|
Post by Pamela on Apr 25, 2008 15:43:24 GMT -5
Do workers show favoritism? Are they fair and impartial?
Do they apply the same rules without discrimination?
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Apr 25, 2008 16:43:38 GMT -5
It's too bad, but favoritism is rife among the workers!
The "rules" are enforced quite differently depending on who the worker is, who the victim is, where they are living, and lots of other factors such as perceived "status".
|
|
|
Post by Favoured guest on Apr 29, 2008 12:20:47 GMT -5
What do you need so that you can curry favour with your workers?
a spare car spare cash a relative in the work a spacious, comfortable home worker worshipping attitude (superficially will do)
if you have some of these attributes you can do much as you like without being held to account
|
|
|
Post by timid bullies on May 7, 2008 12:07:46 GMT -5
If you are timid workers will take advantage and demand more of you. You will be bullied unless you stand firm and show them their place as servants and examples of christianity.
Not all workers are bullies. There are a few decent men and women amongst them.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 7, 2008 14:56:30 GMT -5
Do workers show favoritism? Are they fair and impartial? Do they apply the same rules without discrimination? Question as it stands is unanswerable. Do you mean "are there any workers that show favoritism?" (Yes of course) Or perhaps "do all workers show...", (then no of course not) Or maybe even "is it a general trend...?" (Then depends on where you mean- which continent, which country)
|
|
|
Post by Or on May 8, 2008 16:16:36 GMT -5
Do workers show favoritism? Are they fair and impartial? Do they apply the same rules without discrimination? Question as it stands is unanswerable. Do you mean "are there any workers that show favoritism?" (Yes of course) Or perhaps "do all workers show...", (then no of course not) Or maybe even "is it a general trend...?" (Then depends on where you mean- which continent, which country) Or instead of nit-picking aileen, you might just have answered thus (a lot more simple IMO) A: Some do B: Not always C: Not always
|
|
Interesting response
Guest
|
Post by Interesting response on May 8, 2008 22:07:45 GMT -5
If, according to you, the questionable is unanswerable, why not leave it for those who have answers. Don't worry that you have not had the experience that provides a result. Giving simplistic responses tends to depreciate the question which is an important one in the learning process.
|
|
|
Post by like any others on May 11, 2008 8:40:49 GMT -5
I guess they are only human and show favoritism as they choose just like any other mere mortals.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2008 2:45:27 GMT -5
If, according to you, the questionable is unanswerable, why not leave it for those who have answers. Don't worry that you have not had the experience that provides a result. Because noone has answers to an unanswerable question. But providing answerable questions and answering them instead can actually have meaning.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on May 17, 2008 2:56:57 GMT -5
I guess they are only human and show favoritism as they choose just like any other mere mortals. This is pretty much just what I was going to say, so I just quoted. I'm sure that most would never *intend* to show favoritism...but they're only human and make mistakes like we all do.... M.
|
|
|
Post by non statement on May 17, 2008 17:11:52 GMT -5
If, according to you, the questionable is unanswerable, why not leave it for those who have answers. Don't worry that you have not had the experience that provides a result. Because noone has answers to an unanswerable question. But providing answerable questions and answering them instead can actually have meaning. The question is answerable. Sincere responses are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Favoritism shown on May 17, 2008 18:09:10 GMT -5
Favoritism is shown when they chose homes for meeting. Men are favored over women even when women have been faithful all their life a young fellow will get to lead a meeting even in her home.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 1 on May 18, 2008 4:09:29 GMT -5
Mmmm...... Yet as as soon as a femake worker comes in , it is automatically assumed that she takes the leadership role. That she may be a novice is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 18, 2008 6:38:15 GMT -5
Mmmm...... Yet as as soon as a femake worker comes in , it is automatically assumed that she takes the leadership role. That she may be a novice is irrelevant. I agree, I've often seen inexperienced new female workers assume the leader role at conventions, special meetings, sunday meetings, funerals etc. Well, maybe not?
|
|
|
Post by gill on May 18, 2008 12:22:00 GMT -5
Mmmm...... Yet as as soon as a femake worker comes in , it is automatically assumed that she takes the leadership role. That she may be a novice is irrelevant. I agree, I've often seen inexperienced new female workers assume the leader role at conventions, special meetings, sunday meetings, funerals etc. Well, maybe not? Aileen, if you have nothing constructive to add, then perhaps say nothing. Continual sniping and undermining of other posters' efforts to have discussions is wearisome. You've not ever seen a sister worker of any age assume the leader role in any of the above situations except perhaps a Sunday morning meeting. That happens regardless of age or experience and that is the point the previous poster was trying to make. Guest1, that simply proves the elevated status of workers over the friends, although if in the meeting there was a young brother worker still wet behind the ears and a doughty old sister worker, the sister worker would be expected to make way for the young brother worker.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela on May 18, 2008 13:18:53 GMT -5
That is exactly what occurs. Totally unreasonable IMO.
I wouldn't want to see sisters hogging every occasion and am no feminist, but respect for faithful, experienced souls regardless of gender would seem appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 18, 2008 14:10:33 GMT -5
There's a lot of generalisms on this board, where people state their own experience as being the rule everywhere. But there are varieties and exceptions everywhere.
I've been in meetings where junior workers both male and female have not "led" the meeting, but allowed the normal elder to carry on. Its also a fact that in some places sisters take funerals.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 1 on May 18, 2008 18:15:22 GMT -5
..........And Aileen, I was in a meeting last week where an older female worker asked the usual elder to take the meeting. Notice ,she had to request, as this was not normal procedure.
If you continually quote the exceptional as the norm it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 19, 2008 1:50:48 GMT -5
Guest 1 Seems we are agreed then. I used the word exceptions (reply #16 above) and you note also that these exceptions do occur in your experience too.
Its those that state that there are no exceptions that are in error.
|
|
|
Post by not UK Eire on May 22, 2008 8:15:21 GMT -5
There's a lot of generalisms on this board, where people state their own experience as being the rule everywhere. But there are varieties and exceptions everywhere. I've been in meetings where junior workers both male and female have not "led" the meeting, but allowed the normal elder to carry on. Its also a fact that in some places sisters take funerals. Not in Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales it has not yet ever happened.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 22, 2008 9:00:56 GMT -5
There's a lot of generalisms on this board, where people state their own experience as being the rule everywhere. But there are varieties and exceptions everywhere. I've been in meetings where junior workers both male and female have not "led" the meeting, but allowed the normal elder to carry on. Its also a fact that in some places sisters take funerals. Not in Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales it has not yet ever happened. Actually it has happened. I know of those cases where I've been present. Were you also present at all meetings to be able to say that it NEVER happened?
|
|
|
Post by Notso Naive on May 24, 2008 13:02:28 GMT -5
You cannot be that naive Aileen to think you can pull the wool!! If you are a member how has it escaped you that when there is a funeral in any part of the British Isles and Ireland friends and relatives are immediately informed of the death, venue, arrangements and who will speak as well as the copious notes of what was prayed and spoken as well as who took part.
This is a close-knit family, for better or worse, there is no funeral that is not reported on.
Sisters do not take part, and in particular, young sisters do not have a part in funerals.
Why do you claim to be a member and not know what goes on?
|
|
|
Post by To Aileen on May 24, 2008 14:36:34 GMT -5
I've been in meetings where junior workers both male and female have not "led" the meeting, but allowed the normal elder to carry on. Its also a fact that in some places sisters take funerals. It's possible, but not very probable that sister workers take funerals in the UK (it has never happened in Ireland, North or South). The only circumstances under which I can imagine this ever taking place is in some of the more remote corners of the Island, when it is not possible for brother workers to make it to the funeral in time although given the delay between death and burial sometimes being more than a week, it is unlikely they'd not have sufficient time to make it to take the funeral. Aileen, we'd be glad if you could supply the name of the sister workers that have taken funerals. It'll add a degree of credibility to your claim and as funerals are generally public occasions, you'll not be breaking any confidences. Thank you in advance for you response. As for your comment about junior brother and sister workers "allowing" the elder to take the meeting, the word "allow" says it all. The presumption is that the workers, regardless of rank, experience or maturity, always take precedence.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 26, 2008 5:13:18 GMT -5
I've been in meetings where junior workers both male and female have not "led" the meeting, but allowed the normal elder to carry on. Its also a fact that in some places sisters take funerals. It's possible, but not very probable that sister workers take funerals in the UK (it has never happened in Ireland, North or South). The only circumstances under which I can imagine this ever taking place is in some of the more remote corners of the Island, when it is not possible for brother workers to make it to the funeral in time although given the delay between death and burial sometimes being more than a week, it is unlikely they'd not have sufficient time to make it to take the funeral. Aileen, we'd be glad if you could supply the name of the sister workers that have taken funerals. It'll add a degree of credibility to your claim and as funerals are generally public occasions, you'll not be breaking any confidences. Thank you in advance for you response. As for your comment about junior brother and sister workers "allowing" the elder to take the meeting, the word "allow" says it all. The presumption is that the workers, regardless of rank, experience or maturity, always take precedence. I concede that it is "normal" for male workers to lead over female, and that the word "allow" implies that as in my post. With respect to funerals, I didn't specify which country I was talking about, and using the words "in some places" really does imply other than here. I have not personally been to a funeral taken by a sister worker, but have corresponded with those that have. These were in USA and Canada which tend to do various things differently from here in UK.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela on May 27, 2008 13:33:36 GMT -5
Not in Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales it has not yet ever happened. Actually it has happened. I know of those cases where I've been present.Were you also present at all meetings to be able to say that it NEVER happened? What did you mean, then Aileen by the red highlighted sentence? You are clearly saying that you were present. Which one is the truth, Aileen? Do you speak the truth? Do you uphold truth?
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 27, 2008 16:13:43 GMT -5
Pamela Yes I have been in meetings where women led the meeting, the men preferring not to, and where the elder has taken the meeting when workers (both male and female) have been present. You asked which one is truth, but didn't specify what two (or more) you refer to. Confusing! Do I speak truth? yes Do I uphold truth? yes
|
|
|
Post by Pamela on Jun 5, 2008 9:27:58 GMT -5
It's possible, but not very probable that sister workers take funerals in the UK (it has never happened in Ireland, North or South). The only circumstances under which I can imagine this ever taking place is in some of the more remote corners of the Island, when it is not possible for brother workers to make it to the funeral in time although given the delay between death and burial sometimes being more than a week, it is unlikely they'd not have sufficient time to make it to take the funeral. Aileen, we'd be glad if you could supply the name of the sister workers that have taken funerals. It'll add a degree of credibility to your claim and as funerals are generally public occasions, you'll not be breaking any confidences. Thank you in advance for you response. As for your comment about junior brother and sister workers "allowing" the elder to take the meeting, the word "allow" says it all. The presumption is that the workers, regardless of rank, experience or maturity, always take precedence. I concede that it is "normal" for male workers to lead over female, and that the word "allow" implies that as in my post. With respect to funerals, I didn't specify which country I was talking about, and using the words "in some places" really does imply other than here. I have not personally been to a funeral taken by a sister worker, but have corresponded with those that have. These were in USA and Canada which tend to do various things differently from here in UK.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela on Jun 5, 2008 9:29:41 GMT -5
Aileen, compare the two quotes from your posts.
|
|