Work-related rant
Jules W.
past three years, four permanent full-time women have been hired. Of
those, three of them have sprogged in their FIRST TWO YEARS here.
There's clearly something in the water here and I only hope the
students aren't drinking from the fountains in our building.
As a rule, these new hires have come in for a semester or two, gotten
knocked up, then gone on leave, leaving courses and students and
committee work behind for the rest of us to add to our workloads.
But I digress.
One particular entitlement-moo is annoying beyond words. It actually
started her first semester, when we received memos asking us to donate
leave time to the "sick bank" so Prof. Moo could get paid on our
dime(s) while she stayed home with the brat. Astounding, and almost
definitely her idea. But alas, it's even worse now. She's bringing the
brat to school with her, hoping the entire campus will coo and ooh and
aah (in)appropriately. I see 'em in the halls and in the dept. office
and wonder why she couldn't just leave the kid with a sitter. (This is
going to get better, too, because Prof. Moo is about to spawn for a
SECOND time, her husband apparently wanting her always pregnant if not
always barefoot, and will have two chatty-brats trailing behind her
this time three semesters from now. She'll probably have one of those
Zamboni-sized strollers as well.)
To top this all off, the other night I was teaching a class when I
heard a small kid talking loudly in the hall, evidently getting a kick
out of hearing her voice bounce off the walls of the lobby. I went
outside to give my Stare of Death (Pat.Pend.) and yell at the
student-moo who was obviously ignoring her lil' brat-- and instead at
the elevator found Prof. Moo, whose brat was the one making the noise.
Sweet Jeeheebus! Thanks for listening.
Pirate Queen
> Breeding has become a popular hobby at my academic workplace.
>
> knocked up, then gone on leave, leaving courses and students and
> committee work behind for the rest of us to add to our workloads.
>
> But I digress.
No, don't digress...you've touched on one of my major peeves, and I'm
gonna rant now.
Women who feel that they must be educators AND breeders should stay in
elementary education. Have fun in your professional babysitting gig,
Moo, because there are those of us who actually value higher education
and don't want to waste time messing around with YOUR personal family
issues.
When I was in grad school, I was assigned an advisor. She was a Prof
Moo who never kept her office hours. Ever. Oh yeah, sure, she'd post
them, and she made a Big Deal about caring for her students, but I
never ONCE was able to keep an appointment with her as she was always
having to run here and there because, 'well, she's got small kids with
another on the way, you know.' Furthermore, she was one of those
touchy-feely time professors who rarely taught the required courses, so
I was able to avoid her Special Topics like the plague.
The thing is, is most of the women in my program thought she was the
greatest thing since Cream Cheese. When I found out that I was
assigned to her, I went into my favorite prof and asked if he could
sign off on my papers whenever I needed a faculty signature.
Thankfully, he wasn't one of her fans, either, and had me transferred
to his roster. As he signed one of my forms he just smirked and said,
"Let me guess: she's not in. Again. Oh well, just so you know: she's
going on maternity leave again, and I'll be taking her classes next
semester. See you then."
T.
Abbie F.
Then choose not to get paid!!
Companies often end up stuck subsidizing preggos who take jobs because
of the generosity of said leave, work a few months to "qualify," then
disappear. It costs them TONS of money to hire, train, and replace
these musical-chair-moos but they just can't understand this and
continue to pour capital into making their firms "famblee friendly."
I'd love for all that evidently extra funding to be put back into
salaries for those who actually sit at their desks and do things.
Those companies could then win a "Really-Working Woman Magazine" award
about which to crow.
Beth Cole
> One particular entitlement-moo is annoying beyond words. It actually
> started her first semester, when we received memos asking us to donate
> leave time to the "sick bank" so Prof. Moo could get paid on our
> dime(s) while she stayed home with the brat.
We do have a leave pool here that we can donate to, but standard
pregnancy is NOT on the list of what is eligible to draw from it.
Something pregnancy-related pretty much has to be "I got put on bedrest
from the 3rd month on, because I'm carrying naturally-conceived
triplets" before the committee that oversees the disperal of the pool
will consider it. I know they've turned down at least 3
infertility-treatment-related pregnancies for inclusion (they told them
the condition was self-induced and the risks known, so the "sufferer"
should have planned better).
Of course, the qualifications to apply for the leave at all are pretty
stringent, and by the time someone has reached the point of needing it
for their own illness, they are probably close to a terminal diagnosis.
Beth
--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain
james
family out of town requiring long term care or frequent visits.
living 1,200 miles from my close family it's something i dealt with and
will have to deal with again. luckily i have a supportive boss and
co-workers.
some may have an issue with that, but end of life situations are fare
more important to me than "new to life" situations
james
WalmartGreeter
>started her first semester, when we received memos asking us >to donate
>leave time to the "sick bank" so Prof. Moo could get paid on >our dime(s) while she stayed home with the brat.
*Sitting at Computer With Lower Lip Touching the Floor* Holy Crap!
This is wrong on so many levels. Words are failing me so all I can add
is that I am sorry for you and the rest of the faculty. Wow.
sharon
sharon
expects people to bend over backwards for parents. I have never had the
urge to breed or even coo over a baby. Being a women, you are expected
to. It's disgusting. I don't like babies or kids that much. I'd rather
stand up for teenagers, who always get a bad rap. I love my dogs cats,
and fish. People who chose not to squirt out spawn are good for the
environment, esp. in the US, where we consume so much of the earths
resoures. Abortion is NOT a bad thing! If someone made me carry a
fetus to term, I would go crazy.
sharon
expects people to bend over backwards for parents. I have never had the
urge to breed or even coo over a baby. Being a women, you are expected
to. It's disgusting. I don't like babies or kids that much. I'd rather
stand up for teenagers, who always get a bad rap. I love my dogs cats,
and fish. People who chose not to squirt out spawn are good for the
environment, esp. in the US, where we consume so much of the earths
resoures. Abortion is NOT a bad thing! If someone made me carry a
fetus to term, I would go crazy.
sharon
expects people to bend over backwards for parents. I have never had the
urge to breed or even coo over a baby. Being a women, you are expected
to. It's disgusting. I don't like babies or kids that much. I'd rather
stand up for teenagers, who always get a bad rap. I love my dogs cats,
and fish. People who chose not to squirt out spawn are good for the
environment, esp. in the US, where we consume so much of the earths
resoures. Abortion is NOT a bad thing! If someone made me carry a
fetus to term, I would go crazy.
Lilly
wrote:
I'm so tire of entitlement anything. How weird would they look at us
if we cf'ers just decided to, what, say put together an office memo
asking folks to donate cause we feel we want a new car, or a new sofa,
or Prada something or other. Or even something like a necessity. Would
they be incredulous or what?
It's interesting to me that even highly educated and or successful
women often feel the need to throw themselves upon the sacred altar of
motherhood. Many times this happens later in life, so what they get is
multiple births or multiple sibs close together in age. Both hard on
the parents and hard on the rest of us (and hard on the sprogs
themselves one would imagine,) Ugh.
~Lilly
"Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower."
-Albert Camus-
"October's poplars are flaming tourches lighting the way to winter."
-Nova Bair-
mroo philpott-smythe
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
What we need is for CF women to file suits alleging discrimination in the
workplace. Moos get all this time off to pursue a lifestyle of their
choice, and what do the CF get, other than the rigid digit?
sq, "Sick and tired of getting the fuckoff finger"
Jules W.
greatest thing since Cream Cheese. When I found out that I was
assigned to her, I went into my favorite prof and asked if he could
sign off on my papers whenever I needed a faculty signature.
Thankfully, he wasn't one of her fans, either, and had me transferred
to his roster. As he signed one of my forms he just smirked and said,
"Let me guess: she's not in. Again. Oh well, just so you know: she's
going on maternity leave again, and I'll be taking her classes next
semester. See you then." >
It's funny you should mention advising. I'm in charge of assigning
advisors, and every single semester I have to reassign students to
already-overworked advisors because one or more of these moos is out
for a semester. It's hard enough to keep up with our student
population, but twice as much work when I have to revise the lists just
because the Profs. Moo have someone at home or hospital waiting for
them with a catcher's mitt.
You have my retro-sympathy, btw. I'm sure you had enough to worry about
in grad school without having to worry whether or not you could get
your paperwork signed in time to meet deadlines. I'm curious, though;
why did so many other women love Prof. Moo, given how rarely she
appeared on campus?
Jules W.
Abbie F.
Yes, there are SO many examples of unequal treatment that it should be
easy to collect data reflecting benefit, financial and vacation
disparities. I don't know why this hasn't been done yet. If I were
denied time off while a similarly-tenured moo got paid leave, there'd
be hell to pay. If even one case got settled in favor of the childfree
adults against which a company exhibited bias, it would open the
floodgates, because there is *massive* inequality all over the place;
not just in the workplace but also in public policy, taxation,
insurance, etc!
Maybe this is because it's already been defined as "sexual"
discrimination if a company *doesn't* cater to preggos above and beyond
regular working stiffs. Thanks to those crusaders for women's
"rights", we're all pigeonholed by our most animalistic, yet still
entirely voluntary, capabilities.
Pirate Queen
> You have my retro-sympathy, btw. I'm sure you had enough to worry about
> in grad school without having to worry whether or not you could get
> your paperwork signed in time to meet deadlines. I'm curious, though;
> why did so many other women love Prof. Moo, given how rarely she
> appeared on campus?
A little background info: my program was in Public Administration. I
was entertaining thoughts of law school for a while - but I got better,
thanks.
There seemed to be two types of folks in the program: pre-law and
everyone else. Most of the pre-law folks, but not all, were males.
The everyone else category was filled with middle-manager types, and a
large chunk of these were women who were specializing in human
resources. Can you see where I'm going here?
Prof Moo was one of those human resource people. You can thank her and
her ilk for promoting such issues as diversity training, for one
example.
Why did other women love her? Why, Prof Moo was a Moomie who UNDERSTOOD
them, doncha know. Prof Moo was about sharing and caring and making
the public sector more family friendly. Prof Moo was an academic
cheerleader for the Nanny State. Prof Moo would rather have
get-togethers at her house rather than keep her office hours.
I knew she wasn't the right advisor for me when I stopped by her
office; she didn't really have time to talk at the moment, but I could
call her later on as she had to go pick up her sprog from daycare. Her
room was filled with baby pictures and sproggy artwork.
T.
WalmartGreeter
from this basic truth. You got yourself pregnant but you expect others
to donate their sick days in order that you may stay home longer to be
with a HEALTHY baby? Who in the hell do you think you are? You get
upset because insurance companys won't pay literally thousands of $$$
for your invitro-fertilization procedures? I didn't sign on to
propagate your gene pool via my insurance premiums. I hate being
around coworkers with families during tax refund time. I would hear,
"I need this refund, daycare for 3 kids is expensive!" OH, YEAH? THEN
SHOULDN"T YOU HAVE STOPPED AFTER THE FIRST ONE!
And yet, some of these same entitlment jerks look down their soccer-mom
wannabe nose at me for for my health problems. Oh, the comments I have
gotten from these women (while they are standing there surrounded by 4
kids, all taken care of on my company's insurance dime.) Sorry for the
OT rant, but this one makes me BOIL.
These women make all of us look bad. It's hard enough for a female to
prove herself out there without other females demanding outrageous
benefits just because they have a kid. They don't care that when their
idiotic demands are met,(ie, PAID maternity leave) someone else in the
company is gonna have to foot the bill, both financially and
career-wise. I resent the hell out of these types of women.
*WG, off to make some decaf*
mroo philpott-smythe
I'll tell you why. Because most HR staff are MOOOOOOs or
MooooWannaBeeees. And they would rather have a live tick on the eyeball
than give a NON-MOOOOOO anything like equal rights.
> Maybe this is because it's already been defined as "sexual"
> discrimination if a company *doesn't* cater to preggos above and
> beyond regular working stiffs. Thanks to those crusaders for
> women's "rights", we're all pigeonholed by our most animalistic, yet
> still entirely voluntary, capabilities.
Yaknow, as a longtime feminist, I'm'a think I see where the movement got
seriously sidetracked. They shoulda been paying more attention to women's
sexual lives than their reproductive lives. Because MOOOOs are on the
forefront of denial of, ahem, alternative lifestyles.
sq, "Fuckin' twats"
Abbie F.
"Soccer- mom wannabe" - yep! Some of 'em take pride in not relying on
a male walking wallet to cover their sprogging expenses, but feel no
remorse about sucking the company pockets dry instead. It's the SAME
THING. Getting paid to stay home and change diapers is still lame,
whether it's subsidy through an individual human or a corporation. At
least if they're housewives, their expenses only come from one guy's
paycheck; paid mooternity leave shafts every CF employee.
Abbie F.
mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
>
> I'll tell you why. Because most HR staff are MOOOOOOs or
> MooooWannaBeeees. And they would rather have a live tick on the eyeball
> than give a NON-MOOOOOO anything like equal rights.
>
> > Maybe this is because it's already been defined as "sexual"
> > discrimination if a company *doesn't* cater to preggos above and
> > beyond regular working stiffs. Thanks to those crusaders for
> > women's "rights", we're all pigeonholed by our most animalistic, yet
> > still entirely voluntary, capabilities.
>
> Yaknow, as a longtime feminist, I'm'a think I see where the movement got
> seriously sidetracked. They shoulda been paying more attention to women's
> sexual lives than their reproductive lives. Because MOOOOs are on the
> forefront of denial of, ahem, alternative lifestyles.
>
> sq, "Fuckin' twats"
What kills me is that they've gotten so much accomplished for that
specific segment of the female population that chooses to sprog, while
ignoring everyone else! Think of how far along (no pun intended) women
would be in terms of other more important issues if those seeking
change hadn't diverted their focus to the promotion of breeding. I
used to get Ms magazine. Years ago, there was attention paid to human
rights in foreigh countries, REAL career advancement issues, etc. years
ago, but when it became more breederish I found it less and less
relevant. Using up valuable resources to protect public titfeeders is
hardly where I wanted to see my donations spent. I can imagine how
aggravating it must be for many lesbians to watch moohood getting so
much protection, while they're still not even allowed to marry - not
even if they *do* have a li'l parasite. I'm tired of articles about
the same two female CEOS, when millions more women are still stuck at
the middle or bottom and to make matters worse, some are pouring their
OWN quicksand into the trough, expecting us to help yank them out!
Veronique
Abbie F. wrote:
> mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
> > Yaknow, as a longtime feminist, I'm'a think I see where the movement got
> > seriously sidetracked. They shoulda been paying more attention to women's
> > sexual lives than their reproductive lives. Because MOOOOs are on the
> > forefront of denial of, ahem, alternative lifestyles.
I'm tired of articles about
> the same two female CEOS, when millions more women are still stuck at
> the middle or bottom and to make matters worse, some are pouring their
> OWN quicksand into the trough, expecting us to help yank them out!
Wow, GREAT image!
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
deering24
LillyDipper wrote:
>
> I have noticed these trends in magazines across the board also. I have
> gotten away from women's magazines completely in the last 5 years -
> can't seem to find one really relevant to my lifestyle anymore.
One of the cool things about growing up is realizing how near-totally
irrelevant and consumerized women's magazines are (and have become
because I'd swear on a stack of bibles these bad boys were never as
ad-and-product-glutted back in the day as they are now.) I get a good
laugh out of them when I go get my hair done every month or so, but go
back to regularly reading 'em...no way in hell. And I particularly like
to hoot at the mags. like O that swear up and down they have your
spiritual/creative/intellectual welfare in mind--but don't hesitate to
feature entire clothes layouts with nothing under $100.
C.
**
Abbie F.
Thanks, it just makes me mad, you know? Today's fe-moo-nists are
playing RIGHT into the hands of the good ole boys who would have us all
working part-time at piddly jobs and tending brats while they run
Congress.
To think they used to be on opposite sides.
What's this "I want to be able to stay home with my kyd" stuff?
WTF!!!! Used to be that was the ONLY choice available - now it's a
sought-after situation??? Things are extremely messed up, I tell ya.
Maybe they really *are* able to implant robot brains into lifelike
female replicas which act like they support women's "rights" while
actually working for regression. :-)
Veronique
> Veronique wrote:
> > Abbie F. wrote:
> > > mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
> > > > Yaknow, as a longtime feminist, I'm'a think I see where the movement got
> > > > seriously sidetracked. They shoulda been paying more attention to women's
> > > > sexual lives than their reproductive lives.
> > I'm tired of articles about
> > > the same two female CEOS, when millions more women are still stuck at
> > > the middle or bottom and to make matters worse, some are pouring their
> > > OWN quicksand into the trough, expecting us to help yank them out!
> >
> > Wow, GREAT image!
> Thanks, it just makes me mad, you know? Today's fe-moo-nists are
> playing RIGHT into the hands of the good ole boys who would have us all
> working part-time at piddly jobs and tending brats while they run
> Congress.
>
> To think they used to be on opposite sides.
Stunning and trenchant observation. And the horror of it is, it isn't
brainwashed religious fundamentalists demanding that women play a
"special" (as in, "Isn't that special?") role in the workforce AND
demanding that "women=mother", so that those of us who aren't
interested in being mothers must suffer the same stigma of being unable
to hold down a "man's job."
>
> What's this "I want to be able to stay home with my kyd" stuff?
> WTF!!!! Used to be that was the ONLY choice available - now it's a
> sought-after situation??? Things are extremely messed up, I tell ya.
It's not the staying home with the kid that bothers me, or even wanting
a part-time job to balance the "work-life dance" (whatever that means.)
It's the insistance that someone the choice to have children should
have no bearing on one's job, and that one's career (if one happens to
be interested in being a professional) should not for a moment take a
breather because there isn't time to both stay home and raise a kid AND
put in sixty hours at the firm.
As someone who is trying to adjust my own "work-life dance" in favor of
doing what I actually enjoy rather than what pays the rent, I recognize
the desire to do more with my life than clock in. But I also recognize
that choices have consequences: I live more frugally and probably a
more bohemian lifestyle than most women my age and I've adjusted my
standards of success away from societal norms. I believe Judith Martin
wrote recently in a Miss Manners column about how the US in particular
has not found a good alternative to the early 20th century
one-adult-working/one-adult-home unit in an era of two-adults-working
expectations.
Drifting a little, I also read about an economic study of the
phenomenon of "not enough time" as related to the modern American
schedule. The authors (and I may look it up to cite) said that the
concept of not having enough time to do everything was in fact having
more money to spend than time to spend it in. Ie, the unemployed never
complain about not having enough time, whereas those complaining of the
"frenzied work-life dance" are inevitably trying to fit in Whingely's
soccer lessons, band practice, SAT prep, the interior designer's
meeting, the trip to the weekend house... yet another observation that
the more we have, the more we apparently need.
> Maybe they really *are* able to implant robot brains into lifelike
> female replicas which act like they support women's "rights" while
> actually working for regression. :-)
Nah, it's just self-absorption.
V., thinking she might mosey along to work any minute now...
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Beth Cole
> Abbie F. wrote:
>>What's this "I want to be able to stay home with my kyd" stuff?
>>WTF!!!! Used to be that was the ONLY choice available - now it's a
>>sought-after situation??? Things are extremely messed up, I tell ya.
>
>
>
> It's not the staying home with the kid that bothers me, or even wanting
> a part-time job to balance the "work-life dance" (whatever that means.)
One of the things that was impressed upon me in a university history
class on American history post-WWII that there was a huge dichotomy in
the feminist movement.
The upper-middle class leaders of the movement wanted the freedom to go
out and work in the "man's world". They were stunned when their
lower-middle-class & working class "sisters" told them that THEY were
already working, as maids and nannies and housekeepers and seamstresses,
and what they wanted was the freedom to be able to stay home and raise
their own children, rather than the children of their employers.
Granted, this was from the perspective of a graduate student who was
getting her Ph.D in Women's History, but it was something that I'd never
heard discussed before. Until tthe 1950's, unless a family was of a
high socio-economic class, women worked. There was no staying at home
with the kids, because that was an economic luxury that very few could
afford. In the upper class, the women didn't stay home with the
children, because they weren't raising their own children. That's what
the nanny was for.
It was only the relative prosperity of the post-WWII era in the U.S.
that led to the stay-at-home-mother phenomena for the middle class. The
current bemoaning of the loss of that is historically short-sighted. I
see it as a natural correction to an unnatural economic blip.
fripp...@hotmail.com
giving up part of one's vacation for a preggo...AAAACCCKKKK! I've
heard of doing that for someone who's got cancer or something, but just
for someone who chose to breed??? That is terrible! And I can easily
imagine the pressure from coworkers and bosses to give your "share,"
too.
I also feel paid maternity leave is crap, and is greatly abused. My
SIL, when she accidentally got pregnant, used something like six weeks
of PAID leave, then went back to work for about two weeks and quit,
(the minimum time she had to go back to work or pay back the leave).
Everyone pays for these women's leave. We also pay for anything that's
covered under insurance that has to do with birthing these larvae.
Having kids is an option, a chosen life-style. We should not all have
to pay for it when it's not our choice.
BTW, anyone know if there's a CF support group in Oklahoma? Sad to
say, I have a hard time imagining that anyone in OK has thought of
being CF by choice. I have lived here for a few years due to DH's job,
and have not yet met a couple or an individual who really, really, does
not ever want kids. Are we that rare, or is this absense of thinking
people just a local thing?
Primrose
fripp...@hotmail.com says...
> I also feel paid maternity leave is crap, and is greatly abused. My
> SIL, when she accidentally got pregnant, used something like six weeks
> of PAID leave, then went back to work for about two weeks and quit,
> (the minimum time she had to go back to work or pay back the leave).
> Everyone pays for these women's leave.
My dh works at a place where that happened as well...woman got pregnant,
took a few months paid leave, came back for a few days and then quit to
be a SAH mother.
Veronique
> frippletoot says...
> > I also feel paid maternity leave is crap, and is greatly abused. My
> > SIL, when she accidentally got pregnant, used something like six weeks
> > of PAID leave, then went back to work for about two weeks and quit,
> > (the minimum time she had to go back to work or pay back the leave).
> > Everyone pays for these women's leave.
>
> My dh works at a place where that happened as well...woman got pregnant,
> took a few months paid leave, came back for a few days and then quit to
> be a SAH mother.
Oh hell, someone I know interviewed, didn't tell her employer-to-be she
was pregnant, worked about four months, and then took six months paid
leave. I think she's finally back full time, *two years* after she was
hired.
And I've lost count how many women I've worked with who left to have a
baby, returned after several months of paid leave to work part-time,
then left to be a "full-time mother" a month or two after that. It got
so at the last company I worked for, a CF colleague and I had a sort of
"leave pool" bet as to how long the happy moo (always feted with
multiple email updates as to the lastest uterine twinge during the
pregnancy) would take to return AND how long to leave permanently after
leave ran out and actual work duties recurred.
Veronique
> >In the upper class, the women didn't stay home with the
> >children, because they weren't raising their own children.
>
> truly upper class women breastfeed? Not talking the McMansion dwellers
> here, but the truly rich.
I think today's Truly Rich(TM) do, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, that too was outsourced, which is one reason the upper
classes tended to have sicklier and deader babies.
deering24
"Abbie F." wrote:
> Thanks, it just makes me mad, you know? Today's fe-moo-nists are
> playing RIGHT into the hands of the good ole boys who would have us all
> working part-time at piddly jobs and tending brats while they run
> Congress.
>
> To think they used to be on opposite sides.
>
> What's this "I want to be able to stay home with my kyd" stuff?
> WTF!!!! Used to be that was the ONLY choice available - now it's a
> sought-after situation??? Things are extremely messed up, I tell ya.
_Are_ they feminists, though? Most of the women I've seen do this are 1)
women in their 20's who in general take feminism for granted; 2) women
older than that who only hold with feminism when it gets them what they
want, but deride it every chance they get--or swear up and down they
don't believe in the "liberation" stuff.
C.
**
deering24
LillyDipper wrote:
>
> >And I particularly like
> >to hoot at the mags. like O that swear up and >down they have your
> >spiritual/creative/intellectual welfare in mind--but >don't hesitate to
> >feature entire clothes layouts with nothing under >$100.
>
> LOL - agreed.
Heh--:). Oprah's mag. particularly annoys me in this respect because of
its "more spiritual and more caring than those other rags" attitude.
Mags. like VOGUE and BAZAAR--they make no secret that they are about
making women feel like crap if they can't swing season after season of
insanely-expensive goods.
C.
**
Cristabel
> Oh hell, someone I know interviewed, didn't tell her employer-to-be she
> was pregnant, worked about four months, and then took six months paid
> leave. I think she's finally back full time, *two years* after she was
> hired.
> Veronique Chez Sheep
When I was hired 3 years ago this December, Breeder-in-Waiting was being
oriented with me. Of these past three years, she has been on Mat leave for
*two years*. They got their money's worth out of me, at least.
Cristabel. Working an extra weekend.
mroo philpott-smythe
> mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
[Wahwahectomy]
> What kills me is that they've gotten so much accomplished for that
> specific segment of the female population that chooses to sprog, while
> ignoring everyone else! Think of how far along (no pun intended)
> women would be in terms of other more important issues if those
> seeking change hadn't diverted their focus to the promotion of
> breeding. I used to get Ms magazine. Years ago, there was attention
> paid to human rights in foreigh countries, REAL career advancement
> issues, etc. years ago, but when it became more breederish I found it
> less and less relevant. Using up valuable resources to protect public
> titfeeders is hardly where I wanted to see my donations spent. I can
> imagine how aggravating it must be for many lesbians to watch moohood
> getting so much protection, while they're still not even allowed to
> marry - not even if they *do* have a li'l parasite. I'm tired of
> articles about the same two female CEOS, when millions more women are
> still stuck at the middle or bottom and to make matters worse, some
> are pouring their OWN quicksand into the trough, expecting us to help
> yank them out!
Have I told you lately that I love you?
sq, "I mean! Does the girl have a turn o'phrase or WHAT?"
mroo philpott-smythe
@mindspring.com:
> One of the cool things about growing up is realizing how near-totally
> irrelevant and consumerized women's magazines are (and have become
> because I'd swear on a stack of bibles these bad boys were never as
> ad-and-product-glutted back in the day as they are now.) I get a good
> laugh out of them when I go get my hair done every month or so, but go
> back to regularly reading 'em...no way in hell. And I particularly like
> to hoot at the mags. like O that swear up and down they have your
> spiritual/creative/intellectual welfare in mind--but don't hesitate to
> feature entire clothes layouts with nothing under $100.
Yaknow? I'm thinkin! Why are these mags catering to the Lisa Belkin crowd
these days? (aka yupSAHMooos). There was a time when they actually
addressed working women, goddammit.
sq, "and mostly CF women, at that"
deering24
mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
> Yaknow? I'm thinkin! Why are these mags catering to the Lisa Belkin crowd
> these days? (aka yupSAHMooos). There was a time when they actually
> addressed working women, goddammit.
>
> sq, "and mostly CF women, at that"
Gotta be a "they spend more" thing. NEW YORK magazine has gotten
particularly pernicious in this regard, for it doesn't stop at constant
baby-buy action, but just _loves_ articles about desperate, "the clock's
running out" wannabee moms. And those are noteworthy for their
sympathetic-on-top-but-nasty-underneath tone of "well, if you'd stopped
making buko money/earning degrees and found a ma-yn sooner, you wouldn't
be in this fix." :PPP
C.
**
Abbie F.
::blushing:: Awww, thanks! What a great thing to read first thing in
the morning. You've made my day. :D
mroo philpott-smythe
news:435DFF7F...@mindspring.com:
> mroo philpott-smythe wrote:
I can't help wondering if it's part of a campaign to keep the wimmin-units
barefoot and pragnut.
sq
mroo philpott-smythe
>> [Wahwahectomy]
OK, and I'm a month late in replying (maybe less, but hey, my excuse is,
they're working my ass off at the office, and I'm amazed that it's grown
right back), and I still look for your posts because you are the most
articulately amusing!
sq
mroo philpott-smythe
news:1130251136....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>sq, "I mean! Does the girl have a turn o'phrase or WHAT?"
> Agreed. Abbie has a wonderfully strong writing "voice." I like
> reading her stuff, aslo.
Someday I'll actually meet the grrrl and get to tell her that to her face!
sq, "Well, maybe ... I'm awfully shy IRL"