The story is so vague, so missing in detail, that there are SO many variables unaccounted for. And it seems that the GP IS saying that his sister's job IS being unfair: she hasn't been promoted because the only reason she's not being promoted is because she has to wait for someone else to vacate a job she CAN be promoted to. And as I said before: so what? I'm sure a number of men on this board (Government employees especially) have been in the same Shakespearian type of situation: someone has to die before someone else can ascend.
In fact, I've worked for a company whose promotion structure is more or less: "unless we can justify your promotion, we won't promote you". Well, then, the gap in the story is either the sister was sitting around waiting for a promotion that may or may not happen, or she's not some rock star performer that the company is willing to give her a promotion for a position that doesn't exist and has no given reason to exist.
Maybe it IS sexism that she hasn't been promoted elsewhere. Or maybe it isn't. But it doesn't seem to me from context that the GP thinks it's for any reason other than sexism. Because glass ceiling.
And yes, while I did see the part about use of vacation time, it's not nearly enough to corroborate with the rest of the information available to me, other than the fact that context of the post dictates sexism. Well...so what if that guy does use his vacation time? She may get done in 30 hours what three people do in 40, but he might get done what 5 people do in 20. Or maybe he has a friend in management that lets him get away with it. Who knows? I don't, but I'm not going to jump to sexism because the "victim" of the injustice in the scenario is female.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a reasonable expectation for people doing their jobs once they have kids, but we're not all top performers. Most people, once they settle into family life, rightly, want to be there for their kids. But we all only have 24 hours in a day. And that means no matter how much work you might take home, the time you spend with your kids is not time you spend keeping spun up on the latest and greatest. In any fast-moving industry, perception that you're spending your time assimilating information and/or networking to create connections that facilitate moneymaking prospects will help you advance your career is kind of important, and YOU can "like it or not".
If I ever had kids, I'd happily accept that spending time with them probably means that there will be time in a day that I won't be doing work that someone else will. I would also happily accept that limits my advancement in a career. People need to stop getting so defensive about that.
On thinking about it a little (and being in the same sort of position myself), I'm kind of wondering why your sister isn't doing what I'm doing. Which is: looking for a better job instead of sitting around waiting for the prize to land in her lap?
The guy I work for, if asked, would probably tell you he'd love it if I worked for him forever, but he's smart enough to be realistic about the prospect. He knows that if I were offered a better position tomorrow, he'd hate to have to write a letter of recommendation, but he also knows that if there's no way he can get me promoted from where I am, that it ultimately serves a greater good for me to go elsewhere.
Sure you can tell me about "vested interest" or "built goodwill" or "time in position", but it's a fallacy to think that because you invested time in a position, that you're "entitled" to better. You certainly could be, but why not fulfill that entitlement somewhere that they're willing to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than languishing where you're at?
I've made the case forever that knowing about bad things doesn't make you a bad person, and this can be applied to just about any field, not merely malware.
Researching serial killers, for instance, doesn't mean you're going to turn into one. It may just be that you're fascinated by the psychology of what makes a person go bad. Sure, it may inspire a copycat or two, but the price you pay for freedom is the chance that bad things might happen.
All I know is there will be more serial killers regardless of whether or not people know about serial killers that have happened in the past. Should it not be known how a serial killer operates so that they can be better prevented and/or prosecuted?
I can't believe I'm about to defend Kanye West, but here goes:
In the sense of being a "top artist", Kanye is a draw. He pushes records, and makes headlines. Instead of dismissing him as the ass he is, he gets headlines both because of what he says and because of the ass he married. That makes people money.
And on top of that, I have a couple of Kanye songs on my playlists when I work out. So, if you can sell to someone like me, who generally gets a distaste for listening to music by people whose personality often overshadows what SHOULD be making people like Kanye famous, there's a legit case to be made for his talents after all.
It ain't like Adele and Taylor Swift are much different in that regard. They're both "brands with a media narrative" whose talents are WAY oversold. And people like to follow them. So, sadly, "top artist" really isn't about "talent" so much as "can push sales".
Really, I don't know why I bothered to explain that; that should be patently obvious, but if people like you are still naively pushing the idea that talent is the only thing that matters, I guess it HAS to be said.
I think she's whiny. And apparently, has a thing for writing songs that are creepy and stalker-y. Which wouldn't even be so bad (good songs have been written about stalking someone), except it's played off the same way as Twilight being played off as "romantic".
"She was told for the last five years a promotion is hers upon retirement of a guy."
Not that I'm necessarily willing to discount sexism here, since I don't know who your sister works for, but this is often how it works whether you're male or female.
Unless your sister is stellar and could create her own position to which she could be promoted, most companies don't want more managers just for the sake of having them because of practical considerations rather than spend money on salary because it looks good on paper that they hired a woman to be a manager.
"His opinion of her went down when she had kids. That is the glass ceiling."
Went down, or found her to be less productive overall because she had family obligations to meet?
I find it strange that business is where we draw the line at distracted productivity.
Let's say I was a competitive weightlifter, and decided to take a year off to have a kid. And when I came back a year later, I couldn't hit the bench for five hours a day like I used to because I was fulfilling the necessary task of taking care of said kid.
Do you think if I showed up at a competition and took 12th place, the judges would feel it necessary to give me a handicap because having a kid kept me from grinding the way other competitors without kids do, and fast-track me into the top 5?
Again, I don't know your sister's situation. But these "all-too-familiar" stories that squarely fit that confirmation bias hole are just too vague for me to nod my head and say "yep, that's sexism."
Yeah, we should know better by now. This weekend was an exception, though. It was rainy here, and we're decent enough folks that we'd not let a perfectly good couch that we wanted to get rid of quickly go to waste by letting it sit in the rain if we could help it.
Disclaimer: I am a woman who grew up in the ghetto.
Catcalling may be distasteful, but it isn't threatening in and of itself.
If you catcall me and you stay put when I walk away, it isn't a threat.
If you catcall me and follow me in your truck for a couple blocks, I'm bound to duck into a store or veer towards somewhere I know where people are at. And I don't normally walk alone at night where there aren't people.
If your wife feels like a steak "lying" in front of hyenas, perhaps she needs to adjust her perspective to determine whether or not she's going to be attacked. I sincerely hope she hasn't, and you haven't indicated that she has been.
But let's not go overboard. If a bunch of men are hooting at you but aren't doing anything to directly endanger your safety, get a grip. If you think being "ogled" is a problem, never leave the house, so such a "threat" never befalls you.
Indeed. It seems nowadays people assume that more laws are needed to get people to do the right thing.
Then again, it's probably why we have a country that detests pure atheism, and then an atheism movement develops where it can't JUST be atheism, it has to be atheism with a bunch of codes of conduct and caveats attached to it.
You'd think people would recognize they were complicit in their own slavery, but apparently not.
We put up a couch for free on Craiglist this past weekend. Which, if you've ever offered something for free on the internet, you know it descends into drama very quickly, and the bigger the item, the more drama you end up with.
The woman who responded asked if my husband (who put up the post) if he was male or female. Upon finding out he was male (as if she couldn't have found out by looking at the name next to the email, which is an unambiguously male name), she replied "okay, so what are you going to do to make me feel safe if I come over?"
Were it me answering, I'd ask who the fuck she was to accuse my husband of being a bad person before she ever spoke to him...and despite the fact that she was offered a couch for free! If you're ever in doubt, stop replying to people on Craigslist, and don't be a dick to someone who's more than likely to be doing you a solid.
There's a little reassurance in the fact that she recanted that statement after he replied with "stop wasting my time, I'm offering the couch to the next on the list", because hubby's smart enough not to give into emotional blackmail. But that's not an exchange that shouldn't even have happened.
The US has this also. In the American Northeast there's Shop-Rite. Have not yet confirmed if any other local chains do this, but they can't be far behind.
For instance, if you have a home in which you have an elderly parent that can't make it up the stairs, but you don't have any space on the ground level for any kind of privacy, and you can't afford to move out of the current house, then remote monitoring may be the best case.
And then there is just the practical consideration of loving someone that you can't live with. I'm sure there are many, many people in this world that love their parents with all their might, but if they had to live with them ever again, it would turn into a lead story on the 6 o'clock news.
If organizing a chest-type freezer is a problem, then you do what I do in my home: keep a running list of what's in the freezer and cross things off when you use them.
There's at least one (who shall remain nameless) who has told me that she knows at least two women who were chased out of the industry.
Which, fine, I can believe that it happens. Hell, shit's happened to me. I'm glad to share stories of sexual harassment AND stories of women starting whisper campaigns about me to make everyone in the office hate me.
What I cannot concede, however, is that it happens everywhere, all the time, exclusively to women.
Unknowingly receiving is one thing. Not doing anything to correct the problem (as the Secretary of State should be MORE than well-versed in what constitutes classified information) is the thing that's really irking people.
Yes. You CARE. We have all been hearing the dirge of the so-called progressives: "if you CARE about people, this is the way you should feel about X situation", or else MISOGYNY.
The fact that you care makes it all right for you to mischaracterize the problem?
I don't have a problem with what you're saying IF that's the explanation.
I have a problem with the things that the movie decided to withhold. Like Rey's history. At the end, Leia hugs Rey and Rey is the one to go find Luke. Why? All signs point to her being a Skywalker (and there's still a lot of debate over which one is her parent...there's even some debate that she's the granddaughter of Obi-Wan). But the Skywalker theory makes the most sense, and re-hashes the "child on a desert planet" theme that the Skywalkers have going.
But you don't know with 100% certainty that the explanation you gave is true, and neither do I. Which wouldn't be so bad, except there's really no good reason why they should have left that detail out. It's not going to be a point of ambiguity once it's revealed, and chances are, once it is revealed, the plot will carry on without making a fuss over it.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't have occurred to me that Rey was training with Ben (that's the presumption I'd make, since both would be training with the only guy they COULD be training with) because everyone around her seems to kind of not give a shit about her. Leia and Han talk about bringing Ben home, but nobody has a thing to say about Rey. Kylo Ren is more consumed with killing his father than locating a potentially powerful ally (and didn't seem like he was expecting another person strong with The Force to arrive out of thin air). The child was presumed to be old enough to walk and talk, but not a moment's thought was given to this "missing" padawan. So, the sense I get from the writing is either everyone is suffering from amnesia (LAME!) or she was strangely hidden away and maybe taught a few things but couldn't really remember any of it until the plot required that she needed to.
I've been told for pointing that out, that apparently I need a movie to spell things out for me. Those fanboys can bite me. If the writers can't be bothered to fill in enough details to make it unambiguous, that's not my problem.
I'm glad a number of us are stepping forward to say this.
Viewed through the lens of post-Y2K, yeah, it seems silly. But if you're willing to not worry about realism and enjoy the fantasy, it was a perfectly fine movie that deserved better marketing and less derision.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should read the GP's post again.
The story is so vague, so missing in detail, that there are SO many variables unaccounted for. And it seems that the GP IS saying that his sister's job IS being unfair: she hasn't been promoted because the only reason she's not being promoted is because she has to wait for someone else to vacate a job she CAN be promoted to. And as I said before: so what? I'm sure a number of men on this board (Government employees especially) have been in the same Shakespearian type of situation: someone has to die before someone else can ascend.
In fact, I've worked for a company whose promotion structure is more or less: "unless we can justify your promotion, we won't promote you". Well, then, the gap in the story is either the sister was sitting around waiting for a promotion that may or may not happen, or she's not some rock star performer that the company is willing to give her a promotion for a position that doesn't exist and has no given reason to exist.
Maybe it IS sexism that she hasn't been promoted elsewhere. Or maybe it isn't. But it doesn't seem to me from context that the GP thinks it's for any reason other than sexism. Because glass ceiling.
And yes, while I did see the part about use of vacation time, it's not nearly enough to corroborate with the rest of the information available to me, other than the fact that context of the post dictates sexism. Well...so what if that guy does use his vacation time? She may get done in 30 hours what three people do in 40, but he might get done what 5 people do in 20. Or maybe he has a friend in management that lets him get away with it. Who knows? I don't, but I'm not going to jump to sexism because the "victim" of the injustice in the scenario is female.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a reasonable expectation for people doing their jobs once they have kids, but we're not all top performers. Most people, once they settle into family life, rightly, want to be there for their kids. But we all only have 24 hours in a day. And that means no matter how much work you might take home, the time you spend with your kids is not time you spend keeping spun up on the latest and greatest. In any fast-moving industry, perception that you're spending your time assimilating information and/or networking to create connections that facilitate moneymaking prospects will help you advance your career is kind of important, and YOU can "like it or not".
If I ever had kids, I'd happily accept that spending time with them probably means that there will be time in a day that I won't be doing work that someone else will. I would also happily accept that limits my advancement in a career. People need to stop getting so defensive about that.
On thinking about it a little (and being in the same sort of position myself), I'm kind of wondering why your sister isn't doing what I'm doing. Which is: looking for a better job instead of sitting around waiting for the prize to land in her lap?
The guy I work for, if asked, would probably tell you he'd love it if I worked for him forever, but he's smart enough to be realistic about the prospect. He knows that if I were offered a better position tomorrow, he'd hate to have to write a letter of recommendation, but he also knows that if there's no way he can get me promoted from where I am, that it ultimately serves a greater good for me to go elsewhere.
Sure you can tell me about "vested interest" or "built goodwill" or "time in position", but it's a fallacy to think that because you invested time in a position, that you're "entitled" to better. You certainly could be, but why not fulfill that entitlement somewhere that they're willing to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than languishing where you're at?
I've made the case forever that knowing about bad things doesn't make you a bad person, and this can be applied to just about any field, not merely malware.
Researching serial killers, for instance, doesn't mean you're going to turn into one. It may just be that you're fascinated by the psychology of what makes a person go bad. Sure, it may inspire a copycat or two, but the price you pay for freedom is the chance that bad things might happen.
All I know is there will be more serial killers regardless of whether or not people know about serial killers that have happened in the past. Should it not be known how a serial killer operates so that they can be better prevented and/or prosecuted?
Now apply that thinking to malicious code.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Kanye West, but here goes:
In the sense of being a "top artist", Kanye is a draw. He pushes records, and makes headlines. Instead of dismissing him as the ass he is, he gets headlines both because of what he says and because of the ass he married. That makes people money.
And on top of that, I have a couple of Kanye songs on my playlists when I work out. So, if you can sell to someone like me, who generally gets a distaste for listening to music by people whose personality often overshadows what SHOULD be making people like Kanye famous, there's a legit case to be made for his talents after all.
It ain't like Adele and Taylor Swift are much different in that regard. They're both "brands with a media narrative" whose talents are WAY oversold. And people like to follow them. So, sadly, "top artist" really isn't about "talent" so much as "can push sales".
Really, I don't know why I bothered to explain that; that should be patently obvious, but if people like you are still naively pushing the idea that talent is the only thing that matters, I guess it HAS to be said.
"Talented" is a subjective metric.
I think she's whiny. And apparently, has a thing for writing songs that are creepy and stalker-y. Which wouldn't even be so bad (good songs have been written about stalking someone), except it's played off the same way as Twilight being played off as "romantic".
"She was told for the last five years a promotion is hers upon retirement of a guy."
Not that I'm necessarily willing to discount sexism here, since I don't know who your sister works for, but this is often how it works whether you're male or female.
Unless your sister is stellar and could create her own position to which she could be promoted, most companies don't want more managers just for the sake of having them because of practical considerations rather than spend money on salary because it looks good on paper that they hired a woman to be a manager.
"His opinion of her went down when she had kids. That is the glass ceiling."
Went down, or found her to be less productive overall because she had family obligations to meet?
I find it strange that business is where we draw the line at distracted productivity.
Let's say I was a competitive weightlifter, and decided to take a year off to have a kid. And when I came back a year later, I couldn't hit the bench for five hours a day like I used to because I was fulfilling the necessary task of taking care of said kid.
Do you think if I showed up at a competition and took 12th place, the judges would feel it necessary to give me a handicap because having a kid kept me from grinding the way other competitors without kids do, and fast-track me into the top 5?
Again, I don't know your sister's situation. But these "all-too-familiar" stories that squarely fit that confirmation bias hole are just too vague for me to nod my head and say "yep, that's sexism."
Yeah, we should know better by now. This weekend was an exception, though. It was rainy here, and we're decent enough folks that we'd not let a perfectly good couch that we wanted to get rid of quickly go to waste by letting it sit in the rain if we could help it.
Disclaimer: I am a woman who grew up in the ghetto.
Catcalling may be distasteful, but it isn't threatening in and of itself.
If you catcall me and you stay put when I walk away, it isn't a threat.
If you catcall me and follow me in your truck for a couple blocks, I'm bound to duck into a store or veer towards somewhere I know where people are at. And I don't normally walk alone at night where there aren't people.
If your wife feels like a steak "lying" in front of hyenas, perhaps she needs to adjust her perspective to determine whether or not she's going to be attacked. I sincerely hope she hasn't, and you haven't indicated that she has been.
But let's not go overboard. If a bunch of men are hooting at you but aren't doing anything to directly endanger your safety, get a grip. If you think being "ogled" is a problem, never leave the house, so such a "threat" never befalls you.
Indeed. It seems nowadays people assume that more laws are needed to get people to do the right thing.
Then again, it's probably why we have a country that detests pure atheism, and then an atheism movement develops where it can't JUST be atheism, it has to be atheism with a bunch of codes of conduct and caveats attached to it.
You'd think people would recognize they were complicit in their own slavery, but apparently not.
The fear strangely grips adults also.
We put up a couch for free on Craiglist this past weekend. Which, if you've ever offered something for free on the internet, you know it descends into drama very quickly, and the bigger the item, the more drama you end up with.
The woman who responded asked if my husband (who put up the post) if he was male or female. Upon finding out he was male (as if she couldn't have found out by looking at the name next to the email, which is an unambiguously male name), she replied "okay, so what are you going to do to make me feel safe if I come over?"
Were it me answering, I'd ask who the fuck she was to accuse my husband of being a bad person before she ever spoke to him...and despite the fact that she was offered a couch for free! If you're ever in doubt, stop replying to people on Craigslist, and don't be a dick to someone who's more than likely to be doing you a solid.
There's a little reassurance in the fact that she recanted that statement after he replied with "stop wasting my time, I'm offering the couch to the next on the list", because hubby's smart enough not to give into emotional blackmail. But that's not an exchange that shouldn't even have happened.
I meant the mod point was illegitimate. Thus a "bastard" point.
The US has this also. In the American Northeast there's Shop-Rite. Have not yet confirmed if any other local chains do this, but they can't be far behind.
Dunno, if you make something idiot-proof, the world has the capacity to generate a bigger idiot.
Have to listen, or get to?
Seems like your parents are nice people.
Sometimes, that's not feasible, either.
For instance, if you have a home in which you have an elderly parent that can't make it up the stairs, but you don't have any space on the ground level for any kind of privacy, and you can't afford to move out of the current house, then remote monitoring may be the best case.
And then there is just the practical consideration of loving someone that you can't live with. I'm sure there are many, many people in this world that love their parents with all their might, but if they had to live with them ever again, it would turn into a lead story on the 6 o'clock news.
I'm sure I misplaced some mod points, but here, have a bastard +1 Funny.
If organizing a chest-type freezer is a problem, then you do what I do in my home: keep a running list of what's in the freezer and cross things off when you use them.
Insulin.
That wasn't supposed to sound like a snark.
That's not true, actually.
There's at least one (who shall remain nameless) who has told me that she knows at least two women who were chased out of the industry.
Which, fine, I can believe that it happens. Hell, shit's happened to me. I'm glad to share stories of sexual harassment AND stories of women starting whisper campaigns about me to make everyone in the office hate me.
What I cannot concede, however, is that it happens everywhere, all the time, exclusively to women.
Unknowingly receiving is one thing. Not doing anything to correct the problem (as the Secretary of State should be MORE than well-versed in what constitutes classified information) is the thing that's really irking people.
Yes. You CARE. We have all been hearing the dirge of the so-called progressives: "if you CARE about people, this is the way you should feel about X situation", or else MISOGYNY.
The fact that you care makes it all right for you to mischaracterize the problem?
-LaurenC
Why does this have to be a "male" problem versus an "asshole" problem?
If you say there are unpleasant women to work with, doesn't that kind of transcend gender?
I don't have a problem with what you're saying IF that's the explanation.
I have a problem with the things that the movie decided to withhold. Like Rey's history. At the end, Leia hugs Rey and Rey is the one to go find Luke. Why? All signs point to her being a Skywalker (and there's still a lot of debate over which one is her parent...there's even some debate that she's the granddaughter of Obi-Wan). But the Skywalker theory makes the most sense, and re-hashes the "child on a desert planet" theme that the Skywalkers have going.
But you don't know with 100% certainty that the explanation you gave is true, and neither do I. Which wouldn't be so bad, except there's really no good reason why they should have left that detail out. It's not going to be a point of ambiguity once it's revealed, and chances are, once it is revealed, the plot will carry on without making a fuss over it.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't have occurred to me that Rey was training with Ben (that's the presumption I'd make, since both would be training with the only guy they COULD be training with) because everyone around her seems to kind of not give a shit about her. Leia and Han talk about bringing Ben home, but nobody has a thing to say about Rey. Kylo Ren is more consumed with killing his father than locating a potentially powerful ally (and didn't seem like he was expecting another person strong with The Force to arrive out of thin air). The child was presumed to be old enough to walk and talk, but not a moment's thought was given to this "missing" padawan. So, the sense I get from the writing is either everyone is suffering from amnesia (LAME!) or she was strangely hidden away and maybe taught a few things but couldn't really remember any of it until the plot required that she needed to.
I've been told for pointing that out, that apparently I need a movie to spell things out for me. Those fanboys can bite me. If the writers can't be bothered to fill in enough details to make it unambiguous, that's not my problem.
I'm glad a number of us are stepping forward to say this.
Viewed through the lens of post-Y2K, yeah, it seems silly. But if you're willing to not worry about realism and enjoy the fantasy, it was a perfectly fine movie that deserved better marketing and less derision.
Ha! Modded troll!
The Anti-Spinach-an-Arugala lobby is totally astroturfing this board, you guys.