3 ms·

I'm so confused. I read the beginning 3 times and I'm not sure which side is complaining about not enough men and which side is complaining about not enough wom

by cool-RR 17y ago

I'm so confused. I read the beginning 3 times and I'm not sure which side is complaining about not enough men and which side is complaining about not enough women.

niels_olson 17y ago
One thing to keep in mind is that lobbies like NOW, the AMA, UAW, etc, aren't really interested in "right and wrong" or even representing their constituents. The people who work for those organizations tend to continue to represent the platform on which the organization was founded, regardless of whether or not the objectives were achieved. All three of those organizations are great examples: NOW was founded to bring equality to women, the AMA was originally formed to ensure adequate licensure restrictions to drive out quacks, and the UAW was founded to ensure adequate protections for workers. Now women are essentially more than equal and men are requiring help. Now the supply of American medical training is so restrictive that we have created a whole work-around degree program (the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine), and we consume a disproportionate number of foreign medical graduates, draining other countries of their doctors. American auto workers are now so more than equal that the corporations are bankrupt under the burden of medical bills accumulated by retirees. NOW is still advocating for more special consideration for women, the AMA is still concerned about the quality of american doctors (raling against foreign medical grads, etc), and UAW is still advocating for better compensation for auto workers. The lobbies exist to support their platforms. They will continue their original platforms because those people want to keep their jobs.
chrischen 17y ago
I thought it was confusing too, but I think the writer was arguing that men are getting disadvantaged because they are underperforming.
- gaius 17y ago
  I thought it was confusing too, but I think the writer was arguing that men are getting disadvantaged because they are underperforming. That's an interesting choice of word. Men are not underperforming because of lack of effort on their part, but because of the feminization of the previous stage of education (mainly female teachers, the switch in emphasis from exams to coursework, etc)

by cool-RR 17y ago

I'm so confused. I read the beginning 3 times and I'm not sure which side is complaining about not enough men and which side is complaining about not enough women.

niels_olson 17y ago

One thing to keep in mind is that lobbies like NOW, the AMA, UAW, etc, aren't really interested in "right and wrong" or even representing their constituents. The people who work for those organizations tend to continue to represent the platform on which the organization was founded, regardless of whether or not the objectives were achieved. All three of those organizations are great examples: NOW was founded to bring equality to women, the AMA was originally formed to ensure adequate licensure restrictions to drive out quacks, and the UAW was founded to ensure adequate protections for workers. Now women are essentially more than equal and men are requiring help. Now the supply of American medical training is so restrictive that we have created a whole work-around degree program (the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine), and we consume a disproportionate number of foreign medical graduates, draining other countries of their doctors. American auto workers are now so more than equal that the corporations are bankrupt under the burden of medical bills accumulated by retirees. NOW is still advocating for more special consideration for women, the AMA is still concerned about the quality of american doctors (raling against foreign medical grads, etc), and UAW is still advocating for better compensation for auto workers. The lobbies exist to support their platforms. They will continue their original platforms because those people want to keep their jobs.

chrischen 17y ago

I thought it was confusing too, but I think the writer was arguing that men are getting disadvantaged because they are underperforming.

gaius 17y ago
I thought it was confusing too, but I think the writer was arguing that men are getting disadvantaged because they are underperforming. That's an interesting choice of word. Men are not underperforming because of lack of effort on their part, but because of the feminization of the previous stage of education (mainly female teachers, the switch in emphasis from exams to coursework, etc)