Doug St. Clair wrote:

>1. I have observed that most occupations that were "womens'" as opposed
to
>those that were "mens'" have always seemed to require more formal
education
>and certification.

I know some doctors, lawyers, engineers and others who might question
this as a blanket assertion.



>2. I have also observed the following pattern: When I hired a woman she
>worked very hard to get the job right and if possible took formal
training
>in the subject. When I hired a man he seldom asked for formal training.
>When he got the job half mastered he took off for his next position.
She
>stayed until she had really mastered it.

A telling anecdote for the persons involved.  But I for one would have
little trouble citing similar stories with the genders reversed.



>3. I remember a friend speaking of a conversation with her elderly
aunt.
>Now her aunt was a very bright and very wealthy woman. She never
"worked."
>However, she was always very active in the community as a volunteer.
She
>ran programs that did a lot for her community. (Probably as effective a
>manager as anyone of either gender.) Her observation was that all the
women
>were working now and there was no one to do the work that she and her
peers
>had done for the community.

I do not have the statistics for volunteerism-by-ender at my fingertips,
but I would not be surprised to learn that more women volunteer than
men.  The traditional gender roles (which may or may not have ever
actually existed) of male breadwinner / female homemaker precluded men
from many volunteer opportunities, while encouraging women to partake in
community life.  Furthermore, being culturally "trained" in the role of
provider tends to make one look askance at activities which do not
further that role.


>4. The most recent issue of Modern Maturity (AARP's rag) said in 1950,
87%
>of men between the ages of 55 - 64 were working, and last year the
figure
>was 68% for the same age group. NPR radio said this was the best year
in 25
>years for summer work for students (at minimum wage). NPR also
interviewed
>a young woman (high school) who was working two minimum wage jobs while
her
>father was unemployed. I am drawing from these disparate reports an
>uncomfortable picture of the country turning to minimum wage jobs,
assuming
>the parents can support the kids, and terminating the parents. How does
>your industry fit into this picture?

There are many disturbing trends in American employment.  There was a
very interesting article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune on the growing
disparity between highly-paid "global workers" and the low-paid service
sector that caters to the lifestyle of the former.  And while there are
a lot of minimum-wage service sector jobs, I'm not sure I see a trend
towards children supporting parents.

As for the museum industry, a trend that worries me is the increasing
use of contract or term-position employees.  Institutions hire
professionals for a project, and then let them go once the project is
completed.  This makes a certain economic sense, though at the cost of
morale, institutional memory, and simply keeping good, dedicated workers
on staff.  What doesn't make sense is the fact that the institution
insists on loyalty from the worker, but is unwilling to extend any
loyalty towards the worker.  How often are we told that employees,
especially salaried or "exempt", are expected to do "whatever it takes"
for the company, but the company is unwilling to do "whatever it takes"
for us -- unwilling even to give us a job longer than a couple of years.

Benefits packages, meanwhile, are still based a system of seniority
which assumes full-time, permanent employment.

But now I'm starting to whine...

Eugene Dillenburg
Lead Developer, Philippines Coral Reef exhibit
John G. Shedd Aquarium
1200 South Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois  60605

V:      (312) 692-3136
F:      (312) 939-8001
e:      [log in to unmask]

"After five years, they give me a brush."

-- M. Python, Episode 12, 1969