MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: rocket surgeon on July 14, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
-
seriously? can someone explain to me how this is even worthy of wasting a second of our lives on? i thought marquette was a little more to the middle than this. there are way more important issues facing our world than to worry about using this phrase in any civil discourse and finding it offensive. as it turns out, james south and susanne foster have a big role in who gets hired/fired in the philosophy department and the college of arts and sciences. i can understand the arts part, but sciences? arts have been traditionally more about feelings and creativity-fine, but sciences are and should always be fact based. after reading about this, i have a real problem with someone of ms. foster's persuasion having anything to do with hiring anyone. come on marquette! how about a little more balance?
http://www.mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2014/07/marquette-philosophy-professor.html
-
It's been way too long since I've heard a good Wacko MU Faculty story. Unfortunately, the void can not be filled by the imagination since the real thing is always far too crazy for anyone to make up.
-
i totally agree, but this one is really embarrassing. do some of these types have no pride? but then again, mr.(dr.?) south could have/should have nipped this one in the bud. he could have acted like a real dept. head and leader and told her to stfu and go read nietzhe
-
Not sure how many "wackos" are suggested by the referenced piece ("blog"). It seems to me that McAdams himself has inferred, implied, generalized, name-called, and "ad-hominemed," etc. in his unsubstantiated diatribe against all policies, faculty, positions, and issues to the left of his right. One hopes the good Profesor deals with thorny/controversial questions in his classes in a more "fair and balanced" way, no?
-
Not sure how many "wackos" are suggested by the referenced piece ("blog"). It seems to me that McAdams himself has inferred, implied, generalized, name-called, and "ad-hominemed," etc. in his unsubstantiated diatribe against all policies, faculty, positions, and issues to the left of his right. One hopes the good Profesor deals with thorny/controversial questions in his classes in a more "fair and balanced" way, no?
John McAdams is an esteemed and respected academician.
-
John McAdams is an esteemed and respected academician.
Yes, he is.
But his reaction to this story was a bit over the top and leaning towards plain bias. Nearly (but not as much), of an over-reaction as the Philosophy department chair. He immediately jumped to this being politically biased.
Department chairs are not that well trained to deal with issues like this, so often one will lean towards over precaution. File the complaint and get it over with. You can always retract the complaint later if you deem your actions in correct. That is what happened here. He over-reacted, the aggrieved professor filed an appeal and in the end everything turned out exactly as it should.
Really no need to bring all this to public light.
-
Marquette has a Gender & Sexuality Resource Center? Well I guess you have to do something with a Women's Studies degree.
-
Well I guess you have to do something with a Women's Studies degree.
You live in Portland so you'll know that degree helps sell Subarus
-
Yes, he is.
But his reaction to this story was a bit over the top and leaning towards plain bias. Nearly (but not as much), of an over-reaction as the Philosophy department chair. He immediately jumped to this being politically biased.
Department chairs are not that well trained to deal with issues like this, so often one will lean towards over precaution. File the complaint and get it over with. You can always retract the complaint later if you deem your actions in correct. That is what happened here. He over-reacted, the aggrieved professor filed an appeal and in the end everything turned out exactly as it should.
really no need to bring this to public light??
i believe ms. foster's reaction to a very benign phrase "girls night out" to be very revealing of a tight sphincter disease. a condition that reals it's ugly head when trying to view the world through a kaleidoscope of feminazi anger. and oh boy, they will find offense in just about everything that is not on the ever growing list of p.c.isms. ms. foster is guilty of blowing her cover and that of the whole department-indoctrination into how one should think:what you can and cannot say if you want to be in the club or get passing grases. if you look real close, you'll see the tree's thru the forest and it isn't real pretty. or you can just put your hands over your ears and eye's and scream-lalalalalalalalalalalal
-
really no need to bring this to public light??
i believe ms. foster's reaction to a very benign phrase "girls night out" to be very revealing of a tight sphincter disease. a condition that reals it's ugly head when trying to view the world through a kaleidoscope of feminazi anger. and oh boy, they will find offense in just about everything that is not on the ever growing list of p.c.isms. ms. foster is guilty of blowing her cover and that of the whole department-indoctrination into how one should think:what you can and cannot say if you want to be in the club or get passing grases. if you look real close, you'll see the tree's thru the forest and it isn't real pretty. or you can just put your hands over your ears and eye's and scream-lalalalalalalalalalalal
Man you are one buzz word after another.
This is a combination of....
**lack of "real world" experience on the behalf of faculty members
**lack of training for department chairs to handle this issue.
**an atmosphere in higher education that has become hyper-sensitive to issues related to sexual harassment.
Really, no one should be calling grown women "girls" in today's workplace anyway, but this turned something rather small and innocuous into something way bigger than it should have been.
-
You live in Portland so you'll know that degree helps sell Subarus
That's harassment.
-
Really, no one should be calling grown women "girls" in today's workplace anyway, but this turned something rather small and innocuous into something way bigger than it should have been.
SNL did a great skit on this topic awhile back: When Brad Pitt walks into the coffee room leering and asking suggestively "What are you girls doing tonight" the women swoon. When the nerd walks in and asks politely if he can get anyone a cup of coffee they pounce on him - "You don't think we're capable of getting our own coffee? We don't need to put up with this sexual harassment! We're filing a complaint!" Sometimes it's not what's said but who says it.
But I do agree that to some, "girls" is an insult. To others, not so much. Speaks to different generations, since today "guys" are both men and women. When I grew up "girls" was the feminine, "guys" the masculine. I have slipped and used "girls" myself, but because I'm charming and old (and the women I know aren't hyper sensitive) I've yet to be excoriated for it.
-
Man you are one buzz word after another.
This is a combination of....
**lack of "real world" experience on the behalf of faculty members
**lack of training for department chairs to handle this issue.
**an atmosphere in higher education that has become hyper-sensitive to issues related to sexual harassment.
Really, no one should be calling grown women "girls" in today's workplace anyway, but this turned something rather small and innocuous into something way bigger than it should have been.
Good summary. It just seems like an example of how petty and pathetic academia seems these days. And that's probably a problem that's a lot bigger than right-left politics.
-
Good summary. It just seems like an example of how petty and pathetic academia seems these days. And that's probably a problem that's a lot bigger than right-left politics.
Like many things, independence from day-to-day crap is part of what makes academia strong. I mean, it's good that society has room for really smart people who are really passionate about something and create knowledge for knowledge sake. We have a professor here where I work who is the typical "absent minded professor" type, but the dude knows German history like the back of his hand. All those obscure little principalities? He can tell you everything about them and trots off to Germany every summer to discover and share more about them.
That's a good thing.
But, as with everything, your greatest strength can also turn into your greatest weakness. And this is what the side-effect is for something like that. A detachment from reality and a lack of pragmatic approach to decision making. Not every decision is some sort of grand, philosophical statement. Sometimes sh*t just needs to get done.
-
Not sure how many "wackos" are suggested by the referenced piece ("blog"). It seems to me that McAdams himself has inferred, implied, generalized, name-called, and "ad-hominemed," etc. in his unsubstantiated diatribe against all policies, faculty, positions, and issues to the left of his right. One hopes the good Profesor deals with thorny/controversial questions in his classes in a more "fair and balanced" way, no?
McAdams? No way!!!! ::)
-
John McAdams is an esteemed and respected academician.
In subjects such as the Kennedy Assassination, yes.
Unfortunately he uses that respect to go off on tangents railing against the university, often making something out of nothing in an effort to portray himself as a persecuted victim.
-
In subjects such as the Kennedy Assassination, yes.
Unfortunately he uses that respect to go off on tangents railing against the university, often making something out of nothing.
Which, ironically, is a symptom of the same problems he likes to accuse others of having.
-
Which, ironically, is a symptom of the same problems he likes to accuse others of having.
This.
Step 1: Somebody overreacts to something small and stupid.
Step 2: Somebody overreacts to the overreaction to something small and stupid.
The correct reaction in both cases is just an eye roll, and move on with your life.
No winners in these sorts of things. Get back to work, people.
-
(http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/nolan2.jpg)
-
This.
Step 1: Somebody overreacts to something small and stupid.
Step 2: Somebody overreacts to the overreaction to something small and stupid.
The correct reaction in both cases is just an eye roll, and move on with your life.
No winners in these sorts of things. Get back to work, people.
Not to mention that the world of academia that he lives in allows him to publicly rail against his employer and his colleagues whenever he wants. Try doing that in any other workplace.
Or even try to be a non-tenured employee and doing that at Marquette.
-
Not to mention that the world of academia that he lives in allows him to publicly rail against his employer and his colleagues whenever he wants. Try doing that in any other workplace.
Or even try to be a non-tenured employee and doing that at Marquette.
I'm sure McAdams doesn't mind criticism of his handling of political issues on campus. This was an expressly political issue.
But even back when I was on campus, a lot of the campus liberals (students) respected him because he seemed to be one of the few professors looking out for student interests, especially w.r.t. the administration, on completely apolitical subjects. We all know that the MU administration can get pretty insular, and it was nice to have a professor looking out for students against that.
-
I'm sure McAdams doesn't mind criticism of his handling of political issues on campus. This was an expressly political issue.
But even back when I was on campus, a lot of the campus liberals (students) respected him because he seemed to be one of the few professors looking out for student interests, especially w.r.t. the administration, on completely apolitical subjects. We all know that the MU administration can get pretty insular, and it was nice to have a professor looking out for students against that.
I think a Prof. that speaks out has tremendous value.
I just hope that he/she picks the right spot. It's okay to let some stuff slide.
-
In subjects such as the Kennedy Assassination, yes.
I want to be Jackie Onassis
I want to wear a pair of dark sunglasses
I want to be Jackie Onassis, oh yeah
I want bodyguards all around
I'm anxious to avoid an autograph hound
Just let me be Jackie Onassis, oh yeah
I'm ready for the world to take a good look at me
Photographers can snap my picture, I'll pose for free
Tabloids can make my name a household word
I'll belong to millions but be free as a bird
I want my portrait done by Andy Warhol
I'll let them market a Jackie O doll
Just let me be Jackie Onassis, oh yeah...
by Human Sexual Response
-
This.
Step 1: Somebody overreacts to something small and stupid.
Step 2: Somebody overreacts to the overreaction to something small and stupid.
The correct reaction in both cases is just an eye roll, and move on with your life.
No winners in these sorts of things. Get back to work, people.
If Step 1 is Susanne Foster being offended and going to Chairman South and Step 2 is Chairman South's letter and trip to the HR department then I'm in total agreement. Both were out of line. The guy fighting for his career/reputation or the guy who reported it? Not so much.
-
If Step 1 is Susanne Foster being offended and going to Chairman South and Step 2 is Chairman South's letter and trip to the HR department then I'm in total agreement. Both were out of line. The guy fighting for his career/reputation or the guy who reported it? Not so much.
+1
-
No winners in these sorts of things.
I enjoy the amusement and the distraction. Therefore I win :D
-
I just keep thinking this.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/franksinatra/theboysnightout.html
FRANK SINATRA LYRICS
"The Boys' Night Out"
Hey there, mister, build a fence 'round your sister, it's the...
The boys' night out.
Hey there, buster, it's the indians after custer, it's the.
The boys' night out.
They're out to do the town, and before they're through,
It's bound to be liken to.
The night they lost the titanic and the wall street panic.
What they're seeking is a little chickie-chicking, it's the..
The boys' night out,
And that moon's about as big as a honey dew,
It's the boys' night out, and they're so romantic, I'll give you a clue,
What the boys are out after, the girls are out after too.
[music interlude]
They're out to do the town, and before they're through,
It's bound to be liken to.
The night they lost the titanic and the wall street panic,
What they're seeking is a little chickie-chicking, it's the..
The boys' night out,
And that moon's about as big as a honey dew,
It's the boys' night out, and they're so romantic, but I will give you a clue,
What the boys are out after, the girls are out after,
What the boys are out after, the girls are out after too.
-
If Step 1 is Susanne Foster being offended and going to Chairman South and Step 2 is Chairman South's letter and trip to the HR department then I'm in total agreement. Both were out of line. The guy fighting for his career/reputation or the guy who reported it? Not so much.
Fair point.
RE: Reporting/reporter:
I think it's noble to pull back the curtain and report the facts, but not-so-noble to use it as a bullet point in your bigger agenda/argument, which has a lot of opinion in it.
I find myself nodding along for the first 4 paragraphs, and then transitions into something where I'm just rolling my eyes, and moving on with my day.
-
Fair point.
RE: Reporting/reporter:
I think it's noble to pull back the curtain and report the facts, but not-so-noble to use it as a bullet point in your bigger agenda/argument, which has a lot of opinion in it.
I find myself nodding along for the first 4 paragraphs, and then transitions into something where I'm just rolling my eyes, and moving on with my day.
And really, is it *that* much of a revelation that academia has some nutcases working in its ranks?
-
And really, is it *that* much of a revelation that academia has some nutcases working in its ranks?
In other news, water is wet.
-
What they're seeking is a little chickie-chicking,
What exactly does he mean by this? Can anyone shed some light here?
-
The two professors involved in this dust up should just get it over with and have sex already.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e3/johnaloysius/imagejpg1-1.jpg) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/johnaloysius/media/imagejpg1-1.jpg.html)
-
serious question-why is the term "girls" offensive? maybe it's my inner cro-magnonism coming out i have no problems with someone referring to us as boys. hell, it makes me feel younger. i obviously understand it is very offensive to refer to an african american as "boy"/singular. anyway, honest question then-what is the proper reference for women?
-
serious question-why is the term "girls" offensive? maybe it's my inner cro-magnonism coming out i have no problems with someone referring to us as boys. hell, it makes me feel younger. i obviously understand it is very offensive to refer to an african american as "boy"/singular. anyway, honest question then-what is the proper reference for women?
Here's my POV:
It's all about context.
As a general rule, you should never refer to a female as a "girl" in a business setting. It can be demeaning. If you are on a friendly basis, it's okay to use "girl" when talking about non-business matters.
Okay: "Where are you girls going for lunch today?" (If speaking to some work friends)
Not okay: "There's a girl from HR here to see you."
-
Here's my POV:
It's all about context.
As a general rule, you should never refer to a female as a "girl" in a business setting. It can be demeaning. If you are on a friendly basis, it's okay to use "girl" when talking about non-business matters.
Okay: "Where are you girls going for lunch today?" (If speaking to some work friends)
Not okay: "There's a girl from HR here to see you."
What's your take on "gal."
As in "what are you gals doing for lunch today?"
-
What's your take on "gal."
As in "what are you gals doing for lunch today?"
Gal works. Probably a safer choice than "girl" in most cases.
When in doubt, though, I'd play it safe and use "ladies".
-
thank you!
-
When in doubt, though, I'd play it safe and use "ladies".
Well, what if the lady ain't no lady but the lady is a tramp?
-
Well, what if the lady ain't no lady but the lady is a tramp?
Then I would call her "often"
-
Then I would call her "often"
HEY OH
-
Well, what if the lady ain't no lady but the lady is a tramp?
Keefe, based on this and other posts of yours, I am starting to understand how that whole Tailhook thing happened.
-
What they're seeking is a little chickie-chicking,
What exactly does he mean by this? Can anyone shed some light here?
Out seeking attractive gals (or ladies). Keefe, maybe this will help.
Talk Like Frank Sinatra
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/02/11/talk-like-frank-sinatra/
-
Keefe, based on this and other posts of yours, I am starting to understand how that whole Tailhook thing happened.
Tailhook was Navy....Keefe is very definitely an Air Force guy, I don't care if someone had a lapse in situational awareness and gave him gold wings, don't complement him by putting him in such an esteemed group as Naval Aviators.....ya know, horrible, misogynistic behavior aside.
-
Here's my POV:
It's all about context.
As a general rule, you should never refer to a female as a "girl" in a business setting. It can be demeaning. If you are on a friendly basis, it's okay to use "girl" when talking about non-business matters.
Okay: "Where are you girls going for lunch today?" (If speaking to some work friends)
Not okay: "There's a girl from HR here to see you."
This.
And since I'm a guy, I would never use it in the workplace even with people I am familiar with. Maybe it's because I work in the hyper-sensitive higher education environment I mentioned above, but I don't do or say *anything* that could be misinterpreted. I don't even tell co-workers how nice they look.
-
This.
And since I'm a guy, I would never use it in the workplace even with people I am familiar with. Maybe it's because I work in the hyper-sensitive higher education environment I mentioned above, but I don't do or say *anything* that could be misinterpreted. I don't even tell co-workers how nice they look.
As usual, the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other.
-
This.
And since I'm a guy, I would never use it in the workplace even with people I am familiar with. Maybe it's because I work in the hyper-sensitive higher education environment I mentioned above, but I don't do or say *anything* that could be misinterpreted. I don't even tell co-workers how nice they look.
Agreed. And doesn't the world suck as a result? Shame on Dr. Foster for not having any perspective. The gap between nice normal human interaction and genuine harassment should be wide enough that a 6 year old understands.
Note to self. Tell chick that she looks nice.
-
Agreed. And doesn't the world suck as a result? Shame on Dr. Foster for not having any perspective. The gap between nice normal human interaction and genuine harassment should be wide enough that a 6 year old understands.
Note to self. Tell chick that she looks nice HOT.
FIFY
-
Then I would call her "often"
Superb!
-
Keefe, based on this and other posts of yours, I am starting to understand how that whole Tailhook thing happened.
Frank Sinatra played Tailhook??
-
Gal works. Probably a safer choice than "girl" in most cases.
When in doubt, though, I'd play it safe and use "ladies".
What about being referred to collectively as "guys" amongst a group that may or may not include male colleagues?
Example: "Where are you guys going to lunch today?" Does it make a difference whether the group is predominantly male, predominantly female or entirely female?
-
Tailhook was Navy....Keefe is very definitely an Air Force guy, I don't care if someone had a lapse in situational awareness and gave him gold wings, don't complement him by putting him in such an esteemed group as Naval Aviators.....ya know, horrible, misogynistic behavior aside.
You forget I also earned Wings of Gold. Double Centurion with 212 traps on the Maru!
I will say, I went to The Hook and couldn't believe the shenanigans, particularly on the 3rd deck of the Hilton. I ran into a buddy, Buzzard Healy who was the skipper of VMFA 101. He was relieved because of what happened in the 101 Hospitality Suite at the '91 Hook. Even though he wasn't there, he was held accountable for the actions and behavior of his JOs at the Hook.
When I saw him I was doing a cross country while flying Vipers for the ANG. We had a four ship coming back from Panama and landed at NAS Dallas for a maintenance issue. I ran into him by accident and I was shocked he was at such a back water - it didn't make sense for a sh1t hot Marine aviator like Buzzard. He told me he had been the Skipper of the Rhinos in 91 and I knew immediately.
Fighter pilots still manage to get into normal young man troubles. They just don't do it on such a grand stage as Tailhook for all the world to see. The Navy Brown Shoes let it get way out of hand. Even in '91, fresh off of victory in The Storm, the USAF never ever would have allowed anything like The Hook. The cultures of those two tribes are markedly different. USAF pilots are zany but the Navy Brown Shoes were in a league of their own.
-
You forget I also earned Wings of Gold. Double Centurion with 212 traps on the Maru!
Oh I know, hence my reference to someone losing situational awareness and allowing you those wings ;)
-
This.
And since I'm a guy, I would never use it in the workplace even with people I am familiar with. Maybe it's because I work in the hyper-sensitive higher education environment I mentioned above, but I don't do or say *anything* that could be misinterpreted. I don't even tell co-workers how nice they look.
I work for a fortune 500 company and behave this way as. In fact, when walking the halls I generally avoid eye contact and/or anything but a neutral facial expression just because I don't want to deal with anything that could even remotely come close for another to interpret incorrectly.
-
What about being referred to collectively as "guys" amongst a group that may or may not include male colleagues?
Example: "Where are you guys going to lunch today?" Does it make a difference whether the group is predominantly male, predominantly female or entirely female?
See this is where the rush to diversity and acceptance actually overruns true diversity. I've found in the midwest guys is gender neutral when addressing a group. Similar to y'all actually being singular in the south. How because most things are viewed from the "sensitivity" prism(for lack of a better phrase) cultural norms are driven out decreasing diversity.
One thing I will say that my company has starting educating folks about as part of diversity is that their needs to be intelligence about what is said and how it could be interpreted by the receiver, but also on the part of the receiver to have intelligence about how it might have been intended.
-
I work for a fortune 500 company and behave this way as. In fact, when walking the halls I generally avoid eye contact and/or anything but a neutral facial expression just because I don't want to deal with anything that could even remotely come close for another to interpret incorrectly.
Sounds like a great place to work ::)
-
Sounds like a great place to work ::)
I would feel the same regardless of where I work....actually my company is probably better than most...just the general environment I feel in the US.
-
I would feel the same regardless of where I work....actually my company is probably better than most...just the general environment I feel in the US.
Yeah, I guess I don't judge if a place is good to work on the basis if I can call my co-workers "girls."
-
One thing I will say that my company has starting educating folks about as part of diversity is that their needs to be intelligence about what is said and how it could be interpreted by the receiver, but also on the part of the receiver to have intelligence about how it might have been intended.
This is important, and hopefully the next evolution in this kind of stuff.
If there is a creepy 50yr old man who says weird things to the interns (female or male), then we probably need to get that documented with HR.
If somebody says "guys" or "girls" or whatever, maybe we need to let that one slide.
-
I work for a fortune 500 company and behave this way as. In fact, when walking the halls I generally avoid eye contact and/or anything but a neutral facial expression just because I don't want to deal with anything that could even remotely come close for another to interpret incorrectly.
ditto, although I don't have as much of a problem with that as my workplace is 90% dudes
-
Yeah, I guess I don't judge if a place is good to work on the basis if I can call my co-workers "girls."
Perhaps he was referencing the poster avoiding eye contact when walking the halls?
Corporate America!
-
Out seeking attractive gals (or ladies). Keefe, maybe this will help.
Talk Like Frank Sinatra
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/02/11/talk-like-frank-sinatra/
Where the hell did you find this site?? Priceless!
-
Where the hell did you find this site?? Priceless!
I'm a Sinatra-fan. He's the patron saint of Italian-Americans. My Connecticut crowd of friends are all long-time Rat Pack fans, so one tends to pick these things up. They were just pure style and pure fun. The Rat Pack goes hand-in-hand with another one of my favorite pieces of Americana, a weekend in Saratoga.
-
Using the terms "Girls Night Out" is different than calling someone a girl or a group of women "Girls" because it is a commonly used expression that denotes a social event that was attended exclusively by females. The thought of being offended by that is beyond ridiculous. A similar thing happened a few years ago to a friend of my mother's (probabaly 78 years old at the time but full of life) who had the misfortune of saying "Attaboy!" at a Dunkin' Donuts as a friendly way of congratulating the African-America teenager behind the counter for getting her the last donut or whatever before someone else. He ripped into her for calling him "boy" and gave the item, whatever it was, to the other person looking for it. Like "Girls Night Out", "Attaboy" is a common expression, meaning "Way to go!"
It is easy to choose to be offended if you want to be. It is also easy to choose to interpret remarks charitably, which is what my mother always taught me.
-
Using the terms "Girls Night Out" is different than calling someone a girl or a group of women "Girls" because it is a commonly used expression that denotes a social event that was attended exclusively by females. The thought of being offended by that is beyond ridiculous. A similar thing happened a few years ago to a friend of my mother's (probabaly 78 years old at the time but full of life) who had the misfortune of saying "Attaboy!" at a Dunkin' Donuts as a friendly way of congratulating the African-America teenager behind the counter for getting her the last donut or whatever before someone else. He ripped into her for calling him "boy" and gave the item, whatever it was, to the other person looking for it. Like "Girls Night Out", "Attaboy" is a common expression, meaning "Way to go!"
It is easy to choose to be offended if you want to be. It is also easy to choose to interpret remarks charitably, which is what my mother always taught me.
Hence my point on the receiver having to have intelligence about intent and cultural understanding.
Bottom line, the pendulum has swung to give one who could take offense all of the power, the pendulum needs to come back to the middle.
-
Yeah, I guess I don't judge if a place is good to work on the basis if I can call my co-workers "girls."
Wow, not even close to what I meant.
If you have to walk the halls of the company you work for afraid to make eye contact with your co-workers, there is something very wrong.
I work for a large global company. My client is one of the largest companies in the world and I have spent a lot of time in their US headquarters. Never once have I felt like I should not or could not make eye contact with someone or say "hello" or whatever.
-
Wow, not even close to what I meant.
If you have to walk the halls of the company you work for afraid to make eye contact with your co-workers, there is something very wrong.
I work for a large global company. My client is one of the largest companies in the world and I have spent a lot of time in their US headquarters. Never once have I felt like I should not or could not make eye contact with someone or say "hello" or whatever.
Again, I'd feel that way regardless of the major company I was working for. More than happy to say hi to people I know and talk, but if I don't know you, better to avoid contact then get accused of leering or something silly like that.
-
Out seeking attractive gals (or ladies). Keefe, maybe this will help.
Talk Like Frank Sinatra
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/02/11/talk-like-frank-sinatra/
Interesting, but in this century, we wouldn't consider being called a "broad" a compliment. And oI am surprised that "dame" is supposed to be derogatory. Not that it is any better than "broad"...
-
What a world we have created for our offspring. Chronic victimhood is rampant
-
I work for a fortune 500 company and behave this way as. In fact, when walking the halls I generally avoid eye contact and/or anything but a neutral facial expression just because I don't want to deal with anything that could even remotely come close for another to interpret incorrectly.
It has been my experience that Fortune 500 companies aren't always the most politically correct places, either. Several years ago my company was bought out by one, and I had the following conversation with one of their executives:
Fortune 500 exec: "Aren't you one of the girls that works in the accounting department?"
Me: "Um, I am the controller, if that is what you are trying to ask. I am kind of surprised that you would use the term "girl" to refer to a female employee."
Fortune 500 exec: "Well, I would think someone your age would consider it a compliment to be called a 'girl'".
Now I am not the kind of person who would make a federal case out of it. But even if I was, who would have I complained to? This guy was the head of HR.
-
This.
And since I'm a guy, I would never use it in the workplace even with people I am familiar with. Maybe it's because I work in the hyper-sensitive higher education environment I mentioned above, but I don't do or say *anything* that could be misinterpreted. I don't even tell co-workers how nice they look.
I think this is an over-reaction and also a mis-statement on academia. I have worked in academia for quite some time and also interface with industry on collaborations and do not find it any more hyper-sensitive than anywhere else, nor do I find academia to have any more nut cases than the general public (after all 4% of all CEO's are psychopaths).
But the over-reaction part is not being able to say anything that could be misinterpreted, including things like "you look nice" as someone else mentioned.
The problem is that people don't actually develop meaningful relationships involving mutual respect anymore. I'm sure I have often used girls in reference to women, I also don't shy away from telling someone they look nice and have never had a problem. I do that though with people that I have developed relationships with that center on mutual respect. They would never assume I am meaning it as a slight, because it is well known the level of respect I have for them, similarly they would not be bothered by a comment, because we have developed rapport.
If people spent more time getting to know people and outwardly letting them know there level of respect then we wouldn't have problems with these sorts of things. It is when coworkers view there colleagues as competitors that these issues become a problem
-
Interesting, but in this century, we wouldn't consider being called a "broad" a compliment.
Isn't it a reference to one's intake of deep fried foods and BBQ?
-
So I went to Prof. James South's personal webpage on the Marquette University server. I am attaching a link FROM HIS MARQUETTE WEBPAGE where he lists his very favorite episode of Xena as, "GIRLS JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN."
WHAT A F#CKING IDIOT!!! Someone needs to put a letter in his personnel file about this outrage.
I have no idea who James South is but he is an immortal F#cking Moron.
Here is the Link:
http://www.marquette.edu/phil/south/#me
JAMES SOUTH: YOU ARE AN IDIOT UNFIT TO LEAD!
-
So I went to Prof. James South's personal webpage on the Marquette University server. I am attaching a link FROM HIS MARQUETTE WEBPAGE where he lists his very favorite episode of Xena as, "GIRLS JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN."
WHAT A F#CKING IDIOT!!! Someone needs to put a letter in his personnel file about this outrage.
I have no idea who James South is but he is an immortal F#cking Moron.
Here is the Link:
http://www.marquette.edu/phil/south/#me
JAMES SOUTH: YOU ARE AN IDIOT UNFIT TO LEAD!
You gotta send that to McAdams. Better yet, send him a screen shot.
-
Washington should rename its football team "girls night out", that will get things going
-
I think a Prof. that speaks out has tremendous value.
I just hope that he/she picks the right spot. It's okay to let some stuff slide.
But this is a case where someone's career path was at issue because someone (there is always SOMEONE) that gets offended. I'd say this is exactly the right spot to bring this up, because the more this stuff is brought up the more it opens the eyes of some of the complete whack jobs that are out there in this world, many of them in positions of power.
-
Gal works. Probably a safer choice than "girl" in most cases.
When in doubt, though, I'd play it safe and use "ladies".
What if they aren't ladies....wink wink nudge nudge....know what I mean, know what I mean....say no more, SAY no more.
-
(http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/nolan2.jpg)
Love that he shoots. Is this a bad thing?
Here's my little girl shooting just a few days ago. Train them young, be responsible but know how to do it if they wish. Or if not, she'll kick someone's ass in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10492291_10204471462969884_4423091258598863377_n.jpg?oh=c7e5aa6a0ddb5755ae4ab46d7b2735e6&oe=543D9562&__gda__=1413442006_0555a3690c8fa2cb2849e303f2afa6e5)
-
Love that he shoots. Is this a bad thing?
Here's my little girl shooting just a few days ago. Train them young, be responsible but know how to do it if they wish. Or if not, she'll kick someone's ass in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10492291_10204471462969884_4423091258598863377_n.jpg?oh=c7e5aa6a0ddb5755ae4ab46d7b2735e6&oe=543D9562&__gda__=1413442006_0555a3690c8fa2cb2849e303f2afa6e5)
That thing's got optics!
-
She's a very good shooter, though her form sucks. You should see her with a bow, can hit the target with amazing consistency. One of her archery coaches was in the Olympics a few times and she practices down at El Eldorado where the '84 Olympic Archery event was held. Drives her older brother crazy. She's a natural at hitting the target with various weapons. Can't explain it, just has it in her....nailed a bullseye with her very first archery shot as a 7 year old when she picked up a bow for the first time.
-
But this is a case where someone's career path was at issue because someone (there is always SOMEONE) that gets offended. I'd say this is exactly the right spot to bring this up, because the more this stuff is brought up the more it opens the eyes of some of the complete whack jobs that are out there in this world, many of them in positions of power.
Here here. James South is unfit for leadership. He jeopardized another man's career over something utterly stupid. Even if the letter was removed from the man's personnel file his reputation was tarnished. And for what?
I applaud John McAdams for pointing out this lunacy. Regardless of whatever side of the aisle he sits, McAdams has the courage and strength of conviction to point out an injustice.
-
She's a very good shooter, though her form sucks. You should see her with a bow, can hit the target with amazing consistency. One of her archery coaches was in the Olympics a few times and she practices down at El Eldorado where the '84 Olympic Archery event was held. Drives her older brother crazy. She's a natural at hitting the target with various weapons. Can't explain it, just has it in her....nailed a bullseye with her very first archery shot as a 7 year old when she picked up a bow for the first time.
Her form is unique but pellet rifles don't kick much so she's fine. In a few years you need to get her some BDUs and post some pics of her in sultry poses with an M 16.
-
Her form is unique but pellet rifles don't kick much so she's fine. In a few years you need to get her some BDUs and post some pics of her in sultry poses with an M 16.
Is she joining the Israeli Defense Force?
I kid....
-
Here here. James South is unfit for leadership. He jeopardized another man's career over something utterly stupid. Even if the letter was removed from the man's personnel file his reputation was tarnished. And for what?
I applaud John McAdams for pointing out this lunacy. Regardless of whatever side of the aisle he sits, McAdams has the courage and strength of conviction to point out an injustice.
As much as I hate tenure because I believe it grandfathers people in for work done in the past, here's a situation where it has a positive impact. In another setting, without that protection, he may not have been able to call them out for the lunatics they are as then the tolerance lobby would kick in and that lobby apparently only tolerates certain ways of thinking. Good for him in knowing the firmness of the firm ground he stands on to call out the ridiculousness of their actions.
-
Had a blood draw this morning ... in the office where they took my blood there was a sign for the nurses that was addressed to "Girls - ." Wonder if the women in the office knew to be offended.
-
Had a blood draw this morning ... in the office where they took my blood there was a sign for the nurses that was addressed to "Girls - ." Wonder if the women in the office knew to be offended.
Someone will remind them
-
I applaud John McAdams for pointing out this lunacy. Regardless of whatever side of the aisle he sits, McAdams has the courage and strength of conviction to point out an injustice.
I agree with this, but I didn't like the way he used this situation to jump up on the soapbox and provide a lot of his own opinions.
Just report the facts, provide a little insight. End of blog post. Perfect. Love it. Stand up to the man.
Instead, McAdams went off on a long rant and I think it muddies the message and makes it look like he was just looking for an excuse to further his own agenda.
-
I think this is an over-reaction and also a mis-statement on academia. I have worked in academia for quite some time and also interface with industry on collaborations and do not find it any more hyper-sensitive than anywhere else, nor do I find academia to have any more nut cases than the general public (after all 4% of all CEO's are psychopaths).
But the over-reaction part is not being able to say anything that could be misinterpreted, including things like "you look nice" as someone else mentioned.
The problem is that people don't actually develop meaningful relationships involving mutual respect anymore. I'm sure I have often used girls in reference to women, I also don't shy away from telling someone they look nice and have never had a problem. I do that though with people that I have developed relationships with that center on mutual respect. They would never assume I am meaning it as a slight, because it is well known the level of respect I have for them, similarly they would not be bothered by a comment, because we have developed rapport.
If people spent more time getting to know people and outwardly letting them know there level of respect then we wouldn't have problems with these sorts of things. It is when coworkers view there colleagues as competitors that these issues become a problem
Or frankly maybe I just view the workplace differently then a lot of people do. For instance, I don't work with my closest friends, and I am not close friends with anyone I work with. I literally see no one I work with in any sort of social setting...and I like that.
So when I am in the workplace, I don't really feel the need to say "hey, you look nice" or anything of the sort. Don't get me wrong, I am friendly, cordial and respectful. And people apparently like working for me because they don't leave. But I just don't see much of a need in having a different relationship than that.
-
I agree with this, but I didn't like the way he used this situation to jump up on the soapbox and provide a lot of his own opinions.
Just report the facts, provide a little insight. End of blog post. Perfect. Love it. Stand up to the man.
Instead, McAdams went off on a long rant and I think it muddies the message and makes it look like he was just looking for an excuse to further his own agenda.
Agreed on both counts.
-
Interesting, but in this century, we wouldn't consider being called a "broad" a compliment. And oI am surprised that "dame" is supposed to be derogatory. Not that it is any better than "broad"...
http://www.youtube.com/e/AqeatUvRu68
-
As much as I hate tenure because I believe it grandfathers people in for work done in the past, here's a situation where it has a positive impact. In another setting, without that protection, he may not have been able to call them out for the lunatics they are as then the tolerance lobby would kick in and that lobby apparently only tolerates certain ways of thinking. Good for him in knowing the firmness of the firm ground he stands on to call out the ridiculousness of their actions.
Chico, I agree with McAdams on this, though I agree with Cans that he went a bit overboard.
Tenure is tricky. I have no problem with tenure protecting those who have earned it from being fired or silenced in any way for taking positions unpopular with those in power. On both the left and the right. You seem to be ok with it when it protects people you agree with from people you consider lunatics, but remember it's also there to protect people you consider lunatics from people like you whom they consider lunatics.
-
Chico, I agree with McAdams on this, though I agree with Cans that he went a bit overboard.
Tenure is tricky. I have no problem with tenure protecting those who have earned it from being fired or silenced in any way for taking positions unpopular with those in power. On both the left and the right. You seem to be ok with it when it protects people you agree with from people you consider lunatics, but remember it's also there to protect people you consider lunatics from people like you whom they consider lunatics.
I'll comment on the tenure issue, because I don't think people often understand it. At the University level you either get tenure or get fired. No other jobs have that requirement. Especially considering, doing your job will not get you tenure. You have to be considered "outstanding/extraordinary" in all aspects of your job, just to keep it. The individuals submit to a lower paying job with a guarantee of only 3 (then 6) years of employment. No tenure and you are out on the street. Get tenure and provided you don't exhibit gross inadequacies in your performance and you have a job for life.
Would you take a job that, unless you performed as the best in your field, you would be fired without a "golden parachute," nothing, just a don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Also, one has to remember at the University level, these people aren't really paid to teach (right or wrong), they are paid to do research/author books.
-
I'll comment on the tenure issue, because I don't think people often understand it. At the University level you either get tenure or get fired. No other jobs have that requirement. Especially considering, doing your job will not get you tenure. You have to be considered "outstanding/extraordinary" in all aspects of your job, just to keep it. The individuals submit to a lower paying job with a guarantee of only 3 (then 6) years of employment. No tenure and you are out on the street. Get tenure and provided you don't exhibit gross inadequacies in your performance and you have a job for life.
Would you take a job that, unless you performed as the best in your field, you would be fired without a "golden parachute," nothing, just a don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Also, one has to remember at the University level, these people aren't really paid to teach (right or wrong), they are paid to do research/author books.
The flip side of this is how many people in the real world do their job well and don't have a job for life? There are tradeoffs in everything. I prefer a meritocracy from cradle to grave in the career life cycle. I realize this doesn't happen, both at the corporate and academic level for different reasons.
-
So I went to Prof. James South's personal webpage on the Marquette University server. I am attaching a link FROM HIS MARQUETTE WEBPAGE where he lists his very favorite episode of Xena as, "GIRLS JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN."
WHAT A F#CKING IDIOT!!! Someone needs to put a letter in his personnel file about this outrage.
I have no idea who James South is but he is an immortal F#cking Moron.
Here is the Link:
http://www.marquette.edu/phil/south/#me
JAMES SOUTH: YOU ARE AN IDIOT UNFIT TO LEAD!
Any guy that has a list of top 5 Xena episodes, or for that matter can name a Xena episode probably needs to be fired.
-
Any guy that has a list of top 5 Xena episodes, or for that matter can name a Xena episode probably needs to be fired.
All gay men can name their top 5 episodes of Xena :-*
-
Any guy that has a list of top 5 Xena episodes, or for that matter can name a Xena episode probably needs to be fired.
Actually, linking Philosophy to pop culture is his "thing". I have heard Dr. South speak on couple of occasions, and he is actually quite interesting. He has edited several books of essays discussing the philosophy of, say, James Bond, or "Mad Men".
I agree, though; he totally handled this incident badly.
-
Actually, linking Philosophy to pop culture is his "thing". I have heard Dr. South speak on couple of occasions, and he is actually quite interesting. He has edited several books of essays discussing the philosophy of, say, James Bond, or "Mad Men".
I agree, though; he totally handled this incident badly.
Any professional credits he may have had were washed away by his ham fisted handling of a personnel matter. Letting personal animosity dictate actions that impact another man's livelihood is inexcusable in any context. For a "philosopher" of all goddam people to exhibit such banal behavior undermines his credibility as a legitimate thinker.
And frankly, I question why Marquette employs a man whose intellectual investigation focuses on explicating the social relevance of 007, Xena, Marvel Comic book characters, or "Mad Men." The fact is that there is none. 007 is entertainment and cannot be compared to Hamlet. Mr. South's academic forte would seem to be mental masturbation.
-
Any professional credits he may have had were washed away by his ham fisted handling of a personnel matter. Letting personal animosity dictate actions that impact another man's livelihood is inexcusable in any context. For a "philosopher" of all goddam people to exhibit such banal behavior undermines his credibility as a legitimate thinker.
And frankly, I question why Marquette employs a man whose intellectual investigation focuses on explicating the social relevance of 007, Xena, Marvel Comic book characters, or "Mad Men." The fact is that there is none. 007 is entertainment and cannot be compared to Hamlet. Mr. South's academic forte would seem to be mental masturbation.
I would caution against dismissing out of hand certain media traditionally deemed as merely "entertainment." Many said the same things about Tolkien, CS Lewis' fantasy pieces, Ray Bradbury's science fiction, and so on. Hell, Greek and Shakespearean comedies were merely bawdy entertainment when they came out, and now historians of literature analyze them for social context and deep commentary on the human condition. In 300 years, our descendants may be analyzing "The Simpsons" or "South Park" in the same way. Or maybe they won't. But I wouldn't automatically count it out.
Mad Men in particular is a rich social commentary that somehow manages to do it differently than almost every other work about the 1960s. This is Time feature is definitely worth a look: http://time.com/mad-men-last-days/ (although you have to be a subscriber to read the full story)
-
South Park has actually become incredibly deep in writing. Those not watching due to it's origins is missing out.
-
Didn't someone earn his doctorate by writing on the philosophy of "Peanuts"
-
Didn't someone earn his doctorate by writing on the philosophy of "Peanuts"
I heard of him. Is he still waiting tables at that Soho Bistro?
-
Any professional credits he may have had were washed away by his ham fisted handling of a personnel matter. Letting personal animosity dictate actions that impact another man's livelihood is inexcusable in any context. For a "philosopher" of all goddam people to exhibit such banal behavior undermines his credibility as a legitimate thinker.
And frankly, I question why Marquette employs a man whose intellectual investigation focuses on explicating the social relevance of 007, Xena, Marvel Comic book characters, or "Mad Men." The fact is that there is none. 007 is entertainment and cannot be compared to Hamlet. Mr. South's academic forte would seem to be mental masturbation.
All I know is I fell asleep in most of my Philosophy classes, and I actually learned something from Dr. South's presentations. He must be doing something right.
By the way, I believe he is a bigger fan of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" than "Xena".
-
South Park has actually become incredibly deep in writing. Those not watching due to it's origins is missing out.
I've been telling people for years that South Park draws a close parallel to British humor insomuch that as on the surface it comes across to most people as bawdy, incoherent slapstick when in fact it's quite intellectual and cannot truly be appreciated by someone who blew off the 11th grade.
But those with above average IQ's aren't what drive TV ratings and popularity today, and therein lies the true genius of South Park... it's ability to remain relevant and on-message (most of the time, anyway*) even as the pop culture bus in this country was hijacked by rednecks and the unemployed.
* HumancentiPad was a little out there, though there's good rationale for that.
-
I've been telling people for years that South Park draws a close parallel to British humor insomuch that as on the surface it comes across to most people as bawdy, incoherent slapstick when in fact it's quite intellectual and cannot truly be appreciated by someone who blew off the 11th grade.
But those with above average IQ's aren't what drive TV ratings and popularity today, and therein lies the true genius of South Park... it's ability to remain relevant and on-message (most of the time, anyway*) even as the pop culture bus in this country was hijacked by rednecks and the unemployed.
* HumancentiPad was a little out there, though there's good rationale for that.
Rednecks.....that's RACIST and a SLUR!!!!!
;)
-
By the way, I believe he is a bigger fan of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" than "Xena".
A '90's variation on the age old "Mary Ann vs. Ginger" theme
-
Don't get what all this harassment chit is all about.
http://boston.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/mario-goetzes-boner-is-gonna-be-doing-wild-things-tonight/
-
Don't get what all this harassment chit is all about.
http://boston.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/mario-goetzes-boner-is-gonna-be-doing-wild-things-tonight/
what "boner?" All I saw was a muffin...