Occupation
Questions 31-40
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next 10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
O40: To actors and actresses: Is it possible to play a role in
which you are falling in love with another person, and not have that
affect you emotionally? I know it is a job, but the kisses that can
curl the toes of audiences must surely curl your toes, as you are an
actual participant.
POSTED DEC. 9, 1998
Ronald V., 45, male
<draugas@mailcity.com>,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
ANSWER 1:
I'm an actor who studied under Lee Strasberg for four
years. It surely is possible to play a steamy love scene and not fall
in love. In fact, you could very much dislike the other actor and
still pull off a steamy scene. Actors trained by Strasberg use a
technique called "substitution," whereby we sensorily (through sense
memory) create someone in our personal lives and imbue that person
upon the actor we are playing the scene with. After we're done we can
get up and walk away from it and, though emotionally involved as it
may be, we know we "created" it and it's not reality.
POSTED MARCH 26, 1999
M.P.
<muz1113@yahoo.com>, Los
Angeles, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I've been an actor for more than 20 years. The kisses can
be nice, at the start, but remember that, at least in stage acting,
the makeup may not look all that great up close. It is a shallow
thrill, and after the 100th performance the thrill is bound to wear
off. It really is just make-believe.
POSTED APRIL 8, 1999
Marty K, 42, white male, MN
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O39: Why are the majority of Black Jack dealers in Las Vegas
Asian women?
POSTED DEC. 2, 1998
Male, 35, Boston, MA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O38: Why do farmers always seem to leave one large tree in the
middle of their plowed fields? Is it for navigational reasons, or a
shady place to have lunch on hot days in the crops?
POSTED DEC. 1, 1998
A. Sanderson, Port Huron, MI
ANSWER 1:
I live in a farming community and see those trees often.
When it is a small row of trees left between fields, it acts as a
windbreak and reduces erosion.
As for the single big tree left in the field, I don't believe it
has a purpose. As far as farming goes, it is a nuisance that has to
be plowed around. It is left there because it is old and beautiful,
and the owners of the land love it.
POSTED DEC. 4, 1998
Colette
<inkwolf@earthlink.net>,
Seymour , WI
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O37: To people who have been hospitalized: How did the nursing
staff meet your psychosocial, cultural and spiritual needs?
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
Julie K.
<Eiluj11659@aol.com>,
Sandusky, OH
ANSWER 1:
I was hospitalized last summer and found that almost all
of the nurses were incredibly helpful. Not only were they prompt,
neat and well-trained, they were reassuring, gentle and had an almost
Buddha-like patience with me, for which I am very greatful. I credit
my speedy recovery to the emotional well-being the nurses and my
friends and family gave me, as well as to my doctor. The only problem
was that there probably weren't enough nurses. I've been told that I
was in a more fully-staffed hospital than most, but I still found
that even when there weren't any emergencies that required extra
nurses, they were in short supply and heavy demand. I must add one
more comment: While in general the nurses were great, I did suffer
with one really mean nurse. I was unfortunate enough to have her the
morning after surgery, when I couldn't breathe. Since I couldn't
really breathe, it was very hard to speak, and I was terribly
frustrated by her constant interruptions and dismissals. I believe I
started to hyperventilate. It was one of the worst experiences of my
life.
POSTED NOV. 28, 1998
J.R., Boston, MA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O36: I am a white 43-year-old female who has taught preschool
for about 20 years. Why is the occupation of teaching young children
so low-paying? In my humble opinion, it is a highly skilled and
sometimes stressful (though rewarding) job. Is the pay low solely
because early childhood education is pretty much a tradionally female
occupation? Or perhaps does the low pay pertain to society's low
value of children? I'm told that good childcare is expensive. I teach
at a very good preschool, but I do not think anyone in particular is
pocketing much money.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Cil, 43, white female
<Cil@AOL.com>, Denver, CO
ANSWER 1:
Normally most salaries are figures that are economically
justified. This is usually based on the laws of supply and demand.
Economically justified does not mean importance of the job to
society. If it did, then policemen, firemen, teachers and members of
the military, for example, would all have high-paying jobs because
they are all vital to our society. On the same note, professional
atheletes and musicians would not command the salaries they do
because they are not essential for society. However, professional
atheletes and entertainers generate lots of money and economic
activity. In other words, many people make money off their talents.
Conversely, in the case of child-care workers, teachers, military
personnel, policemen, etc., very little economic activity is
generated by their activities and talents. I'm not saying this is
fair or idealistic. It is just the economic facts of life.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Al, 38, male
<alan@adler.net>,
Jacksonville, NC
FURTHER NOTICE:
I'm a mother with two little ones in preschool, and it is
truly a struggle to be able to pay all the bills. Daycare alone costs
$1,200 per month, which is a big chunk of my take-home pay. I
understand that daycare workers are vastly underpaid - I could never
carve out an existence on that salary - but as a working mom, I can't
afford to pay a penny more. In fact, if my center keeps raising
rates, I may be forced to become a stay-at-home mother.
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
Charisma K., 23, McHenry, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
My sister is an elementary school teacher who complains
about low pay for teachers. However, I frequently point out to her
that she puts in much fewer hours at work than your normal full-time
worker. She has seven-hour days (vs. the normal eight) and teaches
during a 180-day school year. So with her holidays and summers off,
if you average her salary, it is actually quite high. She does grade
papers at home, but then again many workers take work home. I can
think of no other job where you get all summer off, though perhaps
there are some. I have seen statistics in which teaching jobs rank in
the top 10 of salary based on the hours teachers work. Of course, my
sister could even make more money if she decided to find a summer
job. However in her 20 years of teaching she has yet to do this. And
yes, I'm jealous that she gets much time by the pool in the
summer.
POSTED DEC. 1, 1998
W.G., Cincinnati OH
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
To W.G.: I do not know what kind of teacher your sister
is, but I can tell you that the average teacher does not work less
than your average full-time worker. First of all, the regular hours
for a teacher might be less than what is considered full-time, but
that is just the beginning. Most teachers have to spend just as many
hours as they teach to prepare for the next day, whether running
through the subjects for each class or preparing materials for those
classes. Keep in mind that much more goes into grading papers than
checking the final result. Teachers also have to evaluate the process
that each student takes to get to each answer. On top of all of that,
summers are usually not playtime for teachers. Those few months are
necessary to prepare for the next school year, whether by working on
refining or creating the year's curriculum or attending any number of
workshops geared toward enhancing performance. And the current trend
in education is to phase in a new "year-round" school schedule that
eliminates the summer "vacation." My wife, for instance, arrives at
school around 6:45 a.m. and gets home around 4:45 p.m., and that time
is just for what she needs to get done at the school. Also, her
inner-city public elementary school goes from September to the end of
July, so she only gets one month to prepare over the summer. During
the week, all of her time, from waking to sleeping, is in some way
devoted to her teaching. And this is true for most of the teachers in
just about every district she has ever dealt with since she started
teaching. Maybe you should consider that the statistics you refer to
account only for the school hours that teachers work, and never
account for the countless hours real teachers devote to their
profession. It would appear that teachers like your sister make it
more difficult for more diligent teachers to get the kind of salary
they deserve.
POSTED DEC. 2, 1998
John K., 25
<the-macs@geocities.com>,
Cranford, NJ
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O35: Can an officer of the law pull you over and search your
vehicle if he suspects you may have illegal paraphernalia?
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
Anna, 17, Zandra, 17, Cheri,18
<WWW.SRATAYLOR@AOL.COM>,
Sutter Creek, CA
ANSWER 1:
It depends on how he comes to suspect it. If he sees you
waving a bong out the window or if you're driving erratically, as if
you're drunk or stoned, he or she might have justification to search
your car. He or she probably has less legal right to search your car
if you're stopped because of the age of your car, how old you are,
your race, etc.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Andrew, 34
<ziptron@start.com.au>,
Huntington, NY
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O34: Why does a principal and or school official have the
right to search students, but the police need to have a warrant to
search someone?
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
Sara S., 17
<sarasamuel@hotmail.com>,
Pioneer, CA
ANSWER 1:
Two reasons. First, during the school day, your school and
its officials are considered to be acting as your guardians. Just as
your parents have the right to search your room, your school has the
right to search your locker. Also, technically, the locker belongs to
the school, not you. The school's just letting you use it. The other
reason is that police have greater powers than school officials.
Police can arrest you and start the legal process toward
imprisonment. That's why they need a warrant.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Andrew, 34
<ziptron@start.com.au>,
Huntington, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
Are you talking about a personal search, like "frisking?"
If you are, then, as far as I know, a police officer does not need a
warrant to check a person's body if that person has come under
suspicion of something. This would assume that the person being
searched is out in public, and possibly a danger to others. If that
person were inside their home on private property, then the police
would probably need a warrant. I suspect it is similar for school
officials. Anytime you go into a confined space containing large
numbers of people (school, ballgames, concerts, etc.), you might be
subject to a search if a danger is suspected. I have been frisked
several times before, and I never thought my privacy was being
invaded.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Stephen S., 31, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
This sure brings back memories. In high school that was
the No. 1 issue I battled on in the student senate, and this was a
very long time ago. I got the same arguments and they do not impress
me in my 40s any more than they did when I was in my teens. The U.S.
Constitution explicitly protects against "unreasonable search and
seizure." This has been interpreted by the courts to mean, among
other things, random mass searches with no reason to believe a crime
has been committed by those being searched. I have seen nothing in
the Constitution that exempts high school students, minors or anyone
else. Yet we regularly had our lockers searched while we were in
class, and students were disciplined for having cigarettes and other
items. In loco parentis does not impress me; aside from the fact that
I believe strongly that parents should respect a young person's
privacy and not search, the Constitution is the highest law in the
land and overrides any such statute.
POSTED NOV. 27, 1998
Carol, former high school student
<carol_prosports@msn.com>,
Castro Valley, CA
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O33: Why do we lower physical standards for women in police
and fire occupations? Are we not risking the lives of people in the
interest of equality? I for one would not want a woman half my size
attempting to carry me out of a burning building. I would much rather
it be a man who I know has the physical capability.
POSTED NOV. 12, 1998
Pete, male, Toledo, OH
ANSWER 1:
I agree we should not lower standards for any position in
order to include a particular group of people. However, a man is not
necessarily stronger or more physically fit by mere virtue of his
sex. Ever seen a couch potato? I'd much rather have a physically fit
female carry me around than some fireman who spends his free time
sitting on his butt. At the same time, when standards are lowered in
the interest of including other groups, it ultimately sends the
message that those groups aren't up for the challenge. And let's face
it, the level of strength needed to be an effective firefighter, for
example, is not unattainable by most people, regardless of sex. I'm
not saying firefighters are not incredibly well-conditioned people,
just that anyone with a passion for that field should be capable of
achieving the level of fitness required. I think reasonable
standards, determined by the demands of a position, should be set and
required of all employees/volunteers. Those who can't meet them
should either seek other work, or find a way to serve that does not
require physical strength. Everyone has his/her limitations; if yours
is physical fitness, then maybe firefighting (or lifeguarding or
military service) is not the field for you - male, female or
otherwise.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
D.M.M., white, female, 24
<donikam@hotmail.com>,
Charleston, SC
FURTHER NOTICE:
I do see your point, but do not believe the police and
fire departments would suffer any woman or man to fill physically
demanding positions if they were incapable of executing reasonable
physical feats. Now if a woman will risk her own life to save
another, so be it; are not her male colleagues also risking theirs?
As for a woman risking others' lives, what if a woman half your size
did pull/drag you out of a burning building - how would you feel
then?
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Alonzo C., 32, African American, Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Why do they lower height requirements so certain ethnic
groups can qualify? Height is also important, particularly in a
firefighter's job. You gotta be fair all the way around. As a female
firefighter (reserve - competition is stiff ) I know there are plenty
of us who can do the job and work circles around some of our plumper,
lazier man-fellows. Besides, there's that new firefighter
"two-in-two-out" law that passed, so I doubt one guy is gonna run
into a burning building and save you single-handedly. Also
noteworthy, under the influence of adrenalin, anything is
possible!
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
K.B., 37, white female, Riverside area, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The technical term for differing standards for men and
women is "gender norming." Essentially, the theory goes that "based
on physiological differences, the women's equivalent of a man doing
12 pullups is (for example) four pullups." The idea is to assign not
equal standards, but equivalent standards. I'm in the military, and
we deal with this all the time. I believe there is a reason for a
given standard, such as carrying someone out of a burning building,
and that standard should be the same regardless of the sex of the
rescuer. The other problem is one of physiology: How can we say for
sure what is equivalent to what? I do caution you not to assume a
woman couldn't rescue you, though. In my judo classes, I've run
across many a "little old lady" who could move my 200 lbs around with
no effort at all.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Charles
<Sw1mFast@aol.com>,
Fairview Heights, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Lowering standards for a test that reflects skills needed
to do a job is one thing, but how often do you think that happens?
What does doing 15 pushups have to do (directly) with the ability to
be a fireman? Nothing. Push-ups, pull-ups, etc. are strength tests
that favor men over women. If you want to favor the women, then do
endurance tests, or tests that require working through pain (both are
documented as higher women-achieving tests).
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
T.J., EMT, Gatorland, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
Who do you think can pull hose up a set of steps faster, a
110-lb person or a 200-lb person? You have to grab the hose and lean
to pull it. Who do you think can pop a door? The lighter you are, the
more likely you will bounce off. Who is going to be more successful
in a situation involving self-rescue - say falling through a
burned-out floor or roof right up to your armpits - someone who can
do a lot of pullups? You bet. Who is going to push debris off
themself when things come crashing down? I'd safely bet it is the one
who can bench-press 300 pounds. And who would you rather have
carrying dad down the steps in a stairchair - two burly men, or two
petite women?
POSTED NOV. 28, 1998
Firefighter <tmon@who.net>,
Hamilton, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
One of the things about physical tests for firefighters -
they test you when you go in, but never again. What does that tell
you? That the test is to weed out people, particularly people who
"they" don't want. Otherwise, the tests would be given every year or
two. People who were out of shape would lose their jobs. (And where I
live, that would be most cops and firefighters.) Another point: We
tend to test for one set of skills (pulling a 250-lb. man across the
floor) and ignore others (crawl through this 16- inch opening across
this caving-in floor, to the baby). Why not test for both? Then, of
course, the big guys would be screaming, wouldn't they?
POSTED DEC. 27, 1998
Barbara, female
<newagent99@hotmail.com>,
FL
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O32: Does having acne make an individual less likely to be
selected for a job or professional career?
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Mary, Calif.
ANSWER 1:
Yes indeed. I've yet to see a model on a magazine cover
with acne. Never saw any men with acne in shaving ads either, for
that matter. And people don't generally want the pizza driver's face
looking like the pizza he is delivering.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Tony, Bay Village, OH
To
respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
O31: Can anyone in the fashion industry tell me why the runway
models have such outrageous clothes that nobody would be caught dead
in? The clothes on display by major designers never resemble anyting
I see in public. Do people really buy that stuff, and where on earth
do they wear it?
POSTED NOV. 6, 1998
R.J., Cincinnati, OH
ANSWER 1:
It is obvious you have never been to Paris or Milan, for
example. I have been in many dance clubs and bars in these areas and
see such extravagant outfits here. I doubt you would see anyone
wearing this in Cincinnati. Before you assume no one would be caught
dead in these outfits, maybe you ought to think in a more wordly
manner. There is a world outside the United States and
Cincinnati.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Jeff, male, Dayton, OH
FURTHER NOTICE:
As a student at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New
York, I can give you an explanation about why designers design
outrageous clothes that are impossible for wear even to special
events. Fashion designers are very competitive with each other,
especially when there are new and upcoming designers who are just as
talented as the well-established designers. Designers are artists,
and they need to express themselves. However, they do have lines
designed and marketed to the everyday customer. Those outrageous
clothes are ways to get their names out there so that customers will
respond.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Julie, 21, female
<Jasmin411@aol.com>, New
York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
One is more likely to find outrageous clothing in urban
centers and among the wealthy, particularly in Europe. The designers
themselves seek to be expressive and to create something
invigoratingly new. To them and to many others, like myself, the
clothing is beautiful, inspiring, fun, dramatic, moody, crazy, angry,
soothing, etc. It extends and represents who we are or who we desire
to be.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
Ryan H.
<ryanhy@tbaytel.net>,
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I know! I know! My mother has her master's in fashion
design and she tells me that runway shows are not in any way intended
to exhibit a line of practical clothing. They are to be taken like an
art exhibit with no practical application; their value is purely
aesthetic. However, they do translate into "real world" fashion in a
subtle way. Let's say you observe a runway show filled with models
strutting down the catwalk practically naked in nothing but sheer,
drapey, shapeless fabrics. That season, you might notice a lot of
sheer blouses in the department stores, but accompanied by another
layer underneath because people in the real world can't run around
with their nipples showing. The fashion shows basically serve to
celebrate the fabrics and cuts that designers want to be "in" that
season in the most dramatic and showy way possible.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
D.M.M., 24, white, female
<donikam@hotmail.com>,
Charleston, SC
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
From what I've heard there are two types of fashion shows:
Haute Couture and Pret-a-porter. Haute Couture are the outrageous,
one-copy-only creations. If you want one of these, you have to buy
the original and it costs an arm and a leg and a few other body
parts. These are the shows that are in many ways like art shows. Most
people who attend them won't buy any of the clothes. But some will.
Pret-a-porter means "ready-to-wear." The clothes exhibited in these
shows are less outrageous and are usually for sale in ordinary
stores. They can be quite expensive, but they are made in many
copies. They are often on the edge, but not as outrageous as the
Haute Couture clothes.
POSTED NOV. 13, 1998
Frej
<frejvall@online.no>,
Oslo, Norway
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I don't believe a person should be judged on where they're
from. Jeff from Dayton is putting down R.J. from Cincinnati, saying
there's a world outside Cincinnati. There is, but Jeff makes R.J.
sound ignorant for asking the question. I'm living in Cincinnati but
have lived and visited quite a few cities in the United States and
seldom, if ever, have seen the sort of styles R.J. is referring to. I
don't think that makes me ignorant (no, I don't think I need to go to
Milan or Paris) and I have no particular opinion of fashion, but just
wish to counter the idea that Cincinnati has backward or ignorant
people.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Lou F. <lflum@iac.net>,
Cincinnati, OH
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Y? talked with Sherrol Barnes-Burton, a fashion
designer, consultant and instructor and owner of Sherrol Couture
design studio on the "Miracle Mile" in Coral Gables, Fla.
"Lots of times these shows with all the crazy designs are for
the photographers and media," she said. "They're designed to be
show-stoppers. These designers also produce wearable items in the
rest of their line. Some designers even give their $100,000 designer
outfits to celebrities, or even pay them to wear them, because it
gets the designer name recognition. The dresses get copied and might
sell for $200 in the store. Or the celebrity might mention the
designer's name, and then when you go to the store and see an
affordable piece by that designer, there's name recognition and you
might buy it."
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
To
respond
BACK TO TOP