t think that would cause a problem here on the SDMB. This type of research is repeatedly covered in news magazines and science magazines as well all forms of popular press. It is a little like a chemist answering a question and someone saying “Atoms? cite!” Most of this research is pushing 40 years old now and has been replicated time after time.
Nonetheless, by request (keep in mind that these aren’t lone experiments, I simply picked some easy to read, quality articles).
Sexual differentiation on the hypothalamus is probably even more important. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Hoeldtke.html
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2123.htm
This Wikipedia article outlines the old medical and psychological guidelines from the 1950’s and 60’s for what to do when a sex had to be chosen for a newborn child because of ambiguous genitalia or surgical accidents. The guidelines supposed that newborn child could be assigned either sex and raised that way. After a series of horrific failures raising children against their dominant biological sex doctors and researchers rethink the entire idea of a plastic gender identity. That was the dominant philosophical and academic view at the time.
Absolutely. That is what I meant too.
Then whatchoo fightin’ over?
Kiss her, you fool! 