Geni,

I'll answer your response item by item.

1. I don't know if you're writing from Europe, the US, or another place, but here in the US, following are the wages/salary of RNs (LPNs and CNAs definitely don't get paid like RNs or NPs/PAs, but they don't have the same level of education/training, nor demand for them in the job market):

US National annual wages of men in the job market, aggregate as of 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Househol... Mean average: $33,517

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291141.htm Current mean annual: $68,910

So what you say below about nurses (at least, RNs in the US) and men's average wages (at least in the US) isn't true.

Given that US men's unemployment rates in the US have gone up since 2003 and women's have gone down, and the level of attendance at higher ed institutions have declined for men but gone up for women (some US campuses now have a 7:3 F:M undergrad gender ratio), it stands to reason that the discrepancy has increased.  As for the fact that as an aggregate, women's annual income as of 2003 was $19,679, note the annual median household income in 2003 was $45,016.  Adding $33,517 and $19,679 yields $53,196.  Taking into account that most adults cohabitate in hetetosexual couples either married or not for at least half their adult lives, it's probably a safe inference on average to say that the reason so many women can choose to work part-time or at jobs with less stress or responsibility is because their boyfriends/husbands are at least in part subsidizing their choice to do so personally and financially.   The so-called "wage gap" has been repeatedly debunked since it doesn't take into account the voluntary choices so many women make over maximizing their educations and the opportunities they give them. (See  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-oba... - even the Washington Post, which tends to lean editorially toward White Houses occupied by a Democrat, couldn't let it pass)

2. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhancing-diversity The number of men in US RN programs increased by almost 400% between 1980 and 2008.  Men as of 2008 still made up only 6.2% of all RNs.  But by 2013, it was up to 9.6%, with 41% being anesthetists, among the higher-paid kind of RN.  This is probably because men are still expected to be the primary earners in a family, since if they can't or won't fulfill that role, it usually jeopardizes their marriage or other kind of SO rel'p.  Or, it could simply be because it's what they really would rather be doing as nurses vs. other more standard RN duties.  You'd have to ask them.  But as for the problem righting itself, who can say.  It isn't a problem one way or another, IMO.  As I said in my first note, whether or why men are or aren't interested in becoming RNs isn't important.  It's whether or not patients get competent care from dedicated nurses is all that matters.

3. Looks like you may be writing from the UK.  If wages for plumbers and refuse collectors have dropped in the UK, I'm sorry to hear it.  As for the US:

Plumbers: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/mobile/plumbers-pipefitte... Mean yearly: $49,140

Refuse collectors: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes537081.htm Mean yearly: $33,660

Working overtime, a refuse collector can double his yearly income just by doing a double route twice a week, depending on the area he works in and/or any union agreements he is part of.  Despite the money to be made in these lines of work, it'll be a cold day in Hell before you hear any self-appointed spokesperson for womankind insist simething must be done to place more women on the backs if garbage trucks.

4. Women in the military: The US has for decades been working on increasing femalesin its ranks, but with limited success.  Despite targeted outreach, special incentives for female enlistees only, modifications to baracks or guaranteed off-base housing for enlisted women in apts. or even detached homes, only 14.6% of all servicemembers in the US were female. (See http://www.statisticbrain.com/women-in-the-military-statistics/ ).  After Marine combat infantry school was opened to females on a volunteer-only basis, only 3 have gotten through it. (See http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/1121/First-female-Marines-pass-... )  In other attempts to get through it, fewer than 5 attempted and unfortunately all couldn't complete it due to injury or voluntarily stopping it.  Our most recent Defense Secretary declared before resigning that all but a very small no. of combat roles would be avail. to females in the armed forces by 2016. ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/20/pentagon-women-combat/7... ).  But while it's a dubious honor, I'm amazed I must admit to see that the US military does allow women to defuse bombs:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123195329

And indeed, a few have volunteered.  So while I doubt the gender ratio is M:F 1:1 by percentage of men and women in the US armed forces, we *are* after all talking about "Danger UXB" stuff here.  And I have yet to hear anyone say that the gender imbalance among ordnance techs must be rectified in order for there to be gender-justice.

5. Nuclear materials handling:

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_labor_issues

6. "I'm a chemist you insensitive clod. Depending on what you are doing it can be dirty or dangerous."

Indeed!  But is it inherent in what you do with chemicals or do you choose to do dangerous things or not?  Like an EE, one can design chemical processes and do research without touching lab equipment for decades, though I don't recommend it since you fall out of practice.  Indeed, Marie Curie accidentally but nonethless did give her life to the study of chemistry/materials physics as she studied radioactivity.  So too did the man (Henri Becquerel) who led her and her husband, though, in their research, though he seems to have been forgotten by most, as has been ger husband who was killed when he fell in front of a horse-drawn cart in Paris and the wheel rolled over his head.  But I doubt if either Henri or Marie knew playing with stuff that glows like that'd kill them, they would probably have, at least, figured out a way to protect themselves.

But I suppose the same re choosing dangerous jobs could be said of men, too.  After all, men have to volunteer for bomb disposal too, right?  My issue with the whole "Let's get more women because ________!" thing is that the blank to fill in is usually occupied by something utterly nonsensical, just like doing the same when speaking of men being "needed" as RNs, even if the pay can be >$100,000/yr. with overtime or going into a more lucrative specialty (like becoming a nurse-anesthetist).  The argument is just plain ludicrous.

And Geni, I'm a man, you unsensitive clod!  Dependinh on what you are foing, it can be dirty or dangerous.  Just look at the number of men killed/injured/sickened on the job yearly all over the world vs. women.  Look at the number killed in wars started by someone else, forced to serve at gunpoint or on threat of imprisonment or worse.  And need I tell you that men are much more likely to be murdered/assaulted than women.

So who's the "insensitive dolt", Geni, much less the better-informed?

Matt

-------- Original message -------- From: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org Date:01/08/2015 6:28 AM (GMT-05:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 130, Issue 25

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:52:45 +0000 From: geni geniice@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision Message-ID: CAOU87sQ0YsBz-xwdpvcYQNiRPrcr-JWAg-6gUDqWKKeEWiCdVQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 8 January 2015 at 07:07, mcc99 mcc99@hotmail.com wrote:

If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the nursing profession, you'll get a stream of women's names. To suggest that nursing "needs" more men or else it won't be able to achieve its greatest potential would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing?

In fact nurses get paid less than the male national average wage. This is clearly some definition of high salaries I wasn't previously familiar with

If so, it'd be news to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about it?

Reducing the recruitment pool is less than ideal. However the number of men training to be nurses has been increasing so it is probably felt the problem will solve itself.

Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection?

Ah you can tell the piece you are recycling from is dated. Post privatisation refuse collection has ceased to be a particularly lucrative job.

Or, the likewise lucrative jobs of plumber,

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/call-more-women-construc...

Although again due to eastern European labour plumbing isn't as lucrative as it used to be.

ordnance disposal engineer,

I understand there have been various attempts to recruit women into the military

nuclear materials technician, etc.? No. But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes.

Were you under the impression that nuclear materials technician was dirty and/or dangerous? For very obvious reasons it isn't. However the nuclear industry has been downsizing of late so I don't think there are significant programs to recruit anyone.

(Think professional STEM fields.)

I'm a chemist you insensitive clod. Depending on what you are doing it can be dirty or dangerous.