Return to Gender 101

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

So I felt like I got punched really hard in the ovaries when I saw this:

Playboy and Virgin Galactic reveal plans for swanky men’s club ... in space!

That sounds fucking cool! Why it gotta be for men?

I do want to say some stuff about this. I totally know that punched thing. You'll be tootling along, pursuing some interest or doing some thing, when out of the blue sometimes, you'll get these reminders that This Stuff is Not for You.

There's a spectrum of it, from the genuinely scary, like direct hostility and rape 'jokes' that sound pretty serious actually, to subtle little things you learn to blow off, like the presumption of maleness. But it all sucks, and it all adds up as a near-constant reminder that you don't really belong here.

And if you point it out, you're the asshole and the killjoy. Not the people who are treating you as though you don't exist, or the people grunching you out of the blue, but you, for ruining everything for the boys by not being one. And of course if this stuff is happening at your job, you are taking a risk if you mention it. You really can become a pariah. They'll treat you as a liability. You can and lots of people do get fired for it. For not being a 'team player' for a team that's excluding them. So usually, you just brush it off and move on, and most incidents seem minor and you don't want to blow things out of proportion or anything, but that shit accumulates.

Now I feel like I should say something encouraging. And actually, I do think things are getting better and will continue to get better the more people start calling that stuff out like you are right now.

[Ensign Steve]

And the thing is I've been cheerleading for Virgin Galactic since day one. Whatever I feel about NASA and taxes and corporations and private enterprise and other countries' space programs, anybody working to get anyone or anything out into space is a-okay in my book. So I feel wicked betrayed. I'm like, I had your back VG. I don't know why I expected you to have mine.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by lisarea

And if you point it out, you're the asshole and the killjoy. Not the people who are treating you as though you don't exist, or the people grunching you out of the blue, but you, for ruining everything for the boys by not being one. And of course if this stuff is happening at your job, you are taking a risk if you mention it. You really can become a pariah. They'll treat you as a liability. You can and lots of people do get fired for it. For not being a 'team player' for a team that's excluding them.

On a hopefully not entirely unrelated note, this is one of the things that worries me about so-called "right to work" legislation. There's a movement right now to make Michigan a "right to work" state.

As I understand it, the term "right to work" is a more or less perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak, in which the phrase means more or less exactly the opposite of its literal meaning.

At least according to the news, under "right to work" legislation, an employer can fire you at any time -- for any reason whatsoever, or none. Supposedly, if your employer decides you look funny, (s)he can fire you on the spot, and said employer doesn't have to provide any justification or explanation for said firing.

Assuming this is true, tell me this isn't an effective way to ensure that employees are kept "properly" cowed and dependent -- and discouraged from complaining about unfair or sexist treatment. Indeed, ensuring that employees remain submissive, powerless, and properly dependent upon remaining within their employers' good graces at all costs seems like it's pretty-much the entire point of such legislation.

[Ensign Steve]

I believe that the phrase "right to work" was originally coined to mean "no unions" so you had the right to do your trade for money without being required to join and pay dues to an external organization or strike when they to strike. California is not a right to work state, and there are a lot of rules about what work you can or can't have non-union employees do. So, for example, if you are not a Teamster, you don't have the "right" to drive a truck in some circumstances, even if you really want to.

Still bullshit, but at least there is almost an attempt to have a legitimate meaning in the doublespeak.

And since one of the benefits of belonging to a union is that your company can't just arbitrarily fire you, then yes, "right to work" means your company has the right to arbitrarily fire you.

[lisarea]

One is 'at will employment' and the other is 'right to work,' but people talk about them interchangeably enough that I've never been able to remember which is which. And there is that intersection about union rules.

Colorado is at-will I guess, where employers can pretty much fire you for any not specifically prohibited reason, or for no stated reason at all; and I know some companies have rules against giving a reason for individual firings (as opposed to the mass firings, which they call layoffs, but are so not).

It really does have a chilling effect knowing that you can be fired without any stated reason, or any documentation or anything, and it does make it a lot easier for employers to fire people for reporting harassment and things like that.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As I understand it, the term "right to work" is a more or less perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak, in which the phrase means more or less exactly the opposite of its literal meaning.

Right-to-work law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name comes from the interaction with union regulations. What you're thinking of is probably "at-will employment":

At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

On a hopefully not entirely unrelated note, this is one of the things that worries me about so-called "right to work" legislation. There's a movement right now to make Michigan a "right to work" state.

As I understand it, the term "right to work" is a more or less perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak, in which the phrase means more or less exactly the opposite of its literal meaning.

At least according to the news, under "right to work" legislation, an employer can fire you at any time -- for any reason whatsoever, or none. Supposedly, if your employer decides you look funny, (s)he can fire you on the spot, and said employer doesn't have to provide any justification or explanation for said firing.

Assuming this is true, tell me this isn't an effective way to ensure that employees are kept "properly" cowed and dependent -- and discouraged from complaining about unfair or sexist treatment. Indeed, ensuring that employees remain submissive, powerless, and properly dependent upon remaining within their employers' good graces at all costs seems like it's pretty-much the entire point of such legislation.

States that have been heavily unionized historically are not familiar with this right to work thing, in general, from what I have seen.

I've always lived in right to work states, and yes, you can be fired without reason, to an extent. They cannot violate Federal and state laws like the EEOC, the ADA, overtime and other labor laws, sexual harassment laws etc. Also employment contracts are still enforced, and many corporations maintain their own ass covering guidelines for firing anyway.

The sort of equalizer is that you can still sue companies for firing you (hence the ass covering policies)...if you can make a reasonably convincing case that "I don't like your face" really means "I don't like your religion/age/gender/refusal to work overtime off the books/whistleblowing/non-compliance with requests for sexual favors" and really, someone who would fire you for not liking your face is probably someone it wouldn't be too hard to make such a case against.

In the end, it mostly doesn't affect most people. Those who are working hourly jobs for small employers/local businesses are the most at risk. OTOH it also allows those small employers to fire shitty lazy workers without need of some big paper trail documenting their failures.

I had one coworker in CA that had sued every single previous employer for "wrongful termination", and they had to produce all the bad reviews and write ups and defend themselves, or settle out of court to not be bothered. She got a few settlements.

@seebs, the two seemed to be used fairly interchangeably on the ground, even though they are different technically. Also I believe most states have both or neither...but that may be a mistaken idea due to the interchangeable use.

[seebs]

Yeah, I think they tend to go together. Overall, I think I prefer the less restricted set, and it comes down to one thing:

I don't think it's okay to mandate that people fund a political organization to get a job.

And yes, I think that unions are by definition at least somewhat political. And while I think it's a great thing for people to seriously think about unions or other similar ways of approaching work, I think it has to be a free choice. (This is also why I oppose laws permitting a forcibly-public record of who voted for or against unionization; either way, it exposes people to a risk of violent coercion, and I cannot easily believe either side to be "above" that.)

[beyelzu]

What organizations would it be okay to fund that would not be "at least somewhat political"?

Also, while there are certainly abuses, don't unionized workers generally make more money then non-unionized? While it might be a problem for some small businesses, it seems to me that there is generally an imbalance of power between employers and employees and as such the "less restricted set" means the set that the employer can fuck the employee at will.

Unions balance this.

[LadyShea]

I am pro-worker, I am pro freedom to organize and unionize. However, unions are not perfect. There is corruption to be found, there are bureaucratic obstacle courses to maneuver sometimes, there are strong arm tactics used against individuals and groups in some cases. Political bullshit is inherent in any collection of humans (fucking PTAs!), especially when you add real power and/or lots of money to the mix.

[Kael]

Yeah, since the choices are not between pristine, corruption-free unions and pristine, corruption-free employers, but between actual groups of regular corruption-prone people, I'd rather there be unions than not.

[LadyShea]

I would prefer that there be unions, and that membership in those unions is a free choice for the individual. I don't know if that can work, but that's what I want.

Back on the subject of old white men all up in our kitties.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[LadyShea]

Funny/Sad: Women’s Health Experts Speak Out | Angry Black Lady Chronicles

[Qingdai]

One of the problems of unions being voluntary is that the unions should be advocating for wages and benefits for the workers of the unions. Is it fair for unions to do that for workers that aren't in their union? Should non-union workers get less benefits and wages for doing the same job?
Right now in many union states (Right to join a Union states?), it is voluntary to pay union dues. So the idea that it's a right not to join a union, is specious.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would prefer that there be unions, and that membership in those unions is a free choice for the individual. I don't know if that can work, but that's what I want.

Back on the subject of old white men all up in our kitties.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

To a large degree unions can't work if people can opt out. the more people are in the union the more power the union has. But if it is possible to get the benefits of the union without paying dues, people will do so. If you allow people to opt out then they will.

If you companies can higher workers who are nonunion and treat them differently then they will because its cheaper.

In effect, it seems to me, that when people champion that choice, typically it is just a way to erode union power.

[LadyShea]

One of the problems of unions being voluntary is that the unions should be advocating for wages and benefits for the workers of the unions. Is it fair for unions to do that for workers that aren't in their union? Should non-union workers get less benefits and wages for doing the same job?

In my world of sparkle ponies pooping rainbows, those who choose not to join a union could negotiate directly with the employer and nobody would be negatively affected. If they get less they do, if they want union wages, they have to join and pay dues.

I am well aware that this doesn't work. I am well aware that unions are necessary. I just remember in Vegas, there was a constant battle including a decades long strike, and there was little difference between the union and the employer when it came to an individual worker paying the bills. Strike pay wasn't enough, so many ended up leaving the union to go to non-union properties so they could work and eat.

My hubby's home town had a union steel mill that was the heart of the economy. They went on strike, it lasted for years, and the mill simply closed down. The city has never recovered economically and basically all jobs are service industry now. Also, in today's world, how protected is your union job when the place can just shut down and move to China or wherever? The UAW members in Detroit aren't benefiting from that membership these days.

Originally Posted by beylezu

In effect, it seems to me, that when people champion that choice, typically it is just a way to erode union power.

Sorry you feel that way. I just see it as way more complex than pro-union or anti-union because people are involved. I don't want to erode any organization's "power", I want to empower individuals.

I didn't like having to watch propaganda films about how evil the union was anymore than I liked being harassed by union organizers just so I could work a part time retail job to make a few extra bucks. I would have rather been left the fuck alone to do my job.

[BrotherMan]

A LADY MADE THAT

[Pan Narrans]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would prefer that there be unions, and that membership in those unions is a free choice for the individual. I don't know if that can work, but that's what I want.

It seems to work just fine over here. Union membership is voluntary; unions generally bargain for collective labor agreements for all workers in a company. In fact, there was quite a stir a couple of years back when one of the major unions negotiated better terms for its members than for general employees.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

This is fantastic.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen

This is fantastic.

And yet, the thing it describes is pretty fucking creepy.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

So in my class, we watched this documentary Thin about women in a residential eating disorder clinic. At one point two of the women are on liberty and they go get tattoos. They're shooting the shit with the tattoo artist and they talk about how they have eating disorders. He asks what that means and they say that they don't eat so they can be very thin. He suggests, "Maybe you can try eating six small meals instead of three large ones," and everybody bust out laughing. I mean the poor, sick women in the film, as well as all the women in my classroom, teacher and students alike. In this very dark, disturbing film about a serious illness, it was a bit of comic relief that this doofus tattoo artist thinks he can tell two ninety-pound anorexic women what they need to do to lose weight.

What would we do without them?

[lisarea]

I was thinking of something similar recently. Not nearly as bad and opposite land as someone giving recovering anorexics diet tips, and it's not mansplaining at all, but it is splaining, which can maybe help illustrate the problem to people who aren't already familiar with what it looks like.

I have a chronic sleeping problem. Pretty low-level usually and not really a huge deal, but it's something I've had for as long as I remember, since I was a kid. I'm not going around asking people for advice on it or anything, but every now and again, it comes up in the course of conversation, and I'll mention that it's an ongoing problem but that I manage it.

And I want to say most of the time, well meaning people will start giving me such helpful advice as "You should make sure the room is dark," or tell me to try to cut down on noise or not drink coffee or something like that. As though, somehow, in the past almost FOUR PLUS DECADES of not being able to sleep well, it had never occurred to me to turn off the speed metal and the lights and give up my espresso nightcap or something; and if I'd just do that, then it wouldn't be a problem!

They mean well, I'm sure, but the clear implication there is a) ha ha this is not really a real problem, and b) you are probably so stupid you literally know almost nothing at all about your very own life and experiences, and I am here to tell you everything you need to know based on having once read the cover of a Readers' Digest or something.

Here is a bonus story about sexism and outright harassment in gaming culture, in case you are having too good a day:

Are gamers really sexist? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

[Vivisectus]

So unless everyone assumes that your knowledge on the subject is superior to theirs, and that their own experience and solutions are so commonplace as to be of no value to you at all, they are not just making you out to be stupid, they are even implying that your problem is insignificant and trivial?

Or are you just tired and cranky?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by lisarea

And I want to say most of the time, well meaning people will start giving me such helpful advice as "You should make sure the room is dark," or tell me to try to cut down on noise or not drink coffee or something like that. As though, somehow, in the past almost FOUR PLUS DECADES of not being able to sleep well, it had never occurred to me to turn off the speed metal and the lights and give up my espresso nightcap or something; and if I'd just do that, then it wouldn't be a problem!

They mean well, I'm sure, but the clear implication there is a) ha ha this is not really a real problem, and b) you are probably so stupid you literally know almost nothing at all about your very own life and experiences, and I am here to tell you everything you need to know based on having once read the cover of a Readers' Digest or something.

They do that to me, too. I have always had trouble getting to sleep. In my case, caffeine helps. (ADHD: It makes your brain weird.) And somehow, every time I talk to people, they suggest that maybe caffeine is the problem. You know, I thought of that, I've tried it both ways. I still can't get to sleep when I'm not on any caffeine at all, and really, half a cup of coffee right before bed does wonders for me. Magic!

Here is a bonus story about sexism and outright harassment in gaming culture, in case you are having too good a day:

Are gamers really sexist? | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Wait, gamers? Sexist? I really can't believe that. They are already spending so much time hating blacks, arabs, every part of Asia except maybe Japan, gays, trannies, and people who have a different play style, where would they find the time?

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So unless everyone assumes that your knowledge on the subject is superior to theirs, and that their own experience and solutions are so commonplace as to be of no value to you at all, they are not just making you out to be stupid, they are even implying that your problem is insignificant and trivial?

Or are you just tired and cranky?

DID YOU EVER THINK THAT MAYBE I AM ON MY PERIOD?

But seriously, no. I should make it clear that I do not seek out advice, and when the topic has come up somehow, I am careful to phrase it in such a way that people realize that it's something I have had and been managing for a long time.

So yes, I would expect that somebody who has never had a chronic sleep problem, and whose knowledge of sleep management consists of "Don't drink coffee and make sure your room is dark and quiet" would realize that I probably know a lot more stuff about it than they do.

I don't even get mad about that or anything, because I am also a dork and sometimes say dumb shit without thinking it through to its implications and such. Mostly, it's just funny, and I say, "Yes, I have heard of this 'turning off the lights' at some point in the past forty or so years that I've been working on this," and they're like, "Oh, lol, yeah, I guess so!" then we lol together. It's just something I thought might be a mild example that would be relateable for some people who don't have a personal grasp on what 'splaining looks like.