rigorousintuition.ca

You nailed it, C2W.

this morning's real life encounter with a sexist prick went like this:

Furnace Guy is supposed to be at my house at 8:30.
Furnace Guy shows up at 8:50
When I answer the door he asks for my husband, who has gone to work.
I say, "You must be Ben. Can you tell me why you are late?"
Furnace Guy laughs heartily in my face, and then says, "Seriously?"
And I say, "Yeah."
And he says, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
I reply, "Well yes, he did. But I'm the one you would have been dealing with, anyway."
"Oh." Says Furnace Guy Ben. "It's only ten minutes." I resist the urge to correct his math. While I resist, he laughs again.
"I don't like people who are late," I say. "You were late. You're out."

Now, yes, this guy *might* have just been a late tradesperson with an attitude. And I *might* have been being 'hard on the poor fella." But I do wonder if he would have had quite such an attitude if the man of the house had been at the door instead of the Missus.

Anyone?

i love you stephen.

you continually remind me of all sorts of things that i often forget, and i thank you for that.


[actually, i kinda like Mao Zedong, despite, y'know, the genocidal stuff]

...

and all furnace guys are habitually late.

[he could've at least been decent enough to have prepared an appropriate excuse, i've found that "the line at mcdonald's was slow" is often enough to save your ass]

i hate punching clocks and timeliness and i am late for everything unimportant, but that this will be the case is usually well-understood very much in advance and i often provide a time frame instead of a time in order to cover this tendency in myself.

[OP ED has never been late for work though. not in fourteen years of working so far]

oh shit. sorry. again, i forgot we were talking about otters.

OP ED wrote:i love you stephen.

you continually remind me of all sorts of things that i often forget, and i thank you for that.


[actually, i kinda like Mao Zedong, despite, y'know, the genocidal stuff]

...

and all furnace guys are habitually late.

[he could've at least been decent enough to have prepared an appropriate excuse, i've found that "the line at mcdonald's was slow" is often enough to save your ass]

i hate punching clocks and timeliness and i am late for everything unimportant, but that this will be the case is usually well-understood very much in advance and i often provide a time frame instead of a time in order to cover this tendency in myself.

[OP ED has never been late for work though. not in fourteen years of working so far]

oh shit. sorry. again, i forgot we were talking about otters.

Well. Ben the furnace Guy reminded me of a drunk otter who didn't respect me. He had that face, you know?

The second furnace guy was on time. He got to stay and tell me all about furnaces that talk to him on the internet, and Air conditioner decibel levels. It was fascinating. Gonna cost a bundle.

furnaces and their maintenance are always obscenely expensive. i hated working on them myself, but rarely could afford to pawn it off on someone else.

compared2what? wrote:

Stephen Morgan wrote:If you don't want to be associated with such things BY ME renounce the name feminist, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, I WILL RESOLUTELY DISREGARD IT AS IF YOU WEREN'T THERE IN FAVOR OF WILLFULLY ASSOCIATING YOU WITH THEM.

Fixed.

Also, I have no idea what makes you think that you're in a better position to tell people who self-identify as feminists who they are and how to identify themselves than they are. But whatever it is, guess what?

You're not!

It's not about what it is to be a feminist, it's about what it is to be a member. I'm not arguing about feminism, anyway. My position is well known, that feminism is a sexist movement devoted to furthering the interests of a privileged group, and I've argued with you all on those lines before it was forbidden by the new posting guidelines, so even if it was welcome there wouldn't be much point in going over it again. It's about what it means to be a member of the women's movement, and what messages that sends out. As such it is fundamentally a matter of perception and of society, not "who they are".

To use an extreme example, I refer to "Them" by Jon Ronson, when he interviews the leader of the Klan. Seems to have been an honestly nice man, wanted to reform the Klan, genuinely wanted to make it an organisation dedicated to "loving white people", not the more stereotypical activities of cross-burning and lynching. Told off his members who used the n-word. That sort of thing, a nice bloke who Jon Ronson seems to have got along well with even though Ronson is a well-known Jew. Complained about the media misportraying them, taking things out of context, trying to provoke them with Asian interviewers, interviewing radical dissident members who were still racist. He couldn't understand why those black people were protesting against his friendly little group having a march. HE was sincere, I have no doubt. And how did the chapter end? With the lot of them in pointy white hoods burning a cross. And that's what it was all about. It didn't matter that there were dissident Klans, or that the Klan were officially no longer motivated by hatred of niggers, what mattered was that they're the KLAN. If you're someone who just "loves white people" and you join the Klan, you might not be a racist, but you're a white man in the Klan and therefore you're supporting racism, you're associating yourself with it in the public mind and your oh-so-precious "they don't understand, why can't we all just get along" protests mean nothing. So I'm sure he was a nice guy, the leader of the Klan, and I'm sure he was at most only slightly racist, like a non-Klansman from his part of the world. But he was also the leader of the Klan, so all that it unimportant.

I know the Klan is an organisation, but by this time it was a whole group of organisations with different ideas, the official group being non-racist. What they had in common was the name, and adopting the name and having adopted the name was all that mattered.

And I know I used the word radical there, in the correct way which is totally unrelated to the etymological origins of the word, no matter how many prescriptivist grammar nazis say otherwise.

But you want to just call yourselves feminists, to strip the word of its cultural baggage and its associations in the public mind and in the group subconscious, associations with certain people and positions and statements, so why? Why do you want to call yourselves feminists, if not to associate yourself with the established block of doctrine and literature and leaders and so forth which form popular feminism, why use the word? Why go to such lengths to adopt a name which, although our politically correct dictionary compilation projects may disagree (describing feminism as "for equality", which is only slightly more accurate than their definition of Poplarism as a movement for "high taxation") perhaps you can apply your roots-based linguistics to the matter of the root meaning of the word "feminism". A word, I believe, denoting a movement solely for the interests of women, not equality. One reason I don't consider myself a "masculist", a common term in the anti-feminist movement, I don't particularly want to advance the position of men, just remove those injustices perpetrated by feminism. I am an anti-feminist, therefore, a masculist not so much. Of course masculism, being as obscure as it is, doesn't have a body of associations with people, positions, or sets of literature.

Masculism, incidentally, not to be called masculinism. Very insulting, that.

compared2what? wrote:Just for the hell of it:

Stephen Morgan wrote:I will evaluate feminism socialism as a whole on the results which it has generated, such as laws and policies which feminist socialist pressure has brought about, and on the actions and words of the leaders of the movement, which is to say those socialists with most worldly power, most ideological influence, most inclusion in Women's Socialist Studies courses stock literature, and so on. Zionists are a diverse group, but we've still got Israel.

I see. Well, if you don't want to be associated with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hugh Gaitskell and Emma Goldman (among others), stop calling yourself that.

Socialism brought about all that is best in the modern world. What C_w said about feminism, about her owing to it her right to own property, to vote, and such like, well the same and more can be said about socialism, and with socialism it's actually TRUE! The suffragettes had an impact on getting women the vote, things like committing acts of terrorism against the chancellor of the Exchequer tends to concentrate the mind, but the fact is that the event which precipitated the granting of the vote to women was the granting of the vote to poor men, the two things happening at the same time in England (although conditions applied to women which were only equalised ten years later). You've got free health-care, you've got free vaccinations and subsidised prescriptions, and free or heavily subsidised education, maybe some of you have a council house, you have the secret ballot, you have subsidised food, you have a job directly or indirectly supported by Keynesian economic measures, you have redistributive taxation, you have a pension or social security to keep you warm and fed in your old age, you owe it all to socialism. The stability and success of the western world as a whole and of our individual lives within it rests entirely on socialism and, all else being equal, the more socialism you have the better things get. If you think a few idiots, even on the scale of Stalin, can dent that then bully for you.

Nonetheless I occasionally describe myself as a democratic socialist, to specify my favour for popular control, rather than state control, and even less often as an anarcho-syndicalist on similar grounds.

Because I, for one, would describe myself as a radical feminist, by which I not only wouldn't mean that I agreed with Valerie Solanis, but also wouldn't mean that I agreed with Andrea Dworkin or Shulamith Firestone -- who neither agree with one another nor with Valerie Solanis -- which would really just leave him in an impossible position wrt what wholesale identity to impose on me if he knew what I was talking about. Or cared.

They agree with each other on certain core issues, which boil down to men bad, women good. In fact I think radicals are less likely to deserve to be lumped in with the rest. When you say you're a radical you're consciously excluding yourself from the mainstream, as when "equity feminists" adopt that name they consciously limit the association with mainstream feminism, even if their name makes about as much sense as "right-handed southpaw". Still feminists though, and I stand by my former descriptivist usage of the term "radical".

Canadian_watcher wrote:You nailed it, C2W.

this morning's real life encounter with a sexist prick went like this:

If there a female equivalent of prick? Ho' doesn't sound right, although being short for hole it is the natural counterpart to a term alluding to a man's protuberant genitalia.

Furnace Guy is supposed to be at my house at 8:30.
Furnace Guy shows up at 8:50
When I answer the door he asks for my husband, who has gone to work.
I say, "You must be Ben. Can you tell me why you are late?"
Furnace Guy laughs heartily in my face, and then says, "Seriously?"
And I say, "Yeah."
And he says, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
I reply, "Well yes, he did. But I'm the one you would have been dealing with, anyway."
"Oh." Says Furnace Guy Ben. "It's only ten minutes." I resist the urge to correct his math. While I resist, he laughs again.
"I don't like people who are late," I say. "You were late. You're out."

Now, yes, this guy *might* have just been a late tradesperson with an attitude. And I *might* have been being 'hard on the poor fella." But I do wonder if he would have had quite such an attitude if the man of the house had been at the door instead of the Missus.

As a working class man who interacts with tradesmen as one to another, on an equal footing, there's certainly nothing unusual about them turning up late and copping an attitude. There's a reason their most stereotypical sayings are "oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, will you look at that" and "it'll cost you".

I haven't encountered any sexism today to the best of my recollection. I'm excluding anything I might've seen on the internet or the news, just personal. I was at "work" where the assistant manager's job should have been mine, with her being simply not as good at the job, not as enthusiastic about the job, not as experienced as me, incapable of doing thing I knew how to do, and so on, but that was probably nepotism rather than sexism, relative of the manager. Although I've seen five people do that job, and they've all been female, and the three people other than the manager who've been deciding who gets the job are all female and all the assistant managers and managers of other branches of the shop that I've ever seen have been female, although that isn't the case with lower-ranking workers, or with applicants for those jobs. Still, the last time I definitely encountered sexism was reading the local paper a few days ago and seeing that all the jobs were in female-dominated sectors and that several claimed an exemption under section seven of the Sex Discrimination Act so as to refuse to hire men.

Still, that tale of not liking a tradesman and therefore replacing him with someone else certainly is a tear-jerker.

I suppose the case is, if I may quote once again that most hated member of my long list of enemies, the dictionary:

sex·ism noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

Even by the standard of the dictionary, a sexist definition of sexism is quite impressive. Mrs Webster, I salute you.

And, just to be clear, OP ED, I've also never been late, not for work, not to sign on. Well, I've never been later to work than the manager, or whoever is meant to open up, anyway.

i usually show up early, in order to chain smoke and properly drown myself in coffee.

...

(you picked THE KLAN??? REALLY???)

[wow. just. wow.]

...

But really, your evidence that women are a "privileged group" resides where exactly?

...
btw, for future reference:

OP ED, as it happens, is not a feminist. [OP ED hates women]

OP ED, as it happens, is not a socialist either. [OP ED hates pinko layabouts]

However, OP ED, as it happens, does often support positions created and maintained by self-identifying sub-sections of both "groups" although OP ED could and would argue that both groups exist more in the imagination than in any active reality, especially as anything other than potential propaganda value to their omnipresent detractors.

[OP ED views the goals of both "groups" as necessary prerequisites to so-called "equality" amongst human-type species, which must be established before OP ED's social program can even begin to evolve]


[OP ED is moderately radical, in the TMNT sense of the word]

Stephen Morgan wrote: As a working class man who interacts with tradesmen as one to another, on an equal footing, there's certainly nothing unusual about them turning up late and copping an attitude. There's a reason their most stereotypical sayings are "oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, will you look at that" and "it'll cost you".

So this excuses their bad behaviour? In a competitive world, those who displease their clients lose business.

Anyway, I wasn't saying he was sexist for being LATE, I rather took particular offence to him choosing to laugh when I asked him why he was late. And of course I didn't like that he - in the year 2011 - decided that since I was a woman at home I must be married and unable to look after furnace-related matters.

Had he been a good business man and not been a knee-jerk sexist, he would have answered my question about why he was late with a viable excuse. That's what I would have done in his position, and I believe OP ED says he would have done, too. Had he said ANYTHING rather than laugh in my face, I would have accepted it and let him in. I didn't like that he was late, but I could have let that slide for a person who was at least smart enough not to treat me like a piece of shit while standing on my stoop.

I don't do business with dummies.

OP ED would have rehearsed his excuses on the way over.

I don't do business with dummies.

Bullies should be avoided too.

norton ash wrote:

I don't do business with dummies.

Bullies should be avoided too.

A person standing up for themselves is not a bully, no matter if they are male or female.

norton ash wrote:

I don't do business with dummies.

Bullies should be avoided too.

The idiomatic gulf between picking fights and choosing battles.

this morning's real life encounter with a sexist prick went like this:

Furnace Guy is supposed to be at my house at 8:30.
Furnace Guy shows up at 8:50
When I answer the door he asks for my husband, who has gone to work.
I say, "You must be Ben. Can you tell me why you are late?"
Furnace Guy laughs heartily in my face, and then says, "Seriously?"
And I say, "Yeah."
And he says, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
I reply, "Well yes, he did. But I'm the one you would have been dealing with, anyway."
"Oh." Says Furnace Guy Ben. "It's only ten minutes." I resist the urge to correct his math. While I resist, he laughs again.
"I don't like people who are late," I say. "You were late. You're out."

Now, yes, this guy *might* have just been a late tradesperson with an attitude. And I *might* have been being 'hard on the poor fella." But I do wonder if he would have had quite such an attitude if the man of the house had been at the door instead of the Missus.

Kudos to you for providing a personal real life example.
My 2 cents just because I had a similar job in the past. (Chimney Sweep)
First, this is probably the first time he has been to your house.
After getting his gear in the morning, talking to his boss, getting his
van ready etc, he heads out to your place. He probably gets lost and/or
has to deal with morning traffic. The whole time he is probably getting
calls or calling on his work cell phone about other jobs. It's early and maybe he
needs a cup of coffee,donut, or has to piss and stops off. Once he finds your place
he may not go in first. He may have to get your paperwork ready, find your
part, etc

People think nothing of having to wait to see a Doctor, or the tax man, or other
white collar professionals. A tradesman/service person though is assumed to be screwing around
and if he is late people automatically assume the worst. Twenty minutes late
for furnace guy is really not that bad. Once he shows up he is confronted with,
""You must be Ben. Can you tell me why you are late?"

I think if you arrived to your work 20 minutes late and your Boss said sans greeting,
blocking your entry:
"Canadian Watcher, can you tell me why you are late?" You would automatically
get defensive and resentful because you are not greeted and the person assumes
you don't have a good reason for being late.

As far as his comment, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
he might have been assuming he inconvenienced someone
who was waiting for him that early. I doubt he'd want to escalate the situation and
it sounds like he was trying to make the situation work. Whereas it sounds like since you say
""I don't like people who are late," I say. "You were late. You're out."

You decided not to like him before you even met him and that was apparent on your first
encounter. He probably immediately, fairly or not, labeled you a "difficult person" which is totally
gender blind because he no doubts encounters that type of both genders. Him laughing I think
is the best he could do in that situation. I doubt he's fixing furnaces because it is the fulfillment
of all his dreams. It's early in the morning and he is what he believes (looks like erroneously) only
10 minutes late.

brekin wrote: Kudos to you for providing a personal real life example.
My 2 cents just because I had a similar job in the past. (Chimney Sweep)
First, this is probably the first time he has been to your house.
After getting his gear in the morning, talking to his boss, getting his
van ready etc, he heads out to your place. He probably gets lost and/or
has to deal with morning traffic. The whole time he is probably getting
calls or calling on his work cell phone about other jobs. It's early and maybe he
needs a cup of coffee,donut, or has to piss and stops off. Once he finds your place
he may not go in first. He may have to get your paperwork ready, find your
part, etc

People think nothing of having to wait to see a Doctor, or the tax man, or other
white collar professionals. A tradesman/service person though is assumed to be screwing around
and if he is late people automatically assume the worst. Twenty minutes late
for furnace guy is really not that bad. Once he shows up he is confronted with,
""You must be Ben. Can you tell me why you are late?"

I think if you arrived to your work 20 minutes late and your Boss said sans greeting,
blocking your entry:
"Canadian Watcher, can you tell me why you are late?" You would automatically
get defensive and resentful because you are not greeted and the person assumes
you don't have a good reason for being late.

As far as his comment, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
he might have been assuming he inconvenienced someone
who was waiting for him that early. I doubt he'd want to escalate the situation and
it sounds like he was trying to make the situation work. Whereas it sounds like since you say
""I don't like people who are late," I say. "You were late. You're out."

You decided not to like him before you even met him and that was apparent on your first
encounter. He probably immediately, fairly or not, labeled you a "difficult person" which is totally
gender blind because he no doubts encounters that type of both genders. Him laughing I think
is the best he could do in that situation. I doubt he's fixing furnaces because it is the fulfillment
of all his dreams. It's early in the morning and he is what he believes (looks like erroneously) only
10 minutes late.

I don't buy it. I've been an employee and a small business owner and I have almost never been late. If I want a piss or a cup of coffee, or if I know it takes me ten minutes to get my truck ready, I budget time accordingly. This is not rocket science.

It is even possible to get up in time to make sure that one's children are feeling well and leave time to deal with it if they are not! (amazing, I know, but it's true!!)

With all that said, however -

THE POINT IS NOT that he was late. The point is how he reacted to the simple question; "Can you tell me why you were late?"

I didn't snark it at him. I was smiling. I was friendly. I was ready to accept any answer besides: "Because I couldn't give a shit about this job."

Think about it, if you showed up at work and your boss said, "Hey Bill, can you tell me why you were late today?" would you actually laugh in his face and say, "Seriously?"

would you?

More than that, if you were trying to grow your own business, would you think it prudent to laugh at your customers' concerns?

I mean really. This is basic human survival skills 101.

oh yeah, and this:

brekin wrote:As far as his comment, "What.. did your husband have to leave for work or something?"
he might have been assuming he inconvenienced someone
who was waiting for him that early."

He fucking DID inconvenience someone who was waiting for him that early. ME.