Boys Just Want to Have Fun

(This essay was published in Time magazine last week.)

When I was in college, I followed a simple strategy: Go where the boys are. Sure, that led me into many settings where inebriants flowed, but my reasoning was strictly practical. Men ruled the world, as anyone could see, so the trick was to do as they did. No girlie major like art history or French lit for me. I started in chemistry and then proceeded up the gender gradient to physics, finally achieving in Classical Mechanics the exalted status of only girl in the class.

But that was an era when the cool kids smoked Gauloises and argued about Kierkegaard and Trotsky. Today, as two recent reports have revealed, it's the girls who achieve and the boys who coast along on gut courses congenial to hangovers. Boys are less likely to go to college in the first place (only 45 percent of college students under 25 are male) and are less likely to graduate as well. If I tried to follow my original strategy now, I would probably end up with an M.A. in Madden, the football video game, and a postgraduate stay in rehab.

The trend has occasioned some predictions of a coming matriarchy in which high-achieving women will rule over a nation of slacker guys. We've all seen the movie, an endless loop culminating most recently in You, Me and Dupree. That little girls' T shirt slogan--GIRLS RULE, BOYS DROOL--is beginning to look less like a slur and more like an empirical observation.

But it may be that the boys still know what they're doing. Among other things that have changed since the '60s is the corporate culture, which once valued literacy, numeracy, high GPAs and the ability to construct a simple sentence. No doubt there are still workplaces where such achievements are valued, but when I set out as an undercover journalist seeking a white-collar corporate job for my book Bait and Switch, I was shocked to find the emphasis entirely on such elusive qualities as "personality," "attitude" and "likeability." Play down the smarts, the career coaches and self-help books advised, cull the experience and exude a "positive attitude."

In a June article on corporate personality testing, the Washington Post reported on a woman who passed the skills test for a customer-care job but wasn't hired because she failed the personality test. Those tests, including the ubiquitous Myers-Briggs test, have no scientific credibility or predictive value, as Annie Murphy Paul showed in her 2004 book, Cult of Personality. You can have one Myers-Briggs personality on Tuesday and another when you retake the test on Thursday. Their chief function, as far as I could tell when I took them, was to weed out the introverts. When asked whether you'd rather be the life of the party or curl up with a book, the correct answer is always "Party!"

So the best preparation for that all-important personality test may well be a college career spent playing poker and doing tequila shots. An Atlanta woman I interviewed, a skilled website writer, was fired without explanation after a few weeks at a job. "I tried to fit in," she told me. "I went to lunch with the guys, but all they talked about was sports, which I know nothing about, and they all seemed to know each other from college." Poor thing, she had probably wasted her college years in the library.

The business world isn't totally hostile to higher education--an M.B.A. still counts for something. But as G.J. Meyer wrote in his classic 1995 book, Executive Blues: Down and Out in Corporate America, a higher degree in something other than business or law--or, worse, a stint of college teaching--can impart a deadly "academic stench" to one's résumé. And what are we to make of the growing corporate defiance of elementary grammar? At a job fair I attended, AT&T Wireless solicited sales reps with the question, if it was a question, "Are you ready to put your skills to work. Like the way you're a quick study. How you're good at finding solutions." Take that, you irritating, irrelevant English 101 professors!

Maybe we need a return to gender-segregated higher education, with the academic equivalent of Pinocchio's Pleasure Island for boys, where they can hone their "people skills" at keg parties. But we will need those high-achieving girls more than ever. Someone, after all, is going to have to figure out how to make an economy run by superannuated slacker boys competitive again in a world filled with Chinese and Indian brainiacs. I'd still major in physics if I were doing it again, just because there ought to be at least a few Americans, of whatever gender, who know something beyond the technology of beer bongs.

Comments

[realpc]

An education in physics taught her nothing about reasoning. Unless this was just meant to be entertaining.

The highest earners have always been the extroverts, and the introverts have always been the scientists, engineers, etc. Barbara implies that this is new, but we all know that it isn't.

There may be more girls than boys in college, but the boys still greatly outnumber girls in "introvert" subjects like physics, engineering and computer science. These jobs can pay well, but nothing like high-level management or sales.

There are lots of smart girls with college degrees, but Barbara neglects to mention what they typically majored in. Degrees in English, art history or sociology do not get you a big important corporate job.

So she has once again confused everyone with inprecise, inaccurate generalizations, in order to make a point. Barbara's point is that girls are passing boys in smartness, just as smartness is losing its value. Poor girls.

But education was never a sure path to wealth. Education has always given an advantage, but was never a sufficient condition for success. And success varies greatly in degree. How much does a typical physics professer earn, for example, compared to a typical corporate executive?

There is so much about this article that is illogical, I can't cover it all.

Why doesn't Barbara mention what percentage of the college girls are majoring in practical subjects, and what percentage are following their bliss?

Barbara was suprised when, posing as a middle-aged women with no work experience, she was not offered big important jobs. She is also suprised that a degree in English does not guarantee success.

No, all you have to do is be one of the guys. Well if that's true, how come there are so many good old extroverts who aren't rich? Obviously you need more than drinking skills and sports knowledge.

[Eric Kirk]

So are slacker boys still actually being hired over women? I've a brother-in-law in the corporate world who claims that women now have an advantage when it comes to promotions - at least at the midmanagement level. Don't quite believe it, but I don't have any empirical data to contradict him.

[Scraps]

Barbara was suprised when, posing as a middle-aged women with no work experience, she was not offered big important jobs.

This grotesque distortion of Ehrenreich's book tells you everything you need to know about the troll who posted it, and the honesty of the rest of his analysis.

I have read -- no cite to hand, I'm afraid -- that a great deal of the much-ballyhooed gender education gap disappears when you look at it racially as well: that it is black women who are outpacing black men, and that that accounts for most of the overall difference.

[Scraps]

I see the blockquote tag doesn't work. Ah well. The first line was quoted from the troll's comment.

[Adil Sardar]

Very interesting article. I am wondering what type of white collar business jobs you were seeking? I mean it would be reasonable when searching for a sales person, your looking for the most attractive outgoing person possible. They represent you on the frontline. They must be more likeable and friendly than smart. Not saying that being smart would hurt, but the other two attributes would be more valuable.

I appreciate that you don't brand all types of carreers for the "partying" type. For instance, I would bet when hiring an accountant or engineer you would be looking for the book smarts. Those who would have spent all the time in the library, while everyone else plays poker.

Now, I would hate to be sexist, but in those fields (engineering - I am a member), we would definately love more women joining us. Right now the ratio of men to women is very unbalanced. Perhaps as girls continue to score better in school the tide will shift :)

[deang]

A subject that seems related here is the shallow pop culture gender dichotomization in the US over the past, say, 15 years or so, in which people believe things like, "Guys won't ask for directions" and "Girls don't like to read maps" or "Guys like to talk about sports" but "Girls like to talk about feelings" or "Guys like violent action movies" while "Girls like movies about relationships (chick flicks)." It seems to me that this sort of shallow differentiating, and the tendency to conform to it, didn't exist so strongly in this country before about the late 80s, and by this point it probably manifests in college performance and corporate hiring tendencies.

[Amy]

Just some related thoughts:
Where I work, gender equity as far as the number of women in VP and management roles is pretty good. There's a lot of power-mongering between and among women, role models for younger, newer employees, etc.

HOWEVER - there is still very much an 'old boys network,' in that things like poker and golf and having a wife w/kids at home are shared 'hobbies' that bond the male managers during non-work times, where women are, for the most part, excluded. At times I have found my inability to smalltalk about this discouraging and intimidating.

I haven't seen any hiring inequities, but I do wonder about confidence-building. Is there an 'old girls network' comparable to the guys'? To a certain extent, yes - people tend to hire or encourage people they like and respect, which is often based on people who are like themselves. I guess my point is that this is all very much about social interactions and shared experiences, not necessarily about disrespect of the other gender on either side. One thing I like about where I work is that plenty of the upper-level females, while open about having families, don't wear heels or makeup, play golf, are friendly and nice, female but professional and serious. I guess I just feel that things are changing, even if it's just in bits and pieces, and we have to rethink how we characterize gender bonding in the workplace, because I think going forward it's not going to be the same as it was in the past.

[Buffy]

I'm an example of this.

Doctorally educated in nursing administration, I was very clearly warned not to complete it if I wanted to work onthe service side of healthcare - in hospitals, rather than academia. At the time, I was teaching on a full time tenure track, working 12 hours shifts every weekend in a critical care unit to stay clinically current, going to school full time(flying in and out of NYC weekly to attend day long classes), publishing, and creating courses in a new curriculum - all on top of full time teaching and student advisement responsibilities.

So I left as an ABD (all but dissertation) - was a candidate but did not write the dissertation, which by the way, was a proposal to identify the affiliation chief nurse executives demonstrated when forced to choose between a nursing or an organizational orientation. I was informed that there was no such issue!

The academic record made me untouchable. And the fact that I would whistleblow to protect safe nursing practice and safe patient care made me doubly dangerous.

I am now unemployed and unemployable after being fired for complaining about conditions which led to 12 unclaimed infant remains languishing in a hospital morgue for up to five years, and demanding reparation for paitnet sitters - unskilled and untrained - who had worked in full itme positions without any benefits, training, evaluation or knowledge that they were entitled to benefits(their manager was given a lifetime achievement award shortly after this department was transitioned to me for administration), and am looking square in the face of working in an unskilled role, sans benefits, for my audacity to pursue advanced educaiton and to stand up for professional principles.

Men in nursing, are golden. They are promoted faster than women, and they represent a disproportionate number in chief nurse executive roles.

If you're from a legitimate media source, contact me for the specific hospital info and primary source information.

[realpc]

"This grotesque distortion of Ehrenreich's book tells you everything you need to know about the troll who posted it, and the honesty of the rest of his analysis."

Oh heavens, I got her books mixed up. That has no influence on the logic of my analysis -- judge for yourself.

I am not a troll, just someone who hates irrational propaganda.

For example, Barbara proclaims that "75% OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON'T HAVE DECENT WAGES AND BENEFITS."

Oh my gosh, you mean most Americans are living under indecent conditions? Well no, actually it means:

"Only 25.2 percent of American workers have a job that pays at least $16 per hour and provides health insurance and a pension"

So your job could pay $50 per hour and provide health insurance and a retirement account, but if it does not ALSO include a pension Barbara will not count it as having decent wages and benefits.

It's so easy to twist the facts to fit an ideology. I just want people to be a little skeptical of Barbara's propaganda.

Now what exactly is she trying to convince you of? That you might as well stop trying to improve your life because America sucks and most people can't succeed here?

We have many serious problems here, but lack of opportunity is not one of them. Do not believe anyone who tries to convince you that you can't do something positive, that you must be a failure because the system is unfair, because you're a woman or a minority, or whatever.

Just don't believe them, stay positive, and you will be ok.

[lc2]

Let's not forget that increasingly, "partying" for college-age women entails Girls Gone Wild-style antics, for the amusement and titillation of the men present. I'm mystified by the fact that I live in an area saturated with elite private colleges -- some of which are female-only -- and the college bars advertise with photos of "girls" (21-year olds are still "girls" in this world) gyrating together on fake bulls, girls French kissing, girls in wet t-shirt contests.

The NYT cover story from about a month ago cited universal agreement among those who study college demographics that women are outpacing men academically in every field except computer science and engineering, in which they're rapidly catching up.

In other words, keep positive by flashing flesh and feigning arousal for free, then maybe the fact that you've been hitting the books while the boys play Nintendo until 4am (a problem mentioned repeatedly in the NYT article) will actually pay off and you can make a dent in your student loans.

pc, if you're such a free thinker, how come your responses are so predictable?

[realpc]

"pc, if you're such a free thinker, how come your responses are so predictable?"

Because I am consistently pointing out leftist bias in Barbara's essays. If this blog expressed right-wing conservative bias, I would point that out. But it doesn't, ever. The bias here is utterly predictable so my criticisms are also predictable.

This blog is boring and gets very little traffic -- unless I stir up controversy. I read it once in a while just to see how utterly predictable the propaganda will be, because I am interested in the psychology of bias.

[twig]

"Just don't believe them, stay positive, and you will be ok."

Unless you get sick. Or a kid gets sick. Or you cut the hell out of your foot and have no health insurance (a friend of mine - 700$ doctor bill for five minutes in the office and a few bandages) . Or the car breaks down and you can't get to work. Or your headlights break down and you don't have the money to replace them, so you have to wait to come to work until after the sun rises in order to keep from being pulled over by the cops (one of my mother's co-workers).

Or you work ten years in a retail job only to be pushed out when they don't want to pay you a high salary anymore, and work another ten years in a warehouse until you can't walk anymore because walking on concrete floors for 20+ years will fuck up anyone's legs (my mother, the hardest worker I've ever known).

I just want people to be a little skeptical of Barbara's propaganda.

What, that workers who have no options are generally treated like shit by an upper management that doesn't have to ever see them in person? That you can work your entire life for a company and be thrown away like trash?

Ms. Ehrenreich didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, thx.

[realpc]

You have to admit that
"75% OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON'T HAVE DECENT WAGES AND BENEFITS."
is deliberately misleading propaganda.

Why not say "75% OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON'T HAVE PENSIONS," which is more likely to be true, but much less alarming. We all know that private companies seldom provide pensions anymore, although they often do help with employees' retirement accounts. Sure everyone would like to retire at 55 with a pension, as you can with some government and union jobs. But retiring at 65 with an adequate retirement account plus social security is decent enough. As we all know.

If a job pays badly and also lacks health insurance, and also has no pension, that's a problem. But that does NOT describe 75% of American workers and Barbara, and the author of the study, know it darn well.

The logic trick used here is pretty obvious. For example, I would be telling the truth if I said "Over 99% of Americans either live in poverty OR do not own a private jet."

[realpc]

twig,

Misfortune and sickness happen and I have said at least a dozen times at this blog that we need government programs to help children and anyone too old or too sick to work. And we have them, but maybe not enough.

But individual responsibility is an important factor, which almost everyone here completely ignores. Two people can have the same disability and one collects from the government while the other figures out how to stay independent. This happens all the time. I know someone who is "too sick" to work yet goes out dancing and takes expensive vacations.

It's all a matter of degree -- charity and compassion are important but so are determination and drive. It depends on the situation. Barbara encourages people to feel like victims and to blame the capitalist system. You can feel angry and sorry for yourself until we have a perfect system.

[Buffy]

When thoughtful questioning and examination occurs about the limits and faults of our societal systems, the seeds of change can disperse. While independence is certainly a goal, it is not attainable by many.

Realpc, you harp on how independent you are in spite of some undisclosed disability. However, I venture to posit that your situation of being able to maintain independence isn't the norm.

Blaming people who do not have your resources - whether they be intellectual, financial or real, does not address the core problems.

And your hijacking of the comments isn't promulgating your argument as much as it is serving to inflame.

[realpc]

I am not blaming anyone for their problems!! I am criticizing Barbara for being a propagandist who bends facts and ignores the simplest rules of logic.

Everyone has disadvantages and advantages. Most Americans find ways to survive and enjoy their lives. If you have made the best possible effort and failed, then hopefully you can get government help. But Barbara says absolutely nothing to encourage effort, because she wants you to complain and blame the system.

It is impossible to know in each case who is to blame, and it's almost always a combination of the person and their surroundings.

But people would always rather blame the surroundings. How many ABD's blame their lack of motivation, and how many blame their advisors?

I know people who never learned how to make an all-out effort or how to stick with a decision. You don't learn that when you keep hearing how unfair everything is, and how it's all someone else's fault.

As I keep saying, it's a matter of degree. A humane society provides for anyone not healthy enough to work.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

The problem with "realpc" is that s/he is interpreting Ms. Ehrenreich's points from a limited frame of reference and from a whole range of stereotypical, greedy notions. S/he seems to have missed the point entirely here...namely, the growing cultural hostility towards seriousness, intellectualism and higher education.

"The highest earners have always been the extroverts, and the introverts have always been the scientists, engineers, etc. Barbara implies that this is new, but we all know that it isn't."

Barbara never implied this at all. While it is true that "extroverts" have always been more likely to impress potential employers with their sparkling personalities instead of their actual abilities, the emphasis on this has become increasingly pronounced in recent years, for a number of reasons I won't get into here.

And what employment stats are YOU referencing for these claims? The "introvert" professions you mention have traditionally been some of the more highly paid professions, simply because they require a great deal of education and highly specified knowledge and aptitude. This is certainly not "old news" as "realpc" asserts.

"There may be more girls than boys in college, but the boys still greatly outnumber girls in "introvert" subjects like physics, engineering and computer science. These jobs can pay well, but nothing like high-level management or sales."

Wrong and WRONG. With the exception of the US, more women than ever are employed in engineering, programming and science fields. On a global scale, the playing field is more equally comprised of both genders than it has ever been before. The US severely lags behind this trend (and behind technological progress in general), as Barbara acknowledges. Also, programmers, engineers and scientists easily make very good, stable salaries starting out...something that can't be said for "sales" people.

"Why doesn't Barbara mention what percentage of the college girls are majoring in practical subjects, and what percentage are following their bliss?"

"Practical" versus "bliss"?

I think you just gave yourself away, realpc. You obviously share the same anti-intellectual sentiment Barbara describes, and likely pissed your own college years away "partying" and playing beer pong. With this statement, you summed up the prevailing cultural attitude to which Barbara alludes: Major in something "practical," forget boring "intellectualism" and your personal aptitude, party hard in college to escape the horrors of learning and then join the rest of the herd in selling something for corporate America. Yipee.

"She is also suprised that a degree in English does not guarantee success."

Wow.

Realpc, congrats on completely discrediting yourself. You epitomize the American greed that has successfully obliterated whatever shred of intellectualism that remained after the ravage of the 80s.

But perhaps you're right. Sacrificing our intellect on the altar of capital is such a small price to pay for a lifetime of material bliss. Those goddamn English majors deserve what they get.

[realpc]

Of course before the 1980s, Ms. Spaghetti, there were hordes of American intellectuals.

Do you realize that non-practical subjects were only for the snooty upper classes, and that middle and working class Americans studied practical subjects, if they went to college at all. Actually, most did not.

More Americans go to college now than ever. There is no decrease in intellectualism. But as always, the middle and working class try to be practical. They do not have the luxury of ignoring practical reality.

If you think a degree in English should guarantee you success, then you live in a fantasy world.

If anything, Americans have become less practical. Everyone imagines they can become a world famous artist, actor, scientist, athlete, philosopher, etc.

So before you mourn the good old days of intellectualism, read a history book.

I am sure you are blaming it all on Reagan era when hippies got tired of being poor and decided to grow up, if they had any sense.

I know what you really want -- leisure socialism, where everyone gets paid a living wage by the government to follow their bliss. You just hope there will always be enough suckers to work practical jobs so you can stay home and write novels. Because you are more gifted and special than the practical suckers.

[lc2]

Realpc:

Yawn. You hardly make this or any other discussion more interesting, as you simply rehash the same pap Horatio Alger mythology we've all heard a million times before. Most people who post here are interested in sorting reality from the fairy tale that you, as a result of either lack of imagination or an attempt to justify your own sense of inadequacy, insist on believing. If it makes you happy, good for you, but trust me, you're not saying anything we haven't all heard before from the pulpit, the late Ken Lay, or the orangutan posing as the President of the United States.

[uccellina]

Psst - don't feed the trolls, kids.

[Buffy]

Speaking of the orang'....
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2/webfullreport.htm

Makes for some very interesting, if disturbing, reading....

Buffy
http://www.eggspose.blogspot.com

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

Going to college does not equate intellectualism, anymore than having a high paying job equates productivity or contribution to one's community.

As for the rest of your boring, hackneyed tripe about "leisure socialism" and novel writing, you're clearly a foolish troll. You can't possibly be a serious person with such nonsense.

[English Degree Graduate Doing Fine]

What's with the hostility against English degrees? Who exactly do you think teaches your children how to speak and communicate properly, realpc? Some fairy who drops from the sky?

You seem to direct so much resentment towards those who choose a liberal arts path. I guess you're forgetting the inherent "practicality" of communication and the expertise and knowledge required to teach others the same. Afterall, isn't that what makes the "extroverts" you defend so successful in their lucrative sales careers?

Also, while it's true that lower classes have always been forced into more "practical" careers as opposed to those privy to more options, it is also true that there is a creative element of intellect that is missing from our society/culture. Students almost invariably choose college degrees that are "marketable," rather than pursuing fields that might be slightly less lucrative, but more personally fulfilling. Colleges now churn out the same willing drones, year after year. A college degree does not ensure that the holder possesses critical thinking skills or any other hallmark of intellectual ability, other than perhaps the fortitude to jump through all of the right academic hoops. I think that we can all agree that the quality of education in general is in serious trouble in this country.

As your resentment indicates, respect and appreciation for liberal arts study is on the decline. Without this element, any culture faces a certain and painful demise.

[realpc]

"As for the rest of your boring, hackneyed tripe about "leisure socialism" and novel writing, you're clearly a foolish troll. You can't possibly be a serious person with such nonsense."

You're just angry because I know what you want. Leisure socialism is taken very seriously by some progressives, especially the ones who feel intellectually superior.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

Realpc:

That's nice and all, but I'm not an establishment "progressive," nor do I consider myself to be "intellectually superior" to anyone else...other than maybe the beer guzzling business majors taking up good space on most college campuses these days. But, then again, that wouldn't really take much.

I've read your comments on other blog entries and you never miss a beat when it comes to displaying the enormous chip you carry on your shoulder...hence your intense hatred of "english majors" or people who pursue fields of study in something YOU deem "impractical."

This has nothing to do with "leisure socialism" or any other red herring you care to introduce into the discussion. The fact is that, over the course of the past 50 years or so, there HAS been a shift in cultural attitudes towards higher education and intellectualism in general. Plain and simple. Compare the differences between college students and campus life today versus 30 years ago, and I think you have your answer. As someone who rants and raves about "logic" and "reason" (completely impractical fields of study, by the way), one would assume that you'd catch the gist of this blog.

You simply want an argument when there isn't one to be had here. So stop trolling and give that weight on your shoulder a rest.

[DJBPace07]

Being in college now I see a lot of what is going on in this thread. From what I can tell, despite the Girls Gone Wild antics, many women are doing much better in college than their male counterparts. The boys are off planning thirsty Thursday and playing poker while the girls are studying. Granted there are those girls who do the same when it comes to partying, but there do seem to be fewer of them on a campus that is 60% women.

Business degrees are highly lucrative, people often advance quickly and gain more prestige than those with liberal arts degrees. But they do pay a price, not in money, but in their personal lives. They devote themselves to their jobs and leave everything else out. No vacations, no hobbies, no life other than the workplace. I’ve had college professors literally lecture on how not to make yourself constantly available to your employers so you cannot be reached for more work during your off-hours. Many companies are choosing to hire based more on personality than actual skills. I personally know several businessmen and women who work on Wall St. that can barely put a sentence together and can't find Brazil on a map. A person's personality is indeed what many businesses are looking for, skills...not so much.

[realpc]

" Compare the differences between college students and campus life today versus 30 years ago,"

Jeannettee,

30 years ago, the majority of college students were upper class. They didn't have to worry about money, so they studied what they liked. Today, almost everyone can go to college. You should be glad about that. Of course it means that many students are from middle or working class families, and therefore have to think about a career.

I have no resentment against people who are artistic or intellectual. Most of my education had no practical value. I never raised a family so there was less pressure to earn a lot of money. I have always enjoyed learning for its own sake.

On the other hand, I also like doing work that has practical value to the world, not just myself. That's what it means to study something practical -- wanting to provide a service or product for other people, not just to please yourself. Yes there are selfish motives since we all like to get paid. But it also makes you feel a part of society.

And I'm sure you won't believe this but practical work can be just as creative and fun as intellectual/artistic work. I know because I have always done both.

I am not speaking out of anger or resentment. Just trying to balance the negative "poor me" attitude Barbara is promoting.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

The things that you say keep getting more and more ridiculous, realpc:

"On the other hand, I also like doing work that has practical value to the world, not just myself. That's what it means to study something practical -- wanting to provide a service or product for other people, not just to please yourself. Yes there are selfish motives since we all like to get paid. But it also makes you feel a part of society."

Did you even read the myriad of contradictions here? Do you honestly believe that the liberal arts student chooses his or her respective course of study with intentions of only "pleasing themselves"? And this is in contrast to the business student, who chooses his or her respective course of study for purely altruistic reasons of "serving others"?

HAHAHAHAHAH!

You can't be serious! Invariably, this is almost ALWAYS the reverse! I can't believe how clueless you are here!

"And I'm sure you won't believe this but practical work can be just as creative and fun as intellectual/artistic work."

No way! Are you kidding me? Come one...do you honestly think that you're the only person who has worked both "impractical" and "practical" fields? (Whatever that even means in your little world.) Give me a break. The cab driver with a Ph.D. in Lit is pretty cliche by now.

I'd be curious to know exactly what makes you the expert on what and what isn't practically and socially valuable. The guy selling stocks on Wall Street contributes more to society than the social worker or teacher?

You're deluded. You are clearly operating from a very distinct bias against liberal arts professions, which you demonstrate in nearly every word you say. You want to believe that intellectuals and liberal arts students want to mooch off of you and your paycheck, which you of course derive from a "practical" job," while they write some some book, which of course does nothing "practical" to contribute to society. Like I said, you're deluded.

The only one with the "poor me" attitude here is you. Your own bias so blatant that it's amazing. Better remove the plank from your own eye before critiquing someone else's alleged bias.

[realpc]

Spaghetti Sauce,

You twist everything I say so I won't bother trying to reason with you anymore. If you want to call names and deliberately misunderstand, go right ahead and enjoy the rage.

I have nothing against liberal arts. But it's a fact that not everyone can be a successful writer, musician, painter, etc. We have to consider what society wants and needs, in addition to creative self-expression. That is what I mean by being practical. Society needs English teachers, but it does not need all the mediocre novels that are churned out. We all over-estimate our creations.

"The guy selling stocks on Wall Street contributes more to society than the social worker or teacher?"

You must be aware that I never implied that. Social work and teaching are both practical jobs, obviously. I never said financial jobs are practical while helping jobs are impractical. You must be learning disabled if you think I suggested that.

The guy on Wall street and the social worker contribute to society in completely different ways. And they both may find their work personally rewarding.

You are just mixing unrelated things together and sputtering in rage.

[Buffy]

The practical and impractical debate realpc is having with herself is lsilly and irrelevant. The liberal arts emphasize critical thought, logic, reason and the exploration of ideas. The liberal arts serve as a foundation for every conceivable disciplie and practice.

As to the assertion that the the upper class was the predominant source of college students 30 years ago, I vehemently disagree. Pell grants and student loans were already widespread. And of my high school class college bound graduates from roughly that era, NONE would have been considered upper class. Most of us were work study students, and we were just out of the Kent State era (and geographically close by). My education at Ivy League schools was a direct result of my scholarship and preparation.

I had the opportunity to double major and did so in a major in psychology from the liberal arts and a degree in nursing with two minors - English and biology. The critical foundation in all of the disciplines was the ability to think critically and develop a logical argument. And that's practical. So get off the soapbox. This probably isn't an area for which you have much sympathy, and fellow commenters don't find you very engaging, educated and logical in your argument.

[Steve Mcdumpski]

Barbara is right, girls need to stay at home more. Otherwise it will be unequal at college and if you are a socialist then you know that inequality IS NOT GOOD!

[maconbacon]

I think that RealPC's words have been misconstrued. In my view, RealPC is being criticized for the content derived from the misinterpretation of his comments, rather than from
the comments themselves. Critics of RealPC are simply examing his use of the word practical seemingly out of context with the discussion.

RealPC admits that liberal arts degrees are fulfilling, and that they do in fact foster critical thinking and communication skills. What I think that he is trying to convey, though, is that a BA in philosophy is not as "practical", meaning MORE marketable, as, say, a a BS in engineering. What I don't understand is why this idea is offenseive: though I come from a liberal arts background, I am able to recognize the validity of this fact without becoming angry or irate.

Moreover, this statement isn't because RealPC thinks that the liberal arts are useless(though a real red herring was thrown into the equation by people who wanted to merely wage ad-hominem attacks against him for allegedly thinking so). Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like the practicality issue deals with the reality of supply and demand, rather than the said value of some disciplines - a BA in say, philosophy (what I happen to have) does not necessarily convey that one has critical thinking and writing skills, as it did in the recent past, and there are lots of BAs in philosophy floating around.

Whereas degrees in areas like accounting,nursing and engineering are perhaps more objectively indicative of knowledge and skills as tests for professional certification are required, and there may be fewer people with these degrees. Hence, fewer people to fill more highly demanded jobs and so on and so forth...

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

MaconBacon (?),
While it was ever so kind of you to enter this thread simply to defend a troll, it would appear as though you haven't even read the thread or the original blog entry at all.

At no point has "Realpc" ever made any real, clear distinctions between what s/he even means by "practical" versus "impractical" fields of study, other than using the fateful "English degree" as a reference point and the soggy, ambiguous "serving others" remark. While it is nice of you to claim to speak for Realpc, no one is critiquing his/her words outside of the context of the discussion. In fact, what we have all been doing is exactly the opposite (as, of course, readers who have read the original blog entry and not simply people who entered a comment thread to defend a troll who is clearly losing an already irrelevant debate:)

Realpc makes sweeping generalizations based upon stereotypes and tired, outdated notions, and then gets pissy when people challenge those assertions. The fact is that s/he has never clearly articulated the reasons behind his/her initially expressed vendetta against "English majors," or his/her claim that they don't "deserve" success in their field or any other. Realpc also refuses to delineate what makes him/her the expert on what is and what isn't socially valuable or how a college degree is a guarantee of "intellectualism." Realpc also fails to acknowledge the fact that most liberal arts majors do, in fact, go on to undertake more "practical," lucrative careers, instead just assuming that all liberal arts study churns out selfish, mediocre "artist" types who have no interest in "contributing to society."

In fact, Realpc hasn't really come very close to addressing the real gist of this essay at all. Instead of addressing the points raised or articulating anything other than abstract, resentful criticism, s/he simply accuses people of being elitists intellects desiring "leisure socialism." *yawn*

Realpc began this entire thread with argumentative remarks and a desire to inflame and misinterpret Ms. Ehrenreich's essay. In all actuality, the entry in question has little to do with Realpc's out-of-left-field remarks. This blog deals with the growing cultural animosity towards academic and intellectual expertise ...things that Realpc considers to be valueless and "impractical." So unless Realpc and his oddly appearing mouthpiece apologists (like you) have anything to say about the actual content of this blog, then I think trolls should bow out of a discussion which doesn't really concern them. Any accusation of "ad hominem attacks" or "rage" is simply another blatant case of Realpc's already clearly demonstrated hypocrisy.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

"Whereas degrees in areas like accounting,nursing and engineering are perhaps more objectively indicative of knowledge and skills as tests for professional certification are required, and there may be fewer people with these degrees."

By the way, if you've done any kind of analysis of the job market over the past decade or so, you'd know just how saturated the engineering, business and finance markets have become. Business is now the most popular college major of choice. Does anyone seriously think that general "marketability" and the promise of future material wealth DOESN'T play a factor in what fields of study students choose? It invariably does. A degree in business is far more "marketable" to employers than a degree in physics or English, but "marketable" does NOT equate "a practical social contribution," nor does choosing a less "marketable" degree in physics or English indicate that one is following some sort of carefree "bliss," as Realpc states. Part of the issue which Ms. Ehrenreich addresses is that the "sales value" of one's personality now takes precedence over real skills, intelligence and knowledge.

[deang]

Another consequence of the narrowing of the range of what's considered "practical" and "acceptable" in careers is that so many people have such limited interests and pursuits even in their own personal lives. As people have increasingly known nothing beyond conformity to the idea that only "partying" and making money are important, their range of interests has contracted markedly, in my observation. As a person with a number of interests that might be considered intellectual or cultural, I'm often eager in conversation to find out what other people are interested in. More and more when talking to people, I hear nothing but shallow pop culture references, partying stories, money and property talk, and relationship comments, often peppered with weak attempts at humor picked up from watching American sitcoms. When more expansive subjects are broached, science, culture, international events, etc, silence follows and the subject is changed back to "Did you see that commercial where ..." or whatever. Rarely happens with non-American friends, but discouraging to have it happen so much in the US. As Barbara says in her essay, and despite what lots of young Americans believe, it hasn't always been this way.

[Buffy]

to deang and Jeannettee Spaghetti: Agreed! It's difficult to find venues for discussion of anything not on the waxed chute of pop culture HOV highway.

More and more I find intolerance, willful ignorance, and an insatiable appetite for pop culture conformity at the expense of thoughtful debate, logic and measured discussion.

Even here, those who help to wax the chute quickly resort to ridicule and name-calling. That is bullying, and it attempts to stifle debate in order to "win."

I contend that the actual strength of argument will determine who has the stronger point of view.

[lc2]

Perhaps if a different president than f.d.r. had been in the White House during the Great Depression, we as a society would have done away with the concept of working artists/writers/
photographers altogether. We could have left the creative life to those whose families could bankroll their efforts. As in, yes Edith Wharton, no George Bernard Shaw. How's that for elitism?

I am the child of professional musicians who never take a day off (practice 2-3 hours/day) and who, I'm told by their fans and students, have enriched other people's lives immeaurably. I hardly see how my spouse's job in retail is more practical and selfless than my parents'. Unfortunately, the science degree he earned (with honors) while "following his bliss" wouldn't allow us to put food on the table without food stamps, a lifestyle change we were selfishly unwilling to make. I don't consider the fact that stocking shelves pays twice as much as a starting science teacher's salary a sign of its practical application, I consider it a sign of a society whose values are seriously twisted. Guess he should've spent those years perfecting the brown-nosing and bullsh*tting skills he uses in retail instead of hitting the calculus and genetics texts.

The real point is that as a group, women have earned their academic records the old-fashioned way -- hard work. Like any group that until recently was barred from equal opportunities with which to prove itself, they are finding that the good old-boys' network is an obstacle. It will likely be another generation of working twice as hard as their male counterparts before income opportunities will catch up. And it's yet another sign that style is valued over substance to an astonishing degree in a society that tells its citizens they can get anywhere with hard work.

It's pretty hard to argue that only elitists are concerned about the state of intellectual activity in the U.S. when its leader brags about having been a C student. A sure sign of trouble ahead.

[realpc]

"Barbara was suprised when, posing as a middle-aged women with no work experience, she was not offered big important jobs."

"This grotesque distortion of Ehrenreich's book tells you everything you need to know about the troll who posted it, and the honesty of the rest of his analysis."

Ok, I'm reading Bait and Switch -- before I had only read reviews and summaries.
What I said is true -- she tried to get a middle class job paying at least $50k with benefits, with no jobs on her resume, only PR consulting.
I didn't finish the book yet, but so far her time has all been spent on expensive career-coaching scams.

The book is well-written and contains some important information. We should all be aware of how difficult it can be for middle-aged, middle class job seekers (of course we probably knew it already, but it is worth being reminded).

But -- just like in her working class research, Barbara deliberately fails to use common sense. Is there anyone here, even Spaghetti Head, who would pay a scam artist "career coach" $200/hr for telephone counseling sessions? Ok, maybe we'd get fooled once, but Barbara continues with the sessions.

Well at least the book is fun to read, although unscientific and biased.

[eternalsquire]

"And it's yet another sign that style is valued over substance to an astonishing degree in a society that tells its citizens they can get anywhere with hard work."

I've seen this even in the engineering field... Please understand that for some people engineering is not a grind... for me it was in my blood. I never went into it for the money. I chose it over medicine, my form of following my bliss, after a childhood spent in ham radio and puttering in my basement lab. Both sides of my family are Jewish, and in typical fashion they put considerable pressure on me to become a doctor. My response to them was: I can repair a circuit after its gone dead or even reboot a entire computer. Can you do either of those with a human being?
So I was allowed to take engineering.
Fast-foward 28 years after seeing bosses take credit for my work and co-workers laughing behind my back, all because for me the work was an end in itself. I enjoyed what I did and I obtained my main satisfaction from good craftsmanship. But it seems the only thing that really matters to keeping employed is not technical excellence, committment, or loyalty, but rather vapid schmoozing after hours at the bar and coming home late just to prove you are one of the in-crowd. Good work these days is not really done here in the states, it is more or less divided amongst a herd of zombies who pretend to work 7 hours out of every 12 and collect thier paycheck. Ironically, it is the people who work the hardest in engineering that are the ones least likely to keep thier jobs, as managers have taken the concept of the team player to such an extreme that anyone having significantly better skills or committment upsets the herd. And evidently the herd has to be maintained at all costs.
I'm sick of it... its a good thing I got laid off as I would rather stay home and keep house.

[realpc]

I read about half of Bait and Switch now, and Barbara has spent months with the $200/hr career coaches, perfecting her resume. Doesn't she know there are books in the public library on how to write a resume, and free advice on career web sites?

This "research" project is showing that a PR expert with no previous PR jobs, and a B.A. in chemistry, is still unemployed several months into a job search. And, of course, this takes place soon after 2001, an especially bad time to find a white-collar job.

The goal is obviously to show that America sucks and we really don't have opportunities here.

Life anywhere sucks at times. I am not saying America is the greatest and no one should criticize it. But the criticism should try to be fair.

If you have a fantasy of what life should be like and you compare reality to that fantasy, it will always seem that reality sucks.

[realpc]

eternalsquire,

It sounds like you had a bad experience at one job, and are generalizing from that bad experience to all engineering jobs! Of course there are bad jobs and bad companies. And even great jobs include annoying or back-stabbing co-workers, nasty managers, etc. This is LIFE. It never was perfect, never!

I learned a lot about this when I had a truly nasty manager for several years, but the job was very good otherwise. I complained to one of the women, who was very sympathetic. She advised me to quit. I complained to some of the guys and they were not very sympathetic. They advised me to stay and stop being so darned sensitive. The guys were absolutely right, in my opinion. The experience was not exactly pleasant, but I survived and learned some things about life and about myself.

We are not necessarily here to experience convenience and comfort at all times, but to learn and be challenged.

I am not saying no one should ever feel discouraged or bitter. But you should try to see things from more than one angle.

[Barbara E]

You give me too much credit, realpc. I'm not the author of any statistical studies on the well-being of Americans. Also (small point), 75% of Americans earning less than $16/hr plus benefits meanings earning LESS. Naturally, the person earning $50/hr is in the lucky 25%. I didnt study all that math for nothing!

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

Deang and Buffy:

I couldn't agree more.

"Another consequence of the narrowing of the range of what's considered "practical" and "acceptable" in careers is that so many people have such limited interests and pursuits even in their own personal lives."

The mindset that realpc represents becomes increasingly more prevalent everyday, and contributes to the mindlessness of our culture. The notion that there is a definite line in the sand between "practical" and "impractical" pursuits is reflected in public schools, which now often resemble mini-training camps for the American workplace. Individual intellectual and creative pursuits are rarely encouraged and learning is treated as a boring, ritualistic, but necessary "evil," which must be avoided at all costs in one's "free time" outside of the classroom. This is not the fault of the teacher, but simply a byproduct of the system itself, which rewards rote conformity and punishes anything else. As a result of this overt emphasis on the so-called "practicalities" that will land that "big important corporate job," our culture now overhwlmingly consists of millions and millions of emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped drones, who can't see the value in having interest in anything more substantive than last night's game or sitcom.

Realpc:

I still find it bizarre that one could start out by berating people who choose to pursue "blissful" degrees in English or sociology, and then later awarding English teachers and social workers the coveted seal of "practical." That one leaves me scratching my head...as does the fact that someone would actually have the nerve to rail against a book he/she hasn't even actually read.

[eternalsquire]

"It sounds like you had a bad experience at one job, and are generalizing from that bad experience to all engineering jobs!"

Realpc, maybe you should read posts more carefully. I've had 5 jobs over a 15 year career. All but one of them were for working for startups during the dot-bomb era. I never got fired at any of them... I simply found the right time to ride off into the sunset after the project was done... I prayed to be able to work for a large company and got my wish. Interpersonally, it was not much better.
The thing you have to understand is that I grew up with both depression and Aspergers... both things that made me feel like a stranger anywhere I went. No matter how hard I tried to fit in, I was always seen as "different".. and hence seen as fair game for being passed over for promotions or awards.
I doubt highly that I am generalizing, so don't put words into my mouth. The point I am TRYING to make is this: the grass isn't greener no matter which profession you pick. The phenomenon of dysfunctional pay, reward, promotion, and retention systems is universal and not limited to any one field, location, or company size. And it won't stop until we quit hiring MBA's and lawyers for managers and replace them with line personnel.

[eternalsquire]

Realpc, a typo. The final job was the one where I got laid off rather then left at exactly the right time.

[realpc]

eternalsquire

I can actually sympathize because I do technical work, which I love (not that I have anything whatsoever against artistic or helping careers; my comments about "bliss" were completely misunderstood).

Anyway, working for non-technical managers can really suck and it sounds like that was your experience. I quit a job because the manager was non-technical and there was absolutely no way she could judge my work fairly. My next manager was very technical and very smart (and definitely Asperger's), but I also found him very difficult. Asperger's is typical in brilliant engineer types like yourself, and they can seem to lack empathy. For example, he would get utterly frustrated if I didn't know something, even if there was no possible way I could have known it. But he is doing great at the company and was promoted (thank God!) Some companies do appreciate technical brilliance, and I hope you will find one that can appreciate you.

Anyway, it's certainly true that no job is perfect. Most Americans change jobs quite frequently nowdays and maybe that's better than staying in one secure, but highly imperfect, job for your whole life. I am actually very glad I have changed jobs and careers several times. It gives you more perspective. If we had secure jobs with pensions, we might be afraid to leave, and that could get very boring.

[realpc]

"You give me too much credit, realpc. I'm not the author of any statistical studies on the well-being of Americans."

Barbara,

I know, I meant it's linked from this website.

"75% of Americans earning less than $16/hr plus benefits meanings earning LESS. Naturally, the person earning $50/hr is in the lucky 25%."

I think there is some confusion about this. They define a decent job as at least $16/hr AND health insurance AND a pension. I interpreted that to mean a job with good pay and health insurance but NO pension would not be considered a decent job.

Maybe I misunderstood.

Anyway, I love Bait and Switch, even if I don't always agree with the message. I like your criticism of personality tests, for example, and I have exactly the same problem with them. And the airhead career coaches are hilarious.

[realpc]

"75 percent of workers are still struggling in jobs that do not provide health insurance, a pension and solid middle-class wages."

Yeah, it is definitely misleading. If a job cannot be considered "good" unless it provides a pension, then a job could be great in all other respects, and still not classified as good in this study. And we know that most private jobs do not provide pensions, even if they are great jobs with very high salaries. And even if they DO provide retirement accounts, this study would not define them as good jobs! It has to be a pension. Well obviously the intention is to mislead.

In order for this research to make any sense, we would have to know how many jobs are classified as "not good" ONLY because they lack a pension.

Saying that 75 percent of Americans are struggling strongly implies that 75 percent of Americans have low pay and/or no health insurance. But we don't know, and the authors deliberately hide the information.

[Steph]

I'm interested to see what happens in the next few years. Will women *really* start making strides in the workplace, shattering the glass ceiling or overturning any of the metaphors we use for sexism?

Or, will things just stay the same and we'll continue to see a distrust of intellectuals and academic credentials?

I'm not feeling all that optimistic.

[Hattie]

This is a rich discussion about poverty.
I am bringing up something that I don't think anyone else has discussed here.
I am acquainted with poor people who do not know they are poor or who don't want it known that they are poor. They bravely refuse to accept any help. They may look upon their condition as temporary. They may be educated way beyond their means. Often, their lives have fallen apart. They never are able to find anything but very part time work. More frequently than we would like to acknowledge, they get sick and die from their hardships when they could have lived.
The worst off are single, widowed, or divorced women over 50, a group almost invisible in our culture.
In the past couple of weeks I have met some of these women. I hired a nursing aide service to help me look after my 96 year old mother in law. We pay the service $22.00/hour. The aides get $9.00. The rest of the money goes for administration and insurance. They get no benefits or pensions.
What is your image of these women? You might be surprised. One is a former teacher with an M.A.who lost her prison job because she was conducting a (non-sexual) romance with one of the inmates. The other is a woman who was in advertising for years. When the women's wear company she worked for went out of business she started her own business and did well until her lack of computer skills put her at too much of a competitive disadvantage.
Both of them are in their 50's; they are very small and thin and lined. They honestly look starved.
Only one of the women we have hired fits the stereotype: a Mexican woman (documented) with three kids.
I think I understand why these women don't try to get the help they need. It's humiliating enough to find yourself old and uncared for without putting up with the patronizing attitudes of the welfare people, especially the welfare to work people!
I know a woman who got caught up in that. She had to get assistance, because her boy's father is in prison and she has had a lot of trouble finding work. She's a high school graduate but overweight and not very healthy or nice looking. She now works for minimum wage at a job WTW found her that involves spending 7 1/2 hours a week standing on her feet. Just the thing for her. That will show her what's what.
In most of the U.S. middle class people don't see poor people or live among them the way I do.It keeps me well aware that poor people are actually human, not statistics, not problems. They have the problems with poverty, after all, not we comfortable people.
Request: do any of you know of studies on poverty in women over age 50? I would love to do a study in my area but would not know where to start.
The big barrier to my doing this, I think, would be the pride of the poor who do not want to be identified with women "on welfare."
Of course I could make a study of why women refuse to accept help when they need it:
1. Pride
2. It's not really help; it's punishment.

[Hattie]

That's 71/2 hours a day, of course.

[Buffy]

Great points, Hattie

One more reason to add: they may have asked for help and not received it.

Single women are the most disposable people from the time they are teenagers on. If they aren't seen as mothers or wives, at a minimum, they hold no value.

Believe me, as a never married, I have been treated as disposable waster at all levels of employment throughout my working life. I'm a discard now, with no prospects. I have never refused a job offer. I would clean barns right now, and I have done that in the past.

These women have without a doubt, been humiliated and exposed to unethical and untenable work conditions.

It is simply a matter of survival. That's all.

[realpc]

Single women with no children are free to spend their lives concentrating on their careers! They have a great advantage over women with children, whether single or married, in this regard.
When you apply for a job, you do not have to say whether you are married or not. And why should they care? I have never been asked that question, and it probably is not legal. They can't ask your age either.

[realpc]

I am still reading Bait and Switch. Now Ms. Alexander is attending a seminar on how to get a job that pays over $100k. Well that makes sense for someone with limited experience and no network!

I'm only halfway through it so I don't know how it will turn out. But I suspect she will complain about all the months spent without results. When she could have written a decent resume in two days and emailed hundreds of copies to businesses and help wanted ads, and posted them on job web sites. Even with limited experience, she would have had interviews and would be registered with recruiters by this stage.

The secret to finding a job is to not waste time and money on mindless career coaching and seminars!! And have reasonable goals!

This book is actually very helpful if you want to be successful -- just do the opposite of what it says!

[Greg]

"I had a truly nasty manager for several years"

Realpc, It's possible you might have had a nasty manager one year too many.

When it comes to abuse--you should NOT "stay and stop being so darned sensitive".

Otherwise you start to identify with your oppressor. You also start to reason and rationalize like them.

The book might do you good.

[realpc]

Greg,

I was not oppressed or abused. These terms are thrown around nowdays. Not everyone has a nice friendly personality, and of the ones who do, not all are honest and fair. We are human beings, and we all have many faults.

We don't have to be whiny wimps. I could never have survived graduate school if I didn't have tremendous will power. And I had a really nice advisor! But being under another human being's power can really suck. Learning how to deal with authority is not easy, but definitely worth it. We all exist in a complex network of power relations. (NOT just in a patriarchal system, by the way, but in every society that ever existed).

In the course of my working and school life I have learned how it feels to be in different roles. If I had quit every unpleasant situation I would be on welfare or homeless by now!

One of the main things I am trying to get across here is that we do not have to be wimps or victims.

I admit I did plenty of complaining the whole time, but I learned a lot about relationships and life. No, I would not want a lifetime of working for a grouchy, insensitive boss, but I'm glad I stuck it out for a few years. Two of the best things I ever did for my career were sticking out graduate school, and surviving the nasty boss.

And his nastiness was not all irrational. He did have some valid criticisms and it made me work harder. Sometimes. Other times I was so angry I couldn't think. But I don't expect life to be a constant joy.

I think many progressives have been influenced by a fairy tale about human civilization before patriarchy. Korten is a recent example. According to this version of prehistory, humans lived idyllic harmonious lives when they were matriarchal goddess-worshippers. When you compare the fairy tale to what we have now, our lives look dismal.

But the matriarchy story doesn't add up. It's true that some civilizations have been more warlike and patriarchal than others, but it's also true that every complex civilization, as far as we know, had power hierarchies, slaves and engaged in violence and war. We also have no evidence that any civilization was matriarchal (ruled by women), althnough many have been matrilocal.

The most harmonious and equal societies have been the most primitive, the hunter/gatherers. However this was because of their primitive weaponry, and because they lived in small homogeneous groups. Even so, they frequently fought territorial wars with neighboring tribes.

Surviving in the natural world is rough, and so is surviving in the civilized world. And the more freedom we have, the less secure we feel. In a traditional society everyone knows and accepts their place. That's why radical islam is so threatened by us -- their younger generations will inevitably be attracted to our freedom and will abandon their traditions. And the harmony, security and beauty that is one side of traditional culture will be gone forever.
Of course the other side of traditional society is complete lack of freedom.

The progresive myth says you can maximize freedom at the same time that you maximize harmony and security. You can't; it's a trade-off.

[Greg]

"I was not oppressed or abused"

If you didn't have a serious complaint regarding your former manager then
why waist your/my time complaining about that person here?

Today's workplace is rife with abuse and oppression--read the SERIOUS
postings on this web site if you're TRULY interested.

Regarding your trade-off of freedom and accepting your place in society...
refer to my posting to you in "The Piggery Award" for reply.

[realpc]

Greg,

I don't know which post you mean. But freedom and securty is certainly a trade-off. Give me one example where you can maximize both.

[Greg]

"I don't know which post you mean."

Serious and foolish certainly is a trade-off when it comes to reading the more thoughtful and insightful posts on this forum and others.

[Kevin Carson]

More people in college than ever before, all right, thanks to government-subsidized education. What are the practical effects?

1) College has the same substantive educational value that high school did fifty years ago;

2) Jobs that required a high school diploma fifty years ago require a college degree now, even if the substantive technical skills required aren't that much greater.

In addition, government subsidies to technical education mean business shifts to a more capital- and skill-intensive forms of production, leading to a two-tier labor force and deskilling of blue collar workers.

[Tim]

I am an ex-college professor( I still teach part time, however ) who works for the USDA as a mathematical statistician. The pay is good, the benefits are great, and ( so far ) job
security with the federal
government is better than
anything in the private sector. What it's not is
intellectually exciting or
socially useful. The 'practical' value of estimating the total harvested acreage of irrigated ginseng in the US
eludes me ...I have my
private life of the mind,
and make do with that.

The university administration at G, where I am an adjunct, seems to delight in creating majors in 'Sports Management' and
such like. I teach Intro. to Statistics, which is cross listed as an IT course. This course, and many others has had a significant part of its real intellectual content removed and replaced by mere manipulation of spreadsheet programs and manipualtion of canned software by faculty who seek to appear 'up to date'. A significant fraction of my students are
unprepared to take ANY quantitatively oriented course... But a 'D' in
my course,-- or basic Chemistry or Genetics, can always be counter-balanced with a good grade in Hip Hop,Skeet Shooting, or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu ( I and III ) ...I'm not making this up!
I consider mathematics to be an art form, and certainly don't consider number theory or topology to be 'practical' subjects --but I don't really think
Administration of Justice,
or Sports Management are 'practical' either ...

[happy warrior]

"freedom and securty is certainly a trade-off. Give me one example where you can maximize both"

here's one of many examples:

universal health care.

[Greg]

"universal health care"

How about adding to the list social security... as in freedom from dog food diet when we get older.

With the billions dollar price tag for the "war on terror" in Iraq what's the liklihood of any of us collecting ss in the future?

Retired people should have the freedom to live like humans in their old age--not the freedom of choice between Alpo and Purina.

[SoFarSoGood]

I was going to talk about myself but first I'm going to talk about my friend. He has an undegrad degree from an Ivy League University in Engineering and is currently pursuing a Law degree and an MBA simultaneously from a top twenty university. He interned this summer for a business and wants to intern next summer doing legal stuff. He flew out to Chicago from the South to interview with a company. They liked his resume and he had strong references. He interviewed well (they told him so) but they've implemented a new procedure which involves a personality assessment. He failed. Game over. He's no longer in contention for the position.

Let's talk about me. I graduated from an Ivy League University with a degree in Economics. I decided early on that I didn't want a job in Finance or Consulting because I wanted something resembling normal hours (i.e. less than 12 hour day minimum) so I applied to positions that were finance related but not strictly finance. Almost every single one of them had an online personality assessment before you could even fill out the job application. I failed nearly everyone (they told me). I'm not a sociopath and I've never been diagnosed with any particular mental disorders. In Psych class we had to take the Meyers Brigg and I was determined to be ENFP - i.e. extroverted. My current misanthropy aside, I'm a people person, generally get along with others and have a strong work history. Yet I couldn't pay someone to hire me because somehow my personality is lacking.

In Economics you're taught that trade is based on mutual beneficial arrangements. Increasingly, it seems as though that those of us who work should be grateful to the job Gods for hiring us and saving us from poverty. Forget that.

I'm currently pursuing a degree in Engineering with the goal of getting involved in Sustainable development; but the truth is that's only my secondary goal. Engineering jobs pay well and tend to have normal hours. My needs are low as I've been living like an Amish person since I've graduated from college. A few years of consisnet working and I won't have to work a regular job ever again.

When I was younger I was idealistic about the notion of work - I wanted to work hard, be wealthy, and be wildly successful. I'm not a butt kisser, however, and empty flattery has never dripped well from my lips. And even as an extrovert it's become readily apparent that's what gets people ahead. I hate corporate life and as I've worked full-time at two separate corporations and temped at over a dozen more, this is is something I can say with complete honesty. THere's something wrong with a system that basis productivity as much on how many hours of face time that you put in, instead of how much work you actually accomplish. That how much your boss likes you matters more than what you do. By systems performance review systems that reward seniority more than they reward good work (I've had friends get horrible reviews and their manager explain flat out that there is only so much bonus money to go around and they have to get a bad review because Bob who has been here for X years needs to have a good one). I work quickly and efficiently and am often left sitting at work with hours of down time. There's no reason I should have to sit somewhere doing nothing all day.

[Portia]

"freedom and securty is certainly a trade-off. Give me one example where you can maximize both"

I don't have the freedom to pay for my prescription drugs I need because big pharma sets the prices too high.

Why can't our government (like so many other governments) provide the security of affordable prescription drugs?

Whose side is the U.S. government on?

[Portia]

"freedom and securty is certainly a trade-off. Give me one example where you can maximize both"

I don't have the freedom to pay for my prescription drugs I need because big pharma sets the prices too high.

Why can't our government (like so many other governments) provide the security of affordable prescription drugs?

Whose side is the U.S. government on?

[Janchief]

The Realpc troll said: "This blog is boring and gets very little traffic -- unless I stir up controversy. I read it once in a while just to see how utterly predictable the propaganda will be, because I am interested in the psychology of bias."
The definition of a troll is someone who lurks on a blog or forum and makes incendiary comments to stir people up. Ergo, he's a troll. The interest that he mentions is not in the psychology of "bias" but the psychology of reactions to taunting comments. Don't enable this guy by posting back to him. Ignore him and he'll go back to his cave.

[Justin Lynch]

Barb- you are a racist & a sexist. The government is not your nanny.

[Fuck you mush brained idiots!]

Thank you realpc for trying to shed some light for this crowd of "I'm sorry I'm white."

And Barb figured out the magic formula of money. Write a fictional story about racism and sexism and sell it to universities as a textbook where the liberal "do-gooders" will gobble it up like a fat chick on cake, or a crack whore on a cock.

This book was one big jab at White Men, Christians, and anyone who's heart does not bleed. Oh, and it's common sense that to be a server you would need to speak English, how else would you communicate with the patrons?

[Women are lazy!]

Women are lazy bitches who prefer to let men do all the work!

[Fuck you mush brained idiots!]

I forgot to add that I am a conservative White male who is also gay! I'm waiting for the gasps, the horror of it all, a faggot who is a republican, can it be? You’re damn right, proud to be a gay republican!!! It puts you liberals in the same predicament as with Condaleeza Rice, she’s black, a woman, and possibly gay, all the things you cherish, but uh-oh she’s also a republican, can you ever forgive her?

[Jim]

I would have to say life is unfair and is what you make it. It is sad that the generalizations of working class females can be categorized as lower then average income, but they saying "Nobody starts at the top," comes to mind as perhaps some kind of laxative to the idea posted, although coherently and entertaining enough. For the record, woman have many advantages over men in certain areas such as customer service or sales while men have greater influences in areas of science and perhaps some corporate positions dealing around money. I have read a bit of Nickel and Dimed and love it, however starting fresh at the age of mid life crisis cannot be the norm nor is it the predeccessor for high end job or work. Anyways I am a big fan of your work.

[lc2]

I have a friend (no it's not me and my shame speaking) who is currently experiencing the perfect storm of quiet achievement in a "female" field (human service/social work), exceedingly shy personality, and no family support system as she navigates the job situation in a new area. She _is_ Barbara Ehrenreich in Nickel and Dimed at this very moment ... only 20 years younger with less physical stamina. She is not disabled, but has a persistent form of anemia which makes me fear that she will be unable to stay on her feet for entry-level work -- she is suited for office work both in temperament and physical constitution. I am scared to death for her future as she just lost the $10/hr job she landed as a school secretary after a two-month job search because she was not "aggressive enough." She was demoted to a $7/hr classroom aide job working with special ed. students --shows how much our society wants struggling kids to succeed, doncha think?

Now she thinks she'd do better working at Wal-Mart and getting a second job somewhere, despite my dire warning that this will prevent her from undertaking a job search for something better -- in her field, with somewhere around $15/hr (is that so much to ask???!). She won't have time to eat or breathe, let alone make the necessary follow-up phone calls after job interviews -- if she gets any.

Despite ten years' experience as a case worker with both families in crisis and with uninsured patients of a neurology practice to secure funding for necessary medical procedures, this is the best she can get with her painfully shy personality and resources. I'm not saying she's blameless -- she made the fairly stupid decision to impulsively leave her home in a southern state and head to her childhood community up North in hopes of better-paying human service work and a change of scenery. She is living rent-free for the moment, thank god, with a barely-employed sister and unemployed (alcoholic) brother in the family home left to them when their mother died (none of them have children). She must continue making mortgage payments while awaiting the sale of her house down South -- I know, horrible timing. A year ago it would've sold the day she listed it, and she shouldn't have left without a purchase agreement or tenant in place. Also, she has six monthly payments left on a modest fuel-efficient car (Honda Civic) -- that she will be unable to make next month at this rate. She cannot possibly support herself on the $7/hr. She is looking at long-term, intractable poverty, and I don't know what to tell her. I simply cannot believe how quickly one misstep can result in a financial catastrophe. She is, frankly, frantic.

This is a woman whose mother died when she was eighteen, her father having left the family two years previously. She managed to secure the loans and grants to attain a four-year degree in social work in the midst of all this, which required living in an extremely unsafe neighborhood for two years to save money on housing -- during which time she worked two jobs, one as a case worker at the homeless shelter on the corner. This is not a person who has not paid her dues to society!

As I said before, she is childless, which means she will qualify for little if anything in the way of gov't assistance except maybe some emergency food vouchers. I am looking at my own budget and will try to send her $20-$50 by the end of the week. Knowing her, she'll pay it back with interest by Christmas. She is tyrannical about not accruing credit card interest, which is one of the reasons she's in this mess -- she won't spend the money to broaden the region of her job search to a couple of hours in every direction because she'll have to charge the travel expenses. I'm trying to gently cajole her into the twenty-first century.

This is just a reminder of close to the edge we all are, especially if we've relied on hard work and diligence to get us through, and don't have a sparkling personality and big t#ts to pave the way to sales and customer service jobs the previous post claims we have a leg up on. I used to endorse the message of Ehrenreich's books but dismiss the method -- but here is someone whose story is uncannily close to her made-up one. Everyone who thinks that if you don't have children you can't afford, you will have no trouble supporting yourself, think again! The middle class generally has a cushion of credit, nepotism, and "career-ready personality" to some degree or another to help them squeak through the tough times and few stupid choices, but we are too ready to forget those advantages and call them initiative.

[Julie]

Not so fast; I have an MBA and cannot even seem to get a job paying $30k here in Austin, Texas. I'm settling for assistant retail management if I can get it at this point.

[boymedexam]

great site!!thanks for the service http://boymedexams.ifrance.com/

[gay medical fetish]

Lovely, I must say, there is not so much themes, which deserve a comment. This one is realy needful http://medical-fetish.iquebec.com/

[free strapon pics]

great site!!thanks for the service http://straponcrush3.isuisse.com/map.html

[gay spanking]

This is one of the most interesting sites I have ever seen http://spankingboys.male-spanking.info/

[gay medical fetish]

This is one of the most interesting sites I have ever seen http://boymedexams.fizwig.com/

[boy spank doctor]

Interesting I was looking for some answer and you gave them to me http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/