Nightingale

Actually, there were quite a few educated ladies in the 1800s. Post civil war information reveals that in 1890 more females were graduating high school than boys. By this time, there were more colleges established allowing females the opportunity to chose their path of higher education. More and more women became teachers. The figures of woman in colleges had risen amazingly. By 1872, there were11,000 women enrolled in college and by 1900, there were 85,000 women enrolled. In some colleges women were receiving more academic awards then men. In 1892 women composed 24 percent of the student body at the University of Chicago; by 1902, the number was 52 percent. In 1901, at Stanford University, 102 males and 98 females graduated, with more women than men winning awards and honors. (www.rowan.edu, college.hmco.com) Women weren't given the right to vote until 1920, when the 19th amendment was passed.

Why? Were women less intelligent at the time than they are now? Were they less capable of logical reasoning at the time than they are now? Were they at the time unable to form an opinion regarding their laws and government? The only reason i can think of that women didn't vote at the time was that men wouldn't let them. And I think that says a lot more about the men than it does about the women.

There are laws against it in many states, so there is a legal basis. However, IMO, there isn't a constitutional basis. Eventually, though, a case will end up in the supreme court, and they can clarify. However, logic would lead one to conclude that if there was a constitutional basis for denying homosexuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose, that certain people wouldn't be pushing so hard to amend the constitution to specify it.

Personally, I care what happens in other countries because other countries can (among other things): 1. set a good example 2. set a bad example 3. be just plain interesting, example or not Canada's an awesome place to visit, and they've now set an amazing example of tolerance and acceptance of its citizens, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It's nice to know that someone out there is getting things right (IMO), and I hope the US will do the same.

West Virginia doesn't allow for religious/philosophical objections, but it does allow for medical objections. According to section 16-3-4 of the West Virginia Code on compulsory vaccines, you can show a "certificate from a reputable physician showing that an immunization for diphtheria, polio, rubeola, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough has been done or is impossible or improper or other sufficient reason why such immunizations have not been done." While most times, there's no problem with vaccines, there are documented negative side effects. If you're very concerned, talk to your doctor and possibly to a lawyer if you have serious objections.

My vet recommended a sharp tap on the nose. Worked with one of my cats. The other one just doesn't learn no matter what. Indy is a cat of very little brain. He's a very sweet cat, just not all that bright. A squirt gun loaded with water and a teaspoon of vinegar works temporarily, but he forgets really fast. I think he just doesn't have either the memory or thinking skills to come up with "bite=tap on nose". Of course, I'm not sure how I expect him to make that connection, since, after repeated incidents, he still hasn't figured out that "running into closed window = sore head" or "drinking out of water glass = face stuck in glass."

I'd hate to be the judge hearing that case. Talk about pressure. A member of the SC as a defendant in your courtroom!

I agree. There shouldn't be a men's standard and a women's standard. There should just be a minimum standard to qualify to do the job.

No, I haven't been to one myself as an adult, however, if I needed to, I wouldn't hesitate to go. I've had friends vent to me about serious personal or marital issues and I've tossed out the idea that they talk to a professional, because the issue may have gotten too big for them to fix, and, as a friend, I'll be there to offer a shoulder but I can't help them the way a mental health professional could. I've seen psychologists and counselors and psychaitrists work wonders for individuals and for marriages. Sometimes, it helps people fix things, and other times, it helps people accept that there are some things that can't be fixed, but either way it usually helps.

I haven't. I have a friend who's sold her eggs a couple of times, though. She doesn't regret it at all and is happy that she could help someone else.

sometimes a handicap can contribute to obesity, if you can't walk around to exercise and don't change your eating habits. Just by looking at someone, you can't tell what caused their obesity. I figure that you never know for sure why they've got that handicapped permit, so I just give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not necessiarily. It would depend on several factors: Road conditions - 90 in a residential zone with a curvy road, children playing and stop signs and traffic is very different from a straight road with nobody else on it in the middle of nowhere. 150 on the straight, empty road might be safer than 90 on a curvy residential street with people around. Driver skill - I'd trust someone like Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., or Danica Patrick doing 150 over your average soccer mom doing 90. A skilled driver can figure out when that kind of speed is unlikely to cause problems, but an inexperienced driver probably can't analyze the situation as well and would be more likely to speed in more dangerous circumstances. That said, the street racers were behaving in a very risky manner, picked an inappropriate location and didn't have the driving skills to handle it. Behavior like that shows an extreme disregard for others' lives and safety, and they definitely should be arrested, prosecuted, and, if found guilty, be given the maximum sentence allowed by law.

Cool. Sounds like her tutoring place or doctor has been very thorough, plus she's obviously got a wonderful mom who notices her struggling and does something to help! That's a big advantage a lot of kids don't have.

Andrea- Has she been tested for dyslexia? It can cause comprehension issues, and if it's not serious, it just looks like the kid is struggling with reading. It's probably just a skills issue, since you've said her test scores have improved, but it might be worth it to check anyway. My cousin was diagnosed at age 24 and was so relieved to finally have an explanation for her reading trouble.

Heather- I would advise you against taking time off. The majority of people who do never go back because life gets in the way. They have a job and get married and have kids and just don't have time. Yes, there are some who do go back later and it works out, but most don't. First, you need to figure out why you're having trouble learning. Do you know if you learn better through seeing something (reading), hearing something (listening to a lecture) or doing (a science experiment). What do you remember best, and what doesn't seem to work? The key to school is to figure out your own unique learning style and making that work for you. Personally, I learn mainly by hearing, which meant that I bought books on tape whenever I could, went to every single class, and I don't take many notes. For me, taking notes is a distraction from listening, and I need to listen to learn. If I need to review something, I can always look it up later if necessary. That's what works for me. What works for you will probably be different. There are a bunch of tests out there to identify your learning style. This one is a basic start, but even a general idea can help. http://www.ldpride.net/learning_style.html After finding out your learning style, try to focus your study habits around it. Study groups, discussions, and flash cards (don't look at the card, have someone else read it to you) work well for people who learn by hearing (auditory). For visual learners, looking at flash cards, reading the text, and re-reading your notes every day helps. For kinesthetic learners (people who learn by doing), if you can come up with some kind of physical action, like a lab experiment or something, that's great. Otherwise, the act of recopying your notes can really help. Re-writing has been found to be slightly more effective than typing, but really, either can work. Find out if your school has a learning resource center or something like that. If so, there are usually people who will help you with your classes and study habits. Otherwise, is there a college of education that helps teachers earn teaching credentials? You can go there and see if you can find a grad student willing to tutor you for not overly much money. There are a lot of options out there, and unfortunately, a lot of schools don't go out of their way to inform students of them. College can require a very different skill set than high school, and a lot of the problems can stem from students not having the right study habits, discipline, writing skills, lack of a good educational background, or even the wrong major. You have to find out what is causing your trouble, and attack that. A lot of times, it's something like study habits, which applies to every class. Schools tell you what to learn, but most don't teach you how to learn, which isn't a skill that comes naturally to everyone, just like everyone isn't a natural athlete or a musical prodigy. It can seem like school really sucks sometimes, and that it's not worth it, but there's a lot you can do with a college degree that are a lot harder to do without one. Also, in many industries, people with degrees get paid more money for doing the same job as someone without. At my last job, I made $10,000 more per year than the guy in the next cube, and we did exactly the same thing. Only difference was that I was a college grad. Best of luck, whichever way you decide.

I know that if I have kids, I'll make it clear to them that I don't care about the gender or race of who they love, so long as they're happy. If your kids are happy and healthy, you really can't ask for more than that.

There's a difference between not being suited for the military and just not being able to handle "a job". Someone in the military who can't handle the stress of a battlefield puts lives at risk. If someone isn't cut out for that kind of mental and physical stress, they don't belong there, because then they put an added burden and risk on the rest of the soldiers. A soldier needs to be able to rely on the other soldiers in his team, that they'll be there to back him up and not turn tail and run. There are many people out there who can handle it and make good soldiers. There are, however, some who can't, and if they can't, they don't belong where they put those who can at additional risk.

My school is paid for by the US Army. Almost ANYONE can join the Army, do three years and for 1200 taken out 100.00/mth for the first year get 33,000 for school. I get a check for 1,004/mth to go to school. I have a job, so I don't worry where my next meal is. Almost anyone could do that. The military is a good option for some people. However, it's not a solution for everyone. There are others that are simply not cut out for it, and others that are barred from joining due to medical issues (anything you have to take daily medication for, scholiosis, mental illness, stuff like that).

not addressed to anyone in particular: Now, more often, it isn't so much a factor of race as it is socioeconomic status. A kid from the inner city simply doesn't have the same educational opportunities as a kid from suburbia, no matter the race. It also tends to be more difficult to get higher education if your parents aren't educated, due to both social and financial issues. Most kids in college (and high school) have their parents paying a good portion of their expenses, and sometimes even their tuition. College is a heck of a lot easier for the kids who don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. Everyone doesn't have equal educational opportunities. That's not saying that some people with less opportunity can't succeed, it's just a lot more difficult, so the cycle of poverty and poor education continues. I don't think that "affirmative action" is a good way to go about fixing an issue like this, because race does not dictate socioeconomic status. The other problem with AA is that people are given opportunities they're not prepared for. What's the point of letting a student into Yale or Harvard that wouldn't have been admitted if not for their race? That student is probably not prepared for a situation like that, and it seems like a good way to set them up for failure, simply because they don't have a comparable educational background. I'm not saying they can't succeed, just that it's a lot less likely. There's got to be a better way to address issues like this. I'm just not really sure what it is.

Most pet health insurance is for stuff that's not usual care. Exams and vaccines are usually not covered, and if you pay extra for a plan that covers that, you might as well just pay the vet directly because it would probably cost less. The emergency/surgery coverage is probably worth it, though. When my cat had an emergency, the cost was $1400, that I had to pay out of my pocket the next day. I don't know about you all, but I don't usually have that kind of cash lying around. If I'd paid for the insurance (around $17-30 a month), that entire thing would've cost me $50 (the vet and I did the math). Course, now, because of that emergency, because he requires a special diet, and therefore isn't considered 'cured', my cat isn't eligible for insurance. So, I make sure I have extra money put away for emergencies like that. I wish i'd thought ahead and gotten insurance for him when he was a kitten, but I remember looking at the pamphlets in the vet's office and thinking "pet insurance? who would need that??" Well, $17 a month is a lot easier to find than $1400 at once.

I agree that we are responsible for ourselves. However, more experienced jumpers also need to be responsible in the advice they give other jumpers and be aware that sometimes newbies just don't know any better.

I think it can be more dangerous, especially if the girl is small, because it's harder to find gear that fits right, and a 135 loaded at 1:1 is very different than a 220 loaded at 1:1. It can be hard to find a balance between the safer factor of a larger canopy and not flying backwards at the slightest gust of wind or not having the strength to flare a canopy that you're loading at 0.4:1 Also, generally, women don't tend to ask as many questions as men do. There's been a bunch of studies on this happening in schools, and it probably extends to AFF classes to some extent, although women who skydive tend to be a bit more daring and outgoing than others.

I agree that generally, men and women are treated differently. However, when that different treatment makes things dangerous, like pressure to go on jumps you're not ready for, then it ought to be addressed.

Well, the question was do MEN and women get treated differently. I'm not saying it only happens to women. It's easy to look at it in the reverse. If some women are getting mentoring or extra training from instructors, some men aren't benefitting from that training, and vice versa. I think that people getting invited on jumps they aren't ready for is something that new jumpers need to be aware of. I was, because a mentor specifically told me. I was lucky, because if I hadn't had that person around, I probably would've gone on a few of those skydives before figuring out that I didn't have the skill yet.

That's why I said keep the other thread out of this one. I'm looking for an abstract discussion here about what people think is or isn't happening, and why, not stuff about any particular incident. Until I looked at the other thread, I didn't realize that other people might have had a similar experience to mine with regards to getting invited on jumps they weren't ready for, and that was kinda buried under other issues there.