Saturday, September 6, 2014
It's next to impossible for a woman to convince men in the workplace that they treat female coworkers differently from their male colleagues. They vehemently deny it. Given examples, they always have reasons. She doesn't have the experience. She's not as technically astute. She doesn't see the big picture. She doesn't have the necessary leadership qualities. Blah blah blah.
Men don't listen to women the same way they listen to men. If a man objects to some statement, they will listen and consider what's said. If a woman makes the same objection, they immediately assume that she just doesn't understand.
Men rarely interrupt a man speaking in a meeting. Women are regularly interrupted, and no one notices or objects. If she objects and finishes her thought, no one listens and she's described as loud and pushy.
Stuff like that.
Personally, I got tired of men talking to my chest.
Well, finally we have observations from people who have been on both sides. Transsexuals! They know exactly what it's like to be a man or woman in the workplace, and then to experience the treatment as the other sex. And they are the same person with the same skills in both roles. They pretty much say exactly what women have been saying for eons.
They say that as a woman, no matter which way their change went, they got/get no respect.
The New Republic article is at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work. I urge you to read it, and pass it around, especially to MEN!
(And then wait and see - those men will opine that it's the addition or subtraction of testosterone. Apparently, testosterone makes one logical.)
-------------------------------------
I am reminded of a conversation I had with an IBM manager once. He asked if I wanted to go into management. I said "No, I'd rather stay technical."
He asked what my goals would be (he was thinking stuff like fellowship and so on). I replied, "I want to be listened to in meetings. I want that when I say something, people stop and listen and actually think about what I just said. I want people to want to hear what I have to say."
He said, "Oh, so you want to be seen as a technical expert?"
I blinked twice and said, "I! AM! a! technical! expert!! I want them to stop staring at my breasts and listen when I speak. Apparently they ARE subliminally hearing me, because after my observation is ignored, passed off as trivial, not even worth discussion, the next week some other guy says EXACTLY the same thing I said, using the EXACT same words, and everyone thinks he's a genius. Nobody remembers my having said exactly the same thing with exactly the same arguments the week before. I'm getting tired of that. I don't know how to get past it."
He didn't know what to say to that. Especially since he had been in some of the same meetings, and had seen it happen.
.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Sunday, August 12, 2012
3594 Things that made me sad today
Sunday, August 12, 2012
So. This morning I was watching "Sunday Morning", and they were doing a piece on a sculptor, and said that one of his very large pieces filled "the enormity of the Grande Palais" in Paris.
Sigh. The reporter obviously does not know what "enormity" means. The Parisians should be very insulted.
-----------------------------
I no longer watch late night or daytime talk shows. It seems like all the guests have something to sell, or need exposure, and that's the only reason they're there, not because they have anything interesting to say.
I have faithfully watched "Sunday Morning" since the early Charles Kuralt days. The show used to be about "down home" kind of stories. Ordinary people who did interesting or marvelous things, odd places and things off the beaten path, stuff like that. There's an old joke, "My home town is so small Charles Kuralt has been here twice."
Now it seems to be all about - surprise! - people who have something to sell or people who need exposure. It has gradually become a 90-minute celebrity ad. It's very subtle, but watch next week and you'll see what I mean.
I may stop watching "Sunday Morning". (I suspect I already have. I used to settle in front of the TV with my tea or coffee. Now I turn the TV on, but I'm not watching. Listening, at most. After the enormity of today's grammar gaffe, I don't even want to listen any more.)
When "People" magazine started, it was also about ordinary people in ordinary lives, who did or were interesting in some way. Then it quickly changed. It's now a celebrity advertising rag.
Why am I thinking about the worship of Mammon, and of bread and circuses?
--------------------------------
What's with the Veronica Lake hair on young women? You know, where they part it far over on the left side, so the right side falls in their faces, and they are constantly brushing it out of their eyes? I'm seeing it everywhere. Man, that's almost as stupid as those stilt-like shoes.
Women who worked so hard in the '70s to earn respect look on with despair.
Why would any woman want to look like she can't even control her own hair (toss, toss, flick, toss - sexy? Only if you don't mind looking like a ditz. I guess it's ok if you're a sexy ditz? Do you really want a man who prefers sexy over brains?)? Ok, the hair thing isn't a big thing itself, but it's indicative of an attitude.
What woman purposely wants to make her feet look and sound like hooves, and hobble herself? Is binding feet next?
Why do young women want to look like they are incapable of making sound sensible decisions?
It's a huge topic, the backslide. I'm too sad about it to get into it. They don't know what it used to be like, and they seem to be headed right back. On purpose.
.
Have no respect for the authority of others,
for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
-- Bertrand Russell --
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So. This morning I was watching "Sunday Morning", and they were doing a piece on a sculptor, and said that one of his very large pieces filled "the enormity of the Grande Palais" in Paris.
Sigh. The reporter obviously does not know what "enormity" means. The Parisians should be very insulted.
-----------------------------
I no longer watch late night or daytime talk shows. It seems like all the guests have something to sell, or need exposure, and that's the only reason they're there, not because they have anything interesting to say.
I have faithfully watched "Sunday Morning" since the early Charles Kuralt days. The show used to be about "down home" kind of stories. Ordinary people who did interesting or marvelous things, odd places and things off the beaten path, stuff like that. There's an old joke, "My home town is so small Charles Kuralt has been here twice."
Now it seems to be all about - surprise! - people who have something to sell or people who need exposure. It has gradually become a 90-minute celebrity ad. It's very subtle, but watch next week and you'll see what I mean.
I may stop watching "Sunday Morning". (I suspect I already have. I used to settle in front of the TV with my tea or coffee. Now I turn the TV on, but I'm not watching. Listening, at most. After the enormity of today's grammar gaffe, I don't even want to listen any more.)
When "People" magazine started, it was also about ordinary people in ordinary lives, who did or were interesting in some way. Then it quickly changed. It's now a celebrity advertising rag.
Why am I thinking about the worship of Mammon, and of bread and circuses?
--------------------------------
What's with the Veronica Lake hair on young women? You know, where they part it far over on the left side, so the right side falls in their faces, and they are constantly brushing it out of their eyes? I'm seeing it everywhere. Man, that's almost as stupid as those stilt-like shoes.
Women who worked so hard in the '70s to earn respect look on with despair.
Why would any woman want to look like she can't even control her own hair (toss, toss, flick, toss - sexy? Only if you don't mind looking like a ditz. I guess it's ok if you're a sexy ditz? Do you really want a man who prefers sexy over brains?)? Ok, the hair thing isn't a big thing itself, but it's indicative of an attitude.
What woman purposely wants to make her feet look and sound like hooves, and hobble herself? Is binding feet next?
Why do young women want to look like they are incapable of making sound sensible decisions?
It's a huge topic, the backslide. I'm too sad about it to get into it. They don't know what it used to be like, and they seem to be headed right back. On purpose.
.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
3162 Health Insurance then and now
Sunday, February 13, 2011
An observation on the deterioration of health insurance: Back in the late '60s and early '70s, if my doctor prescribed aspirin, my insurance paid for it. Same with any OTC meds and supplements. There were NO copays or deductibles. No premiums other than what the employer paid. Once when I was hospitalized, in 1970, I was covered by two insurance plans - my employer's and Ex#1's employer's - and both paid in full. I was worried that it was a mistake, but both companies said no, that it was ok, and if I had money left over I could keep it. "If it makes you feel better, use it for costs associated with time off work, pet care, bed jackets to wear in the hospital, whatever."
In the '80s, Daughter was covered under my policy with The Company, and under her father's (Ex#2's) policy, also with The Company. Although by then coverage had been reduced (we had copays and deductibles, and no double payments), because she was covered under both, one policy covered the copays and deductibles on the other, so she was covered 100%.
Compare that to now.
--------------------------------
Something else to compare then to now: Under those health plans, for everything except hospital charges, you had to pay the bills and submit the receipts for payment. Ex#2 and I were divorced, and I had full custody. I took Daughter to the doctor, paid all the bills, filled out the forms, and submitted the receipts to my plan, with Ex#2's plan as secondary payer.
The Company cut the checks, and sent them to him! Not me! And he, of course, never notified me that he'd received any checks. He cashed or deposited them without a blink, without a word to me. Since all the paperwork from The Company went to him, too, I had no idea that payment had been made, or for how much. I had to call Human Resources and ask. And that SOB often claimed he'd never received the checks (not out of meanness - he'd just "forget", and he was a tightwad and didn't want to give me any money).
I was furious with The Company. They said it was company policy to send checks to the father, regardless of court dispositions, regardless of who paid the bills and submitted the claims. It took me more than a year and the threat of a sexual discrimination suit to get them to change the policy, and even then the policy applied only to me, and only because I was also a Company employee. I wondered how many other non-employee women weren't getting their checks and had no recourse, had to beg their exes for the insurance checks.
Compare that to now.
People now seem to think calling a woman a feminist is some kind of insult. They don't know what it was once like, and how hard it was to change the rules.
.
“The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose
was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot.”
-- Dalí --
----------------------------------------------------------
was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot.”
-- Dalí --
----------------------------------------------------------
An observation on the deterioration of health insurance: Back in the late '60s and early '70s, if my doctor prescribed aspirin, my insurance paid for it. Same with any OTC meds and supplements. There were NO copays or deductibles. No premiums other than what the employer paid. Once when I was hospitalized, in 1970, I was covered by two insurance plans - my employer's and Ex#1's employer's - and both paid in full. I was worried that it was a mistake, but both companies said no, that it was ok, and if I had money left over I could keep it. "If it makes you feel better, use it for costs associated with time off work, pet care, bed jackets to wear in the hospital, whatever."
In the '80s, Daughter was covered under my policy with The Company, and under her father's (Ex#2's) policy, also with The Company. Although by then coverage had been reduced (we had copays and deductibles, and no double payments), because she was covered under both, one policy covered the copays and deductibles on the other, so she was covered 100%.
Compare that to now.
--------------------------------
Something else to compare then to now: Under those health plans, for everything except hospital charges, you had to pay the bills and submit the receipts for payment. Ex#2 and I were divorced, and I had full custody. I took Daughter to the doctor, paid all the bills, filled out the forms, and submitted the receipts to my plan, with Ex#2's plan as secondary payer.
The Company cut the checks, and sent them to him! Not me! And he, of course, never notified me that he'd received any checks. He cashed or deposited them without a blink, without a word to me. Since all the paperwork from The Company went to him, too, I had no idea that payment had been made, or for how much. I had to call Human Resources and ask. And that SOB often claimed he'd never received the checks (not out of meanness - he'd just "forget", and he was a tightwad and didn't want to give me any money).
I was furious with The Company. They said it was company policy to send checks to the father, regardless of court dispositions, regardless of who paid the bills and submitted the claims. It took me more than a year and the threat of a sexual discrimination suit to get them to change the policy, and even then the policy applied only to me, and only because I was also a Company employee. I wondered how many other non-employee women weren't getting their checks and had no recourse, had to beg their exes for the insurance checks.
Compare that to now.
People now seem to think calling a woman a feminist is some kind of insult. They don't know what it was once like, and how hard it was to change the rules.
.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
1868 Girdles!
Saturday, June 21, 2008, early am.
I was just flipping through TV channels and passed a commercial for another "body shaper". They seem to be all the rage now. What happened?
Until the late '60s we wore girdles. Some included the bra and right down to the mid-thigh, some were waist to top of thigh, and variations between. Everyone wore them if you were leaving the house. It was called a "foundation garment". A girl knew her mother considered her a young lady the day she was presented with her first girdle. Partly it was to prevent the dreaded jiggle. Mostly it was to hold stockings up. And everyone always wore stockings everywhere, all the time. We actually wore stockings with shorts! Bare legs were very daring, and only for the most casual of occasions.
Yeah, there were garter belts, but they were uncomfortable, let your stockings droop when you sat down, and made funny bulges. There were rolled garters worn just above or just below the knee, but everyone knew they encouraged varicose veins, and tended to fail at critical moments. You wore them just around the house.
So we all wore girdles, almost all the time.
Reliable pantyhose were not commonly available until the very early '70s. It was pantyhose and the Women's Liberation movement that spelled doom for the girdle. I am loose! I am free! This is me! Like it or lump it! We gloried in our natural bodies.
Suddenly, I'm seeing what amounts to girdles everywhere. They don't call them girdles. They call them smoothers or shapers. (Um, doesn't this imply your shape isn't good enough? Has it occurred to anyone that if they're lumpy, maybe their clothes are just too tight?)
Hey! They're GIRDLES! They are a negative symbol we rejected three decades ago! And you don't even need them for stockings any more. They are purely an external rejection of who and what you are!
What happened? Why are women backsliding? I don't like it at all.
.
I was just flipping through TV channels and passed a commercial for another "body shaper". They seem to be all the rage now. What happened?
Until the late '60s we wore girdles. Some included the bra and right down to the mid-thigh, some were waist to top of thigh, and variations between. Everyone wore them if you were leaving the house. It was called a "foundation garment". A girl knew her mother considered her a young lady the day she was presented with her first girdle. Partly it was to prevent the dreaded jiggle. Mostly it was to hold stockings up. And everyone always wore stockings everywhere, all the time. We actually wore stockings with shorts! Bare legs were very daring, and only for the most casual of occasions.
Yeah, there were garter belts, but they were uncomfortable, let your stockings droop when you sat down, and made funny bulges. There were rolled garters worn just above or just below the knee, but everyone knew they encouraged varicose veins, and tended to fail at critical moments. You wore them just around the house.
So we all wore girdles, almost all the time.
Reliable pantyhose were not commonly available until the very early '70s. It was pantyhose and the Women's Liberation movement that spelled doom for the girdle. I am loose! I am free! This is me! Like it or lump it! We gloried in our natural bodies.
Suddenly, I'm seeing what amounts to girdles everywhere. They don't call them girdles. They call them smoothers or shapers. (Um, doesn't this imply your shape isn't good enough? Has it occurred to anyone that if they're lumpy, maybe their clothes are just too tight?)
Hey! They're GIRDLES! They are a negative symbol we rejected three decades ago! And you don't even need them for stockings any more. They are purely an external rejection of who and what you are!
What happened? Why are women backsliding? I don't like it at all.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)