Women in trees, here's your enemy.

You were implying that I must assume (transitive property?) these things are sexist based on (your perception of) my position on this subject.

Pretty much everything you have said in this post is obfuscation. Address the subject or stop deflecting, clouding or distracting from the following topic:

THERE WOULD BE MORE FEMALE ARBORISTS IN OUR INDUSTRY IF THERE WERE MORE OPPORTUNITIES. HELP WANTED ADS THAT EXCLUDE WOMEN CONTRIBUTE TO THIS.

That's it in a nutshell. Stay on topic.

Tom
 
I disagree. It's a freaking mountain for them. You (and I) will never understand the full impact of racism or sexism until we are the target. Please don't read into this too much, just talk to some women who have either made it or tried unsuccessfully to get into arboriculture. I'm not the PC police, man, I just have a lot of female friends and associates that could reinforce what I'm saying, and I try to see their perspective. I'd have posted this regardless of the fact that it was Riggs. It's not personal, it's bigger than that.

Tom
 
wow. well, i guess it's good news that this conversation is between men but i am a bit depressed to see that we are still arguing about whether or not women can be climbing arborists. when i started posting here (2006?) i was pretty much the only woman who bothered with all the sexist bullshit, and as a result i became the feminist "police" - not a particularly comfortable spot to occupy. at that point the whole "pro-woman" part of this conversation would have been me. me against riggs i guess, which has happened more than once and honestly bores me to tears. that was the point at which mark made me a moderator. thanks to the men who are stepping up and stating the obvious - that women are perfectly capable of doing the job of climbing arborist. and shame on you neanderthals with your dicks in your hands who still think it takes testosterone to do a big removal. very sad. it doesn't. the fact that you have not seen it does not mean it doesn't exist. and, agreed, there is much much (much) more to being a climbing arborist than killing the biggest damn tree around. my crew has been at least half female for about 6 yrs, and we get shit done. as soon as more companies have an attitude that allows for the possibility of women climbers having a rewarding career, we will start to see more women doing the job. as soon as the sexist bullshit riggs is covered in has faded from the scene, you will see the male/female ratio in the field change.

really not interested in debate on this point - such a tired old conversation. just couldn't help myself but say it one more time...
 
Kathy wish as you like but you aren't ever going to see an equal ration of male/female in the arb biz. There are very good reasons for it.

Next up: Women in the NFL.

Then: Boxing.

Your 'Dicks in your hands' statement is kinda cute.
 
TreeCo said:
Kathy wish as you like but you aren't ever going to see an equal ration of male/female in the arb biz. There are very good reasons for it.

Next up: Women in the NFL.

Then: Boxing.

Your 'Dicks in your hands' statement is kinda cute.
Click to expand...
ya, i didn't say equal ratio. i said changing ratio. wishing for nothing more than respect, for guys to quit telling me i can't do what i've been doing now for 20 yrs.
 
So it's discrimination that has kept women out of arboriculture?

Sure it's a factor, but not the major one.

I'm all for women in arboriculture but I believe it's not realistic to believe they are ever going to make up a very large percentage of working, climbing arborist.

Riggs is just being vented upon, and it's wrong.
 
I once met a hermaprodite that was very talented at tree work.
He liked to be called Denis at work during the day...we called her Denise when the make up, skirt and heels went on. Denis schooled me on many things...I kept my distance from Denise.

I wonder if Riggs is in fact a hermaprodite. When we have the peeing contest at the TCIA show I will sneak a peak.
 
TreeCo said:
So it's discrimination that has kept women out of arboriculture?

Sure it's a factor, but not the major one.

I'm all for women in arboriculture but I believe it's not realistic to believe they are ever going to make up a very large percentage of working, climbing arborist.

Riggs is just being vented upon, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...
1) YES, especially in the last 10 or so years

2) what's the major one? Physical inability? What about those willing to try that get denied opportunities through discrimination?

3) nice save (not really), and no one ever said 'large percentage.' That's you putting words in people's mouths.

4) Like I said, I would have done the same regardless. The OP brought this on himself. Don't blame anyone for their reaction. If you read my posts, I have tried to stay on point. Companies that discriminate against women are the enemy. Sorry if you don't like how that sounds.

Tom
 
In case you folks missed it, last Friday 2 women, a captain and first lieutenant EARNED their Ranger tab at Fort Benning GA. They are West Point grads and trained head to head with the men. One even saved the bacon of one of the guys. Had she not done that the guy would have washed out. These two are the first to complete any type of special ops training. However the Pentagon, at this point will not allow them in combat. I'm not going to argue that point. I will argue to give a fair opportunity to prove themselves and treat everyone with the respect they deserve and with which you would want for yourself. Personally I applaud the fortitude of these two young ladies and I am glad the have achieved their goals.
 
Seems to me that if you interview for the most skilled applicants, without putting limitations on it, you'll find the best and most efficient climber, regardless of their gender or age. In this industry the skills that come with years of experience and training sure seem like a foolish thing to exclude from the applicant pool. And if the climber has the ability to do the task, why would their gender make any difference? But if you put discrimination in your ad, it saves everyone who has no time for that nonsense from putting their energy into applying, so I guess it works out just fine all around. A shame to see so many fellow commenters not seeing any issue with the phrasing though.
 
TreeCo said:
So it's discrimination that has kept women out of arboriculture?

Sure it's a factor, but not the major one.

I'm all for women in arboriculture but I believe it's not realistic to believe they are ever going to make up a very large percentage of working, climbing arborist.

Riggs is just being vented upon, and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe if you looked at the historical record that discrimination against women would be the major factor in women gaining footholds in the workplace and most definitely in those fields that deal primarily with skilled manual labor. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act wasn't passed until 1964 and it had no teeth. It wasn't until 1973 that congress was given the power to actually enforce the primary components of the act that effectively made Rigg's for hire ad illegal. Also, note that discrimination against women was so pervasive that the government had to create a law to prevent it from happening.

Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US(a progressive first world country), but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to actually earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned. Now you don't need a degree to do tree work, but there is widespread evidence that access to education leads to widespread advancement for women. There have not historically been a lot of women in trees because there weren't women in the workplace. Anywhere. WWII had their Rosie, but she was expected to go home and cook dinner once the men returned from fighting. I could go through and list milestones for the women's lib movement, but it is still ongoing.

We have made great strides since then, but it is a battle. Women might be able to enter male dominated fields, but clearly we have to do in on their terms and for less money. According to the US Bureau of Labor, in 2012 the median earnings of a white male were 879/week. White women earned 710/week. The pay difference simply between white men and white women can equate to a total of $400,000 dollars in lost wages for women over their respective working lives. The mention of race is simply a statistic put in by the government and the disparities get worse if you are a minority.

I imagine that it must be incredibly difficult to see and feel what the privilege of being male grants someone when that is your day to day reality. As a women who climbs, I don't expect anyone out there with a differing opinion to change his mind based on this post. I do hope that some of this discussion gives pause and inspires some reflection on why this is such a heated debate. The more folks who realize that women can not only do the job, but do it well enough to be considered an asset, the more women you'll be seeing in the trees.
 
frashdog said:
I once met a hermaprodite that was very talented at tree work.
He liked to be called Denis at work during the day...we called her Denise when the make up, skirt and heels went on. Denis schooled me on many things...I kept my distance from Denise.

I wonder if Riggs is in fact a hermaprodite. When we have the peeing contest at the TCIA show I will sneak a peak.
Click to expand...
THIS!! ^ [emoji23]
 
ladybird said:
I believe if you looked at the historical record that discrimination against women would be the major factor in women gaining footholds in the workplace and most definitely in those fields that deal primarily with skilled manual labor. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act wasn't passed until 1964 and it had no teeth. It wasn't until 1973 that congress was given the power to actually enforce the primary components of the act that effectively made Rigg's for hire ad illegal. Also, note that discrimination against women was so pervasive that the government had to create a law to prevent it from happening.

Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US(a progressive first world country), but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to actually earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned. Now you don't need a degree to do tree work, but there is widespread evidence that access to education leads to widespread advancement for women. There have not historically been a lot of women in trees because there weren't women in the workplace. Anywhere. WWII had their Rosie, but she was expected to go home and cook dinner once the men returned from fighting. I could go through and list milestones for the women's lib movement, but it is still ongoing.

We have made great strides since then, but it is a battle. Women might be able to enter male dominated fields, but clearly we have to do in on their terms and for less money. According to the US Bureau of Labor, in 2012 the median earnings of a white male were 879/week. White women earned 710/week. The pay difference simply between white men and white women can equate to a total of $400,000 dollars in lost wages for women over their respective working lives. The mention of race is simply a statistic put in by the government and the disparities get worse if you are a minority.

I imagine that it must be incredibly difficult to see and feel what the privilege of being male grants someone when that is your day to day reality. As a women who climbs, I don't expect anyone out there with a differing opinion to change his mind based on this post. I do hope that some of this discussion gives pause and inspires some reflection on why this is such a heated debate. The more folks who realize that women can not only do the job, but do it well enough to be considered an asset, the more women you'll be seeing in the trees.
Click to expand...
very well said. agreed.
 
ladybird said:
I believe if you looked at the historical record that discrimination against women would be the major factor in women gaining footholds in the workplace and most definitely in those fields that deal primarily with skilled manual labor. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act wasn't passed until 1964 and it had no teeth. It wasn't until 1973 that congress was given the power to actually enforce the primary components of the act that effectively made Rigg's for hire ad illegal. Also, note that discrimination against women was so pervasive that the government had to create a law to prevent it from happening.

Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US(a progressive first world country), but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to actually earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned. Now you don't need a degree to do tree work, but there is widespread evidence that access to education leads to widespread advancement for women. There have not historically been a lot of women in trees because there weren't women in the workplace. Anywhere. WWII had their Rosie, but she was expected to go home and cook dinner once the men returned from fighting. I could go through and list milestones for the women's lib movement, but it is still ongoing.

We have made great strides since then, but it is a battle. Women might be able to enter male dominated fields, but clearly we have to do in on their terms and for less money. According to the US Bureau of Labor, in 2012 the median earnings of a white male were 879/week. White women earned 710/week. The pay difference simply between white men and white women can equate to a total of $400,000 dollars in lost wages for women over their respective working lives. The mention of race is simply a statistic put in by the government and the disparities get worse if you are a minority.

I imagine that it must be incredibly difficult to see and feel what the privilege of being male grants someone when that is your day to day reality. As a women who climbs, I don't expect anyone out there with a differing opinion to change his mind based on this post. I do hope that some of this discussion gives pause and inspires some reflection on why this is such a heated debate. The more folks who realize that women can not only do the job, but do it well enough to be considered an asset, the more women you'll be seeing in the trees.
Click to expand...
Boosh.
That's my co worker.
Errybody get jealous
 
ladybird said:
I believe if you looked at the historical record that discrimination against women would be the major factor in women gaining footholds in the workplace and most definitely in those fields that deal primarily with skilled manual labor. The Equal Opportunity Employment Act wasn't passed until 1964 and it had no teeth. It wasn't until 1973 that congress was given the power to actually enforce the primary components of the act that effectively made Rigg's for hire ad illegal. Also, note that discrimination against women was so pervasive that the government had to create a law to prevent it from happening.

Women were first "allowed" to go to university in 1833 in the US(a progressive first world country), but only with a focus on a career in the home. It wasn't until the 1960's that women were able to actually earn degrees and even then it was intended for those degrees to generally be put to use in the context of a job "suitable for a woman". That's really just the blink of an eye as far as the evolution of a society is concerned. Now you don't need a degree to do tree work, but there is widespread evidence that access to education leads to widespread advancement for women. There have not historically been a lot of women in trees because there weren't women in the workplace. Anywhere. WWII had their Rosie, but she was expected to go home and cook dinner once the men returned from fighting. I could go through and list milestones for the women's lib movement, but it is still ongoing.

We have made great strides since then, but it is a battle. Women might be able to enter male dominated fields, but clearly we have to do in on their terms and for less money. According to the US Bureau of Labor, in 2012 the median earnings of a white male were 879/week. White women earned 710/week. The pay difference simply between white men and white women can equate to a total of $400,000 dollars in lost wages for women over their respective working lives. The mention of race is simply a statistic put in by the government and the disparities get worse if you are a minority.

I imagine that it must be incredibly difficult to see and feel what the privilege of being male grants someone when that is your day to day reality. As a women who climbs, I don't expect anyone out there with a differing opinion to change his mind based on this post. I do hope that some of this discussion gives pause and inspires some reflection on why this is such a heated debate. The more folks who realize that women can not only do the job, but do it well enough to be considered an asset, the more women you'll be seeing in the trees.
Click to expand...

Great post, well stated.

I'm not a pro arb, but as something of an outsider, this thought occurs to me. The quote "He (or she) who pays the piper, calls the tune." Way easier said than done, but when women end up owning and running their own arb businesses, and are able to provide steady work to people of whatever background, then they will have real power. If one woman who figures out a way to have a successful arb business acts as a mentor to other women, and helps them to establish their own arb businesses, she will become a force multiplier. It sounds like a really long, difficult journey, but I believe this is the way that would cause the biggest, fastest changes in the industry.

Teaching women how to be good business people should be of prime importance. Everything follows the money, and if a woman running a mostly female or half female business was generating high revenue, it would attract talent of all stripes. This is my ignorant take on things.

Tim
 
TimBr said:
Great post, well stated.

I'm not a pro arb, but as something of an outsider, this thought occurs to me. The quote "He (or she) who pays the piper, calls the tune." Way easier said than done, but when women end up owning and running their own arb businesses, and are able to provide steady work to people of whatever background, then they will have real power. If one woman who figures out a way to have a successful arb business acts as a mentor to other women, and helps them to establish their own arb businesses, she will become a force multiplier. It sounds like a really long, difficult journey, but I believe this is the way that would cause the biggest, fastest changes in the industry.

Teaching women how to be good business people should be of prime importance. Everything follows the money, and if a woman running a mostly female or half female business was generating high revenue, it would attract talent of all stripes. This is my ignorant take on things.

Tim
Click to expand...
Certified Aborists in Seattle | Woman-Ownedoutonalimbseattle
been doing that for 15 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom