h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello- decided to reply here as I felt myself straying from discussion of the Charm entry.

Well, let's see- your assumption is presumeably correct- I'm 27. Although to me (don't laugh now) it feels much older than I'd like to be...

The fish- hmmm... well, Phoenix being my nickname, I didn't see any smileys that I felt really suited it well... I love the water, though, and so the firey looking fish seemed the most appropriate of the available choices.

Gender issues- you know, though the war has been won, the legislation put in place, etc... it seems that people (women themselves, even!) still form expectations based on old, old stereotypes... I'll be the first to admit- women to *tend* to display certain characteristics more often than men, and vice-versa... But to begin forming ideas about someone before you have met her.him- well, that (IMHO) is where we are still running into trouble all over the place...

I guess I just hate to see people operating on assumptions without bothering to see if they're true... sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't...

And of course, I am not saying you did that- just that that's why I turn combative when I think I am nearing one of those assumptions... Which is, I suppose, an assumption on my own part... so shame on me

Phoenix

Is that Phoenix as in rising from the ashes or in Arizona?

Explain to me about Cheerleaders (re: Gender issues) i.e. what are they and why are they? (not a trick question.. It just came up on something I was watching and its something I never understood.)

As in rising from the ashes...

Cheerleaders- times were when cheerleaders existed to do just that- lead cheers or chants for an audience at a sporting event. Chants were rhythmic and so actions/motions were added. Cheerleading has evolved into a gymnastic/acrobatic sport, at its best, and a sad (imho) display of objectification of young women at its worst. I have known cheerleaders who were truly athletic, very intelligent and not sluts. And I have known far more who were just the opposite. You really can't get into "just" the athleticism of cheerleading- coaches expect the ponytails and ribbons and lipstick and size 6-or-less figures along with the athleticism. The athleticism isn't really even a requirement. One only has to be moderately coordinated (in addition to other less noble qualities) to be a high school cheerleader. It is my understanding that increased tumbling ability is required at college levels, though...

Of course, I always wanted to be a cheerlader, never was one, and now try really hard not to resent them, to be very very honest...

I suppose I am trying to venture the suggestion that 'gender issues' have little to do with men. Its a thing that women talk about between themselves. In the same way that trying to conform to a body type is something advocated by women. I have never, for example, in my long life (much longer anyway than 27 years) heard a man discuss a woman in terms of 'size 6' or whatever other than disliking 'skinny' girls, and that is not because of their size, but because of the mind set that keeps them skinny. (Neurotic/obsessed = not fun to be with.)

So, 'gender Issues' are really 'Female Issues' and thus of little relevance to men.

Consider:

If the men you know do not talk about issues concerning gender, it does not follow that no men talk about issues pertaining to gender.

There is no denying that the stereotype of female (physical) beauty is far more narrow than that of male beauty. But do not think that that means that some males do not try to adhere to one set of standards or another.

Think about gym memberships- most of the people you see in a coed gym are males, trying to make their body look a certain way. Not *just* trying to be fit, mind you, but trying to "sculpt" their bodies. And there are all the protien shakes, calorie boosters, steroids and vitamins that can go along with that.

There is a booming market for men's haircare products and other such items pertaining to appearance.

And mens' gender issues are not just physical. What about viagara? The popularity of that drug among men, older AND younger, says a LOT about sexual standards men are concerned about meeting.

Another male gender issue is the mindset that is still so deeply ingrained in many men- that they must be the strong providers and protectors.

Now of course, please understand that I in no way think these male gender issues apply to all men. Nor do I think that female gender issues apply to all women. But can you see how "gender issues" really means much much more that the limited meaning you have ascribed to it? Certainly it includes the female preoccupation with meeting (western) society's beauty standards, but it could never be said to be comprised solely of it.

I have never in my life heard a woman discuss a man in terms of "deltoids" or whatever other than disliking 'weightlifter' guys, and that is not because of their size, but because of the midset that keeps them so muscled. (neurotic/obsessed = no fun to be with)

So: gender issues are just that: issues relevant to gender. Some are more relevant to men, some to women, some to both.

Paragraph one.. conceded

Paragraph 2.. well, its really about numbers. Far more women - the majority it seems to me - get involved in this than men. Yes, there are a few men who find that the pursuit of women is easier if gestures are made to show that you have something in common, that you share an attitude. Wrong headed, but I think that some men may think that to be liked by women you need to be more like women. So, I'll only half concede the point.

Gymns and hair dye are about vanity, a human condition not confined to one or other gender.

Viagra is not something I understand well, but I suspect that it has its equivalent in HRT for women. They fulfil the same need, a need that is human and not gender specific.

Sorry, I cut myself off.

I didn't intend my point about women trying to meet standards they set themselves to be the 'only' argument. Just an example.

The para about deltoids was beautifully done, and a point won.

How can an issue about gender apply equally to both genders?? Surely then it is just human behaviour.

Anyway, its your point about men wanting to be providers (and presumably women wanting to be provided for) that I really want to tackle. So here are some random bits and pieces.

It seems to me, personally, to be an absolute. I must provide. It is my job to provide. If I do not provide, then I fail. If my family is not materially OK, I have failed. I do not know the penalty for failure, but there is one. On the odd occasion when things have been difficult, I have almost physically felt my confidence ebb away. So thats a given. It is not ingrained (i.e. rubbed in by an outside force) it is part of me, and, I suppose, most men. I will work until I die. It is what I am here for.

All around me, of course, are women that work. If partnered, they have a choice (I do not) but see work as a good thing, as something they want. And they take it. That in itself is fine. But the motive is not the same. To work because you want to work is not the same as working because you have to work. And that may be illustrated by the fact that many women are not good at work, in men's terms. Women don't, it sems to me, care in the same way. Because their motive is different.

'Having it all' is often proposed as an ambition for modern women. And it is eminently achievable. You can have a job, a career, with pay to match. You can have a husband. And if he is halfway reasonable, he will do his 'fair share'. You can have a family, and contrive an equitable solution to bringing them up. A great many people do that. It works.

As a man, I have no choices. I must work. But I have no problem with my wife working. If I can provide enough for the shelter, the food, the day to day needs, I am at peace. My wife has all the choices. She can earn as much or as little as she wants, and either contribute to the running expenses, or not as she wishes. I don't mind. My part in the enterprise is taken care of.

A question, as a people watcher. Why do women who apparently 'have it all' then up sticks and leave their family in search of... (Don't worry, its not a personal thing, just an observation of people around me). For men, its (usually) about sex. But what do women want?

This is all because you used the term 'gender issues'. Why not 'Human behaviour'? Or 'Psychology'?

The only point I am trying to make by saying that men make attempts to meet standards also is that men can be just as prone as women to try to live up to some (physical or otherwise) standard that society says they ought to meet just because of their gender.

It seems like the only real difference between "men's" and "women's" issues of gender equality and /or stereotyping (if you can even separate them that way), is that men and women, respectively, tend to buy into on type of standard more than another. For example- women tend to be more concerned about meeting physical beauty standards- what their bodies should look like, what their clothes should be, what makeup, etc. Men tend to be more concerned about meeting standards regarding employment- what type of work they ought to do (i.e. you don't see many male nurses), how much money they ought to earn, how they should be able to provide for their families. Of course, none of this is to say that there aren't women who are obsessed with being providers and men who are obsessed with their muscles.

So- certainly, men and women are different, and thus tend to be more involved with different issues regarding their gender. But I sincerely doubt that there are more issues for one sex or another.

I think that vanity and attempting to meet an ideal are rather different things. There are certainly vain men and women. But I am not sure that those are always the same men and women that are trying so hard to look the way society say they should look. I am far from vain, personally, but *am* still guilty of buying into that standard (I try not to, but...). So gym memberships and hair styling can be about just vanity, but I think they are more often about (at the bottom of it) insecurity. (Also, as you said, not confined to one or other sex.)

What is HRT? A drug, I'm guessing? Again- I didn't mean to say that sexual ability, etc. is an issue solely worried over by the male population, just wanted to cite it as an example of a gender issue that is (at least in part) male. Men have certain ideals to live up to sexually *because* they are male (so the idea goes). I think this used to be more of a male ideal, but more and more standards are developing for women in this arena, too.

And the whole idea of trying to be something you're not because society (the media) says/to attract the opposite sex/etc. is- you said it well- wrong-headed. How do you think these standards came to exist in the first place? Why, when people are (slowly) becoming more and more educated are these standards/ideals still so powerful? How do we get rid of them?

My thoughts on those questions are too long to get to at the moment- am at work and have to actually go do some work now.

HRT = Hormone Replacement Therapy.

How funny- I think we were both posting replies at the same time there... I hadn't seen your long reply when I posted my most recent...

hmm. I guess I said 'gender issues' because I see these things as issues that arise for people *because* of their gender. One could just as easily call it human behavior or psychology- but I prefer the term gender issues because it directs the mind instantly to thoughts about gender. (I guess)

Wow- ok- so much to tackle- will have to do this in pieces- let me start with your personal example-

now, I know you said that no outside force imposed the idea on you that you must provide for your family. But somewhere, at some time (probably at many times) someone or something gave you the impression that men=providers was the way to think about things. This has to be true unless you believe taht that idea was given to you in heaven, out of collective consciousness, or some other such idea. The prevailing theory says that that idea started out as the way to think about men because in prehistoric times, it *really* was the only way for things to be. Females were so much smaller and weaker that they could not- desire ir no- provide for themselves or their children. Since that time the idea has stuck, but it is simply not true any more. A woman can- as you noted- have a career and support herself and her children without any aid from a man (bar the sperm)- if that's the way she wants it to be. Doesn't it follow that a man, then, does not *have* to (in terms of survival) provide for his wife/family?

Of course, there are exceptions for people who cannot (literally) work, or can't work enough to support themselves. But insofar as we all have the capability to support ourselves, I believe that we have a duty to do that- women too! I believe that it is my job to support myself now that I am fully grown and capable of doing so. If I get married, I do not believe my husband has any obligation to provide for me UNLESS we work out (by specific conversation or a mutual understanding) that there will be some other arrangement.

Society and the world have changed since prehistoric times (duh) sufficiently that there is no *intrinsic* need for a male to provide for a female. There may arise needs externally- her inability to work (for whatever reason)- society's dictation- whatever. But those reasons are *external*.

A man- if he wants- is able to have the same choices that a woman has. Men have those same choices before they enter into agreements with their wives/finacees. If a man married a woman knowing that that woman expects him to provide for her (as many many women still do), then he is making an agreement to do just that. Then, yes, he has a duty.

So I guess my claim is that a man *does* have the same choices that a woman has. And, like a woman, if he wants to exercise his right to choose to provide only for himself, he needs to find a partner that will be ok with that arrangement.

Now- I bet you're thinking that finding a woman who thinks she has a duty to care for herself is much harder than finding a man. And that's completely correct. Why? Society/culture/family/etc. has conditioned women to believe that they require someone else's support, and men to believe that they ought to support women. Hence, gender issues. We are all conditioned to believe certain things about ourselves, and we generally act them out, right or wrong, throughout our lives.

As for you- personally- of course, I know next to nothing about you or your family, etc. BUT- I would venture to guess taht your belief that you must provide for them is comprised of right and wrong headed reasons. If you have married someone who you have a mutual understanding with that you will be the sole prvider, then yes, you have a duty to do that. And if you have children, then you have a duty to them as they cannot provide for themselves. If you believe that you have to provide for your wife *because* your wife is female - well, I think that's the wrong-headed bit. If you believe you must be the sole provider for your children *because* your wife does not have a duty to provide- again- I think it may be wrong-headed. So yes- if you made an agreement (explicit or implicit) with your wife to be the provider, then you would fail if you did not provide. But it's the agreement between you, not some force of nature, that mandates the duty.

I just what I am really getting at is that people need to be more aware of their choices. I am *not* trying to say that people should be doing one thing or another in the way of providing or cleaning or childrearing. If a person and thier partner find a method that works for them, and everyone is happy, then there's nothig wrong with that.

Choices aren't always easy or pretty, but we do have them. If a man falls in love with and wishes to marry a woman who clings to the idea that she cannot support herself and her husband must do so, then he has a choice. He can choose to marry her anyway and fulfill that expectation. Or he can choose not to marry her and to search for a woman he is more compatible with. He could even choose to marry her and *not* provide for her anyway. There is no magic hand from the sky that will swoop down and shake him up if he does that. I think we can agree that that would be fairly immoral, but he *could* do it.

People tend to say they do not have choices, that they MUST do such and so, that there are no alternatives, when in reality it is just that the alternatives are so undesireable that they do not want to acknowledge them. When you are mugged, you have a choice as to whether or not to give the mugger your wallet. Many people would say, "I didn't have a choice, he had a gun at my head. I had to give it to him." This is a fine thing to say when recounting your harrowing tale, but in truth, you can always have chosen to hang on to your wallet, in which case the mugger may shoot you. You just may not think of that since it is so automatic to opt for survival.

Is there any immorality in choosing not to provide for a wife if you have never ever made any agreement (implicit or explicit) that you would? Never even hinted at it? What will the consequence be? She will provide for herself? Is there anything wrong with that?

It is the *choice* to accept society's standard (that men must provide) that *creates* the duty to provide. How? If a man chooses to believe that standard, then, doubtless, he will, in verbal or non-verbal ways, show that to his prospective partner, thus creating, over the time of their courtship, presumeably, an implicit agreement between them. The consequences of his choice to believe that standard may be that future choices will be limited. If that is the case, the limitation of choices is self-imposed (through the earlier choice).

I guess I am starting to say the same thing over and over- let me move on.

Again, I am going to point out that if you do not know women who work because they have to to support themselves or that if you do not know women who meet your standards for good work, that does not mean that there are none. (and maybe you aren't implying that)...

I work because it recognize my own duty to support myself. It is no one else's job. It is mine alone until I make some other agreement with someone else (parents, prospective husband, etc.). There are a great many women, single and married, who work for the same reason. On the flip side, there are a great many men who work because they choose to, not because they agreed to provide. (Generally, I'm guessing, where the woman earns more than the man.) But naturally, these groups are in the minority.

If the motives for work are different, then those motives are only *sometimes* different. I imagine that my motive to work is about the same (in a basic way) as your own. I have to provide food and shelter for myself (I have no dependents, however) and take some pride in being able to do that at a level that provides me some material comfort.

My point here is just that one can't assume that women have different work motives. Even when the motives are different, women are still capable of (and do) work just as good as that of men.

On that thought- I will have to respond to your people watcher question later- must do some more *excellent* work.

I would like, if I may, to disagree with most of that. There are three formative influences that make us what we are. Nature (i.e. Genes), Nurture (the way we are brought up) and Environment (Society around us).

You might say that Society has been minimising gender differences in the last (say) 100 years. You might also propose that modern (Western)families educate their children to understand that stereotypes and assumptions are unnecessary and corrosive. I would allow both arguments.

But, you are discounting the genes.

You cannot discount the many millions of years in hunter/gatherer mode when present genetic patterns were laid down. My views were certainly not god given, or from a collective consciousness (a nice idea though!). Its in the genes. I, as a male, am genetically pre-disposed to certain types of behaviour, including the need to provide.

(I would allow the exception that there have always been some wily, cunning, strong women more than able to hunt and gather)

A man cannot really choose not to work. He must work. He must provide. You say I have a choice. I do not (Unless my parents were very rich). I need sex, I need a mate, I need a family. Thats all. Therefore I must demonstrate my prowess in the earning a living department. Technically, of course you are right. I can choose to be a monk, or a great but starving artist in a garret. But if I want to remain in mainstream society, those choices are denied.

More in a few days time.

I love, btw, your descriptions of work. Your boss sounds to me a perfect example of a woman who made a wrong choice somewhere!

Well, of course you are allowed.

And you are correct that I didn't think about genes. So that brings a new element into the mix. But I stand firm about choice. When you say "technically" that is what I mean.

And in terms of genes- one might have a genetic disposition toward depression or alcoholism, but one can certainly work around that disposition ***if*** a better life is at stake. And I'd say the same about a genetic disposition to hunt/gather or care/nuture.

"A man cannot really choose not to work. He must work. He must provide. You say I have a choice. I do not (Unless my parents were very rich). I need sex, I need a mate, I need a family. Thats all. Therefore I must demonstrate my prowess in the earning a living department. Technically, of course you are right. I can choose to be a monk, or a great but starving artist in a garret. But if I want to remain in mainstream society, those choices are denied."
--> I absolutely agree! Mainstream society makes no room for those who want to make valid, moral, reasonable choices that do not meet society's dated standards.

(Remember, though, that I don't mean you have no duty to work whatsoever- just no duty to do so for a mate. You could choose to work to support yourself, and then find a mate who recognised (and accpeted) her duty to support herself.)

My original point is that unreasonable inequalities still exist between genders. (Which can suck if you don't fit nicely into the approved gender roles.) I really think that the view of men as providers for their mates is one of those inequalities. If most men don't mind that role, or even enjoy it, then that's fine! If it works really well for them then there's nothing wrong with them fulfilling those roles. But it is unfair that the ones who aren't happy with that role that they must endure more difficulties that the rest.

(I know I rambled quite a bit in last post, so I am hoping this makes my idea a bit clearer...)



Oh- thanks- my work place is absolutely hellish. My boss is - well- there's just not one word for her. I hate it and writing about how much I hate it is all I can do to get through it sometimes...

Unreasonable unequalities still exist....

Yes, women have all the choices! (Which should neatly deflect some of your work orientated venom towards me, but begs the question... If you have the choice (as I propose), why do you do it? (work somewhere you don't like.) I'll have to ponder... It couldn't possibly be that I am wrong here??)

I'm off on some rambles, which are surprisingly misogynist from someone (me) I thought was well balanced, thoughtful and fair.

Maybe women choose the careers they do for a reason. If, for example, I - as a woman - am a nurse, I am unquestionably a 'good person'. By definition, therefore, I cannot be seen as neglecting any personal responsibility to live well. Whatever I do, I am excused because obviously, being a nurse, I am, at heart, 'good'. The same applies to teaching, social work etc etc.

Men work in 'female careers' because they think that by being apparently gentle and feminised, they will attract women.

The lack of men in Primary and Junior teaching has consequences, it seems to me, especially when combined with a lack of men at home (meaning single mothers). The Jesuits say 'give me a boy until the age of seven and he is mine for life'. If mainstream society doesn't even see a boy until he is eleven then you may well have an outsider for life - which can mean a lot of trouble if he turns criminal. And so the underclass grows.

The need for regulation seems a feminine requirement. No, thats wrong, isn't it. There are Trade Unionists, bureaucrats etc. who are still mostly men. Hmm... I am biaised at the moment. I am trying to get a business moving forward, and it is the women who are hiding away, making rules, tidying, organising - all displacement activities when we need to be bold, looking forward, attracting business.

If you have a micro-regulated society, there is more opportunity to be right or wrong, and be secure within set boundaries. There is less understanding for the maverick, for the unruly, for the creative and inventive. For change.

Without change, society stagnates.

If I were a monk, I would say that I had no choice at all. It was a vocation to which I was called. Ditto, the artist, impelled by a talent.

I don't think I said men have a duty - or even a responsibility - to work. If they do, it is only a duty to themselves. I am saying that men 'must' work. Its in their nature to work. There are many reasons to work apart from 'earning a living' although that remains a prime motivation. There is a need to contribute, a need to create, a need to leave a legacy, a need to have a label ("I am an Architect" or whatever) a need to belong to a tribe, a need for social interaction. I would say, incidentally, that the first three of those are male, and the last three female.

That'll do for now!

For starters- what venom? There's no venom directed at anyone regarding work, except toward my boss for being such a crap!

I work somewhere I don't like because it pays more than anywhere else. Simple as that.

Women and men have most of the same choices. For every choice a man does not have, I feel certain that there is another (not same, but just as unfair) choice that a woman does not have.

What I am saying is- It's not that the grass is greener on one side or the other, but rather that there's more green in the North corner of one yard, where as there's more green in the East corner of the other. And the green area is equally divided.

I have known a few women AND men who are nurses who I do not in anyway consider to be "good people." Perhaps they had good intentions when they entered their chosen field, but certainly now, those people work those jobs because that's what they know. Simpoly doing your job (even if it is a health-oriented one) does not make one good. After all, the people I have known would leave in a heartbeat if they ever thought their pay was ebing taken away. Forget the people who might suffer as a result. I'm not kidding.

If the men you know only work "feminine" jobs to etc etc. it does not follow that all men do so. I know men who work those jobs because they care about the work and it is what they like to do. I would bet a worldwide poll would show that this is more often the case. Perhaps we'll never know...

If the women making rules, organising, etc in your business are hindering the business' growth, why not ask them why they are doing so? Perhaps there is a reason? Or perhaps they are brainless ninnys. I couldn't say. But certainly if I want to regulate or organise somehting it is for a good reason, not because I have some propensity toward it... in fact, in my case, it's quite the opposite.

I most certainly agree that micro-regulation is often unnecessary and degenerative for our understanding of creativity and growth. I wish people in general were more interested in creativity and growth.

"I don't think I said men have a duty - or even a responsibility - to work. If they do, it is only a duty to themselves." --> Yes, exactly! That's what I've been saying all along!

"I am saying that men 'must' work. Its in their nature to work." -->May be for some, I know quite a few who feel certain that it is entirely against their nature to work.

"There are many reasons to work apart from 'earning a living' although that remains a prime motivation. There is a need to contribute, a need to create, a need to leave a legacy, a need to have a label ("I am an Architect" or whatever) a need to belong to a tribe, a need for social interaction. I would say, incidentally, that the first three of those are male, and the last three female." --->If those things have been "traditionally" male or female, it's all out the window now. Perhaps you could say that women **tend** to care more about the latter, or men **tend** to care more about the former. If that's all you're claiming, then fair enough. But rest assured that there are plenty of men and women out there who break that mold.

You are a very hard fish to provoke...

I was saddened to read your reply re your work. It really cannot be good for you to work solely for money. At best we have our three score years and ten. It seems a shame to waste some of them in soul demeaning labour.

Having just mown the lawn (a man's job in anybody's terms!) I can tell you that my grass is green all over. Unfortunately that is primarily due to the quantity of weeds it supports.

If you are, say, a selfish person, and know that to be a bad or, at least, not very good, thing, I think you may well choose a career as a 'good person' (e.g. a Nurse) to disguise your bad bits. Assuming, of course, that society judges you by what you do rather than what you are. Which it often does. I think. There are exceptions to everything.

I think I said that my employees' organising was a displacement activity. They do it because they want to contribute, but are frightened (if thats the word) to go out on a limb and suggest stuff to advance the business which I (as a male (= bully)) will reject. I hope that is what is going on, anyway, because that is manageable. If they are brainless ninnies, I am in big trouble!

A propensity to organise is a way of shirking responsibility. Stuff about re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind. Mind you, I suppose you could also say that shouting from the bridge is the last refuge of the organisationally challenged! If those in charge had taken as much care with their work as the deckchair re-arranger, things may have been different!

Its really about control rather than gender or sex.

Only in the last couple of years has this been clear to me. I was brought up to be nice to women. To flatter, charm (!!!), and treat women. To respect, honour, love... etc etc. And one way (just one) I have found to do this is to 'give'. I have always given all I can. Not realising that 'giving' can be interpreted as a form of control, a benign bullying. If I give you, as a woman, diamonds and gowns and holidays in the sun (I exaggerate!!) you may, it seems, think I am trying to control your life - or at least parts of it. Such motives may be far from the truth, I may just enjoy giving. But if you don't enjoy taking, then we are in trouble! I see things much more in terms of 'control' and can act to avoid behaviour that may be seen as controlling or bullying. I don't buy you diamonds, and am willing to let you pay in the restaurant. (Through gritted teeth admittedly) And am happy to be controlled sometimes. Which makes for better relations generally.


Sorry about that mini-gush... we are straying from h2g2 territory.

The tribal thing is anmother pet theory of mine. We all belong to tribes, several different tribes at a time, with the badges to suit. But perhaps I'll leave that for another conversation.

Isn't that funny- in person I am quite easy to provoke. Or were you implying that anyway by way of sarcasm?

Have to agree- much of the way people relate is about control. But does it have to/need to be? You know- have you ever read the Celestine Prophecy? Now if you're not into new-age philosophies, don't gag yet- neither am I- but there's some interesting stuff in there about the way people typically relate to one another and their use of control in that relation. It isn't any sort of a new idea, but it prompts you to think about things in a different way...

It *is* a sad sad sad thing that I am in my job just for the $$. I do believe it's a waste of my youth (what's left of it). But what else can I do? I am tested every day by the choice between financial obligation/duty to support self/responsibility/etc. and peace of mind/happiness/doing something of value in the world. But in the end, I always choose the same- I don't think I can choose my own happiness when I know that taking a more enjoyable job would mean taking less pay and ergo forcing my parents to come up with more $$ for me (because duty or not, that's what they would do). In the end, I believe it's really an immediate consequence of the current job market and a longer-term consequence of my choice to focus on school while I was going through college and not work a 2nd job (menaing that I put a lot on credit cards which I now have to pay for...). So I know in a way, it's my own fault. I also know that I can't control the job market and if I can't find better paying, more suitable (for me) work, it's not for lack of trying. *sigh*

Anyway- sorry- much too sad to dwell on that. Suffice it to say taht I am paying off my debt as fast as I can so that I can afford to take a lesser paying, more intelligent/creatively oriented/useful job.

I suppose you're right about the selfish persons' motives for becoming nurses, etc. That probably explains a lot of the uncommitted nurses, etc. that I have known.

I just wrote a long paragraph about organisation and responsibility and realized I didn't need to write the whole paragraph at all. Anyway- I think the crux of the matter it in what one chooses to organise. Clearly if you choose to organise deck chairs on the Titanic, you're a shirker. But choosing to organise some project at work or an event of some kind places a *lot* of responsibility on the organiser.