The Gaming Den

I know the feeling. Every time I have to deal with a Maintenance Reserve Account at my workplace I twitch as I recall the other thing with the same letters.

So was talking with the folks about the election and Mom mentions how two of her sisters didn't vote for Hillary. Which is bound to happen, a lot of families were divided on this, so I asked if they didn't like her stance on certain policies or did they feel the emails were the deciding bit or what.

She said no, they didn't vote for her because they didn't think a woman should be President.

I was stumped for a moment, then thought maybe I had misheard. So I asked her, didn't she mean my two aunts didn't think Hillary specifically shouldn't be President. Not everyone wanted her for the Dem ticket afterall.

Nope, she said they had made their views clear in that they didn't think any woman should be President, as it was 'too much responsibility for a woman'.

Both of these ladies have raised strong, independent daughters, or so my cousins always seemed to me. But what the hell did they tell their girls when they were growing up, 'You can grow up to be just about anything, just not President' ?!?

Most of the time when you see someone arguing for prejudice against themselves like that, what's going on is that they have some character flaw and they want a free pass on it. So, if a woman says "the presidency is too much responsibility for a woman," my first guess is that the woman speaking has achieved less in life than she'd hoped and has embraced misogyny as the explanation, because the alternative is that she, personally, cocked it up.

On a related note: Men who "sympathize with women" about how all or most men are lecherous cads, especially if they use extremely strong language like "rapists waiting to happen" or something, should not be allowed to be alone with women and girls.

Or they are just super indoctrinated into mysogyny. My catholic mother doesn't think women should be priests, for example.

These are different notions.

Chamomile wrote:On a related note: Men who "sympathize with women" about how all or most men are lecherous cads, especially if they use extremely strong language like "rapists waiting to happen" or something, should not be allowed to be alone with women and girls.

The textbook exceptional [wo]man: "everyone is a dumb bitch / rapist but me", very convenient for obvious reasons.

Chamomile wrote:So, if a woman says "the presidency is too much responsibility for a woman," my first guess is that the woman speaking has achieved less in life than she'd hoped and has embraced misogyny as the explanation, because the alternative is that she, personally, cocked it up.

That's not blaming misogyny, it's regular misogyny.

Blaming misogyny for personal failures goes like, "women should totally be Presidents and the only reason I'm not one is guess what."

While I believe people's brains can get twisted in all sorts of funny pretzels for their mouth to end up emitting the soundbites Chamomile reproduced here, I'm not going to buy them at face value. The women who advocate misogyny are or want to be reliant on males for their social status and shore up structures that (they think) keep the males reliably in power. Basically Serena Joy.

Chamomile, you're over-thinking it.

Imagining that women are somehow immune to sexism, is also sexist. Of course women can be sexist against women. It's not some special brain malfunction you only get by virtue of having or not having a penis, or a sense that you are a man as the case may be, just like everything else ever.

Sure, when society is sexist there's going to be more women than men who dislike that, because women are the victims of it. But just being a woman doesn't make you perfectly rational about anything in particular, and plenty of women will in fact agree with society at large that women are all emotionally unstable and can't be trusted with important things. And at the same time think Donald Trump is not unstable because he is a man and all those crazy things he did and said must somehow be rational and reasonable or lies.

Such people also tend to believe the rich are worthy of their money and Blacks really are all criminals and Mexicans really are all rapists and the world is ultimately run by god to be fair to people and punish sinners. Trump wins with them because he's a rich white guy and so god obviously likes him, and god only likes good people. Duh.

Starmaker wrote:That's not blaming misogyny, it's regular misogyny.

Blaming misogyny for personal failures goes like, "women should totally be Presidents and the only reason I'm not one is guess what."

But Chamomile didn't say blaming misogyny, he said embracing misogyny - as in, embracing a misogynistic view of women as valid. Chamomile's hypothetical woman isn't saying "I'm less successful than my male peers because I'm a member of an institutionally underprivileged group; it's not my fault," she's saying "I'm less successful than my male peers because I'm a member of a group which is actually inferior; it's not my fault." I'm sure there are women who blame misogyny for their life's failures (some of whom are right). And I'm sure there are women who embrace misogyny as a true thing. And I'm sure the reasons those women embrace misogyny are numerous and puzzling and far broader than Chamomile gives credit for.

Prak's "they were raised to believe that" is absolutely a thing that happens. If Mormons can convince people that their ridiculous magic underwear will protect them from Satan's temptations, I'm sure you can convince some significant number of women that things like math, science, and leadership "aren't for them."

And as you've said, I'm sure that women who stand to gain - or at least believe that they stand to gain - from the existing institutions are more likely to support those institutions. People who think they've got it good are more likely to defend the status quo than those who don't, and they'll come up with whatever mind-caulk rationalizations they need to not feel bad about that after the fact.

And I'm sure there are some number of people who have grappled with their personal failures and come up looking for excuses in dark places, though I have trouble believing that's a significant source of misogyny. Though considering the extent to which cults prey on the disillusioned and that the world is full of misogynistic cults like, you know, Christianity, it would not surprise me if insecurities drove some number of women into the arms of people all too happy to teach them about their "proper" place in society.

My sister's friend was coming home for Thanksgiving last night, and got screwed up bad in a car wreck. He's unconscious and will be for a few days. She's taking it rough, even though he's expected to recover (someone saw it and called and they lifeflighted him to the hospital). So I'm spreading the word to help cover the medical bills, since he's not from a rich family and this is a red state and hospitals want their money:

https://www.gofundme.com/help-the-ferguson-family

I can't go, but this looks awesome: http://epicnerdcamp.com/

Although I would never do this, I'm starting to have sympathy for people who go do bullshit alternative crap in lieu of actual medical treatment. I'm well into medical debt past my ability to ever realistically repay and I've yet to have an actual diagnosis (the doc that diagnosed me with Sarcoidosis absolutely refuses to write me any notes I can take to work saying I have fatigue due to an autoimmune disorder, also he doesn't recommend treating it). It's annoying, every doctor just recommends more expensive and invasive surgeries and don't seem too interested in helping me my boss off my back regarding my health.

I'd rather die than give woo-woo snake oil peddlers a cent, but I can see why that would be seen as an option.

What the hell?
a.) why does he refuse to give you that in writing?
b.) why does not not recommend treating it?
Is that not . . i dunno . . kinda his business model?

A.) I don't know, I assume he thinks I'm either running a scam or he's scared of getting sued for some reason.

B) He didn't explain himself, once he found out it wasn't cancer it seemed like he completely lost interest.

I need to ask for a raise, but I'm super nervous. I'm painfully underpaid (maybe two-thirds industry/area average), but I would only describe my job performance as adequate. The extra annoying thing is that I've seen my supervisor be restricted by his boss on how much to offer new hires, so I'm feeling like I should skip a step and ask him.

Protocol demands that you speak to your direct boss, first. Do you know how much new hires are offered compared to your current salary?

It can be a difficult conversation to have, so it's good to plan your approach. Something like:

[Insert Boss's name here], I need to speak to you for a moment. I've been with [insert company's name here] for [x] years, and I know they've been tough for everyone as a result of the financial crisis. Now that we're through the worst of it, pay has been increasing across the board. As a tenured employee who has been with this company through some of those dark times, I know you'll want to do what's right. It's come to my attention that new hires are offered [x] while I'm paid [y]. The mid-point for my grade is [z]. What options do we have to bring me in-line with those numbers?

How accurate is your self-assessment? Can you maybe ask a colleague how good a job you are doing?
I know a boss that would happily pay more to keep key employees, but those employees don't even ask for higher salaries.

deaddmwalking wrote:Protocol demands that you speak to your direct boss, first. Do you know how much new hires are offered compared to your current salary?

I know the new hire (same position, comparable experience) is making a minimum of 25% above my pay, and very plausibly 50% more.

It's probably worthwhile to submit applications to similar positions in your area. If you have an offer, they're unlikely to want to let you go. And if the offer is really good, maybe it's worthwhile to try for it.

I have been submitting applications for five years (when I started at this company), both similar and dissimilar positions, averaging less than one interview per year.

PharmaBro called my brother-in-law and talked for about an hour. About obscure Nirvana music.

virgil wrote:I have been submitting applications for five years (when I started at this company), both similar and dissimilar positions, averaging less than one interview per year.

Sounds like you aren't in demand. I suggest you be grateful for what you have.

Occluded Sun wrote:

virgil wrote:I have been submitting applications for five years (when I started at this company), both similar and dissimilar positions, averaging less than one interview per year.

Sounds like you aren't in demand. I suggest you be grateful for what you have.

...you don't even deserve an expletive.

Maj wrote:PharmaBro called my brother-in-law and talked for about an hour. About obscure Nirvana music.

Wait, PharmaBro as in Martin Shkreli, or some other PharmaBro?

Prak wrote:

Maj wrote:PharmaBro called my brother-in-law and talked for about an hour. About obscure Nirvana music.

Wait, PharmaBro as in Martin Shkreli, or some other PharmaBro?

PharmaBro as in Martin Shkreli.