Root of the Issue

[bobmoore]

often times in drumming folks out of employment. How very Christian of them!

Yep....

How very tolerant of you. A woman backs her beliefs with action and people who hate having their own beliefs questioned ---skirts-- are quick to condemn. The irony is laughable.

[moonshadow]

often times in drumming folks out of employment. How very Christian of them!

Yep....

How very tolerant of you. A woman backs her beliefs with action and people who hate having their own beliefs questioned ---skirts-- are quick to condemn. The irony is laughable.

What a dirty rotten mean thing to say. You have no idea the thin ice I've been skating since April. Laugh all you want Bob.. but there was nothing funny about me almost loosing everything over something so simple as wearing skirts on my own time.... and all the in the name of Judea-Christian principles.

How very tolerant of me? Name off the people I've tried to have fired, or lives I've attempted to ruin?

Man gets fired for wearing skirts.... Christians finds irony laughable.... indeed... How very Christian of them.

[Elisabetta]

often times in drumming folks out of employment. How very Christian of them!

Yep....

How very tolerant of you. A woman backs her beliefs with action and people who hate having their own beliefs questioned ---skirts-- are quick to condemn. The irony is laughable.

You're an a**hole to speak of my husband that way. What happened to him is no laughing matter. Free choice of clothing shouldn't have any label on it that would cost him a job especially since he was OFF THE CLOCK AND OFF WORK. What an ignorant human being you are. I feel sorry someone left the door opened and let your rude a** in here!

[skirtyscot]

often times in drumming folks out of employment. How very Christian of them!

Yep....

How very tolerant of you. A woman backs her beliefs with action and people who hate having their own beliefs questioned ---skirts-- are quick to condemn. The irony is laughable.

If you believe something to be true and act in accordance with that, you still deserve to be criticised if your action is unreasonable. Let's say I believe (whether or not because I read it an old old book) that all people called Bob should be punched in the face. Let's say I happen to meet you and talk to you and find out your name is Bob. So I give you a big left hook in the cakehole. Would you be quick to condemn me? You would of course be quite justified in doing so.

[crfriend]

Folks, let's climb down on this before it goes ballistic and I have to shut it down.

What some folks seemingly fail to realise is that we live in what is called a "society" -- and this happens to be a very complex society which has people of every conceivable belief (and others, too) that have to behave and interact using certain societal rules so the thing doesn't immediately separate into dozens, or hundreds, of warring little factions. It's those rules about behaviour -- which are almost universally unpopular -- that allow the thing to function at all, and, it turns out we have the sets of rules that we do, unpopular as they are, because all the alternate proposals were worse.

If you don't like a particular set of individuals because of the way they dress (or behave, or think, or .., or ...), that's fine -- don't associate with them. We have that right. What we don't have the right to do is to disrupt their lives to satisfy our own hostilities. That's not a particularly fine line there.

Had Moonshadow been drummed out of his job for his fashion choices whilst off the clock -- even if it had been in the name of zealotry -- it would have been dressed up as something else to satisfy the legal requirements, and Moon would have been careful in selecting his next employer to get a better fit. What seems to have happened is that the (non-)issue percolated up to close to the top, and the directive came back down to, "Grow up."

On religion: the reason it's useless to argue about it is the same reason that it's useless to argue about emotional impressions using logic. Just as emotion and religion are frequently entirely incompatible, so to are religion and rationality -- and this is where the problem comes in, and is why "discussions" -- unless everybody is absolutely determined to stay civil -- tend to decay into arguments, disputes, and ill feelings on everybody's part.

Does bigotry in belief exist? You betcha! Take a look at the "n" different organised religions -- all of whom tend to dislike one another; non-believers tend to take a dim view of believers as a group. But, this does not necessarily make us bad people; it merely influences our choice of friends. We stray into the "bad" territory when we reach out and try to force our views on others or otherwise disrupt their lives.

[moonshadow]

Well, fired? No. But the long term effects of this have yet to be seen. Two test will be applied in the future. The first will be raises, and the second will be the promotion I was lined up for prior to this whole thing. I'm careful about what I say on a public forum as no, they didn't fire me over skirts, but they have a VERY strict social media policy, this is why I don't mention the name of the company on this forum or others like facebook. It's not that it's a big secret, in fact, most of you can probably connect the dots and figure it out, but it's really just a matter of the google bots seeing it and forever linking my employer this this somewhat unconventional style of dress...

As I've said in other threads, the company I work for operates in a very conservative, deeply Protestant region of the U.S.. Like it or not, as bigoted as many in our demographic are, they are the ones who continue to shop at our "old fashioned" stores, and thus put money in the bank to make my paycheck. I have to respect this. It is difficult to compete with Walmart. And the niche of the company I work for is to offer an old fashioned, somewhat conservative shopping experience to their customers. And it works. Many of the stores do quite well. Some of them still offer curb side loading of your groceries. They will still use paper bags (by request only). A bow tie is still allowed on male workers. And like it or not... gender roles are pretty strict. It would be nice if we lived in a society that was more tolerant of people's self expression, but it is what it is, and we've got a long way to go before we hit that mark, especially in this region. Ultimately employers like mine will sway to the will of their demographic, and progressive views are creeping into these hills. People are becoming more diverse, more and more people are coming out as LGBT. Even in our stores I see things that Frankly, 20 years ago would NOT have been condoned. We have several homosexual employees who are not only regular entry level workers, but also department heads all the way up to store managers. If you're a man, you are generally allowed to have long hair now (many do) as long as it's properly groomed and doesn't look sloppy. I've seen some of the male kids (teenage workers) with nail polish on. All that said, maybe 20 years from now a man wearing a skirt, even while ON the clock will be a non-issue.

All this actually brings me to what I wanted to say yesterday prior to Bob's response, which brings this somewhat back on topic...

I got to thinking the other day, I'd like to backpedal a few things I've said on these boards over time. I've often had a notion about me that women generally have so much more fashion freedom than men do. As I was talking to Amber a few nights ago about this, it occurred to me that women may actually be no more free than men in regard to how they dress. I considered... what makes a woman successful in the business world? It was then, that I realized in business, if you're a woman, in order to "make it", you do generally have to "sell your soul", and be more masculine. Basically, in this male driven world of business, if women want to compete, you have to act like a man, dress and all. I realized this by considering how many women who hold high rank in business dress or act in a feminine manner. Not many from what I can see.

It was then, that I realized that the same problem that plagues men who express a more feminine side is the same problem that plagues women who express THEIR feminine side. I don't see a prejudice against women in the business world, so much as I see a prejudice against feminine. And this prejudice holds both men and women down a like. To put it simply, if you want to ride the gravy train, just act like a man.

At first I thought this was unfair and should be changed. It seemed to reek of gender discrimination for both sexes, but then, I also wonder... is this just simply a matter of natural selection? To be masculine is considered to be assertive, dominant, in control, and somewhat arrogant, a "winner take all" mentality. The feminine is considered the opposite, nurturing, caring, passive, share the wealth, working together towards a common goal. That said, is it even possible to be mostly feminine and yet compete in the business world when the notion of competition is considered a masculine characteristic? In a way, to be aggressively feminine almost seems like a contradiction in terms!

This notion plays onto a sentiment I've held for a while in regards to certain misandrist feminist out there... you know the ones, the very arrogant, dominant ones. It became clear to me that there is nothing "feminine" about those type of feminist. They are in essence, masculine women. So again, is it possible to be feminine and successful in the business world? Personally, I think the world could use a little more feminism in the economy. I feel it would be more caring, more fair, more compassionate. But that almost seems like a lone fish trying to survive in shark infested waters.

I'm reminded of something I read Carl write a long time ago, I can't remember the thread, and pardon me if I can't quote this directly, but it was something about the gentlemen of days gone by being more kind, understanding, compassionate, etc. Carl was pointing up that this was basically the hallmark of a true gentleman. Someone who has the strength to get the job done, but is kind enough not to walk all over people while he does it. When looking at it for what it is, I'm left to reason that a good man, or a gentleman is really a healthy balance of masculine and feminine characteristics. I'd wager that the same holds true for women.

Well... most of this has just been me thinking out loud. I'm not preaching gospel here, or making hard statements. I'd love to hear some of you all's thoughts on this. I'm not saying I'm right, just saying what I'm thinking. At this juncture, I have yet to give it a home in my brain as "the way it is". No, it's still quite fluid which is why I brought it up here.

[crfriend]

[...] I considered... what makes a woman successful in the business world? It was then, that I realized in business, if you're a woman, in order to "make it", you do generally have to "sell your soul", and be more masculine. Basically, in this male driven world of business, if women want to compete, you have to act like a man, dress and all. I realized this by considering how many women who hold high rank in business dress or act in a feminine manner. Not many from what I can see.

I would caution against using the business "world" of the United States as a proxy for anything really paralleling the real world. The modern business ethic (if you can call it that) where it's "dog eat dog", "winner take all", and "greed is good" isn't a reflection of what a healthy society -- or mind -- looks or functions like. If one looks at those high-up in Corporate America, one catches a glimpse of a deeply psychopathic world in which ethics have no place -- worse than "no place", but a place where you are at an absolute disadvantage if you exhibit even the slightest trace of ethical behaviour. A good use of the modern US style of doing business could well serve as a starting point to describe psychopathic behaviours and to hold up as an exemplar of where things are headed. This is not competition in the true sense of the word, it's domination at all costs: the absolute abandonment of human norms and behaviours to completely destroy and humiliate an "enemy". Everybody gets repelled when reading about the excesses of the "Robber Barons" in the late 19th Century, yet what goes on today would make even the worst of those blush, and many of the modern behaviours could get one locked up in an insane asylum.

I'm not saying that there will never be "winners" and "losers"; of course there will be. However, there are ways to run the game where even if one "side" does "win" and the other "loses" both can come out of it slightly ahead. This notion has been absolutely lost in (what passes for) modern society in the USA. The inevitable outcome of this is that if one doesn't behave like an animal one simply won't even be able to exist never-mind actually live. We are all poorer for it, including the "Alpha-dogs" at the top of the food chain; they just happen to enjoy the game of greed and destruction (thereby living up to the diagnosis of psychopaths).

This notion plays onto a sentiment I've held for a while in regards to certain misandrist feminist out there... you know the ones, the very arrogant, dominant ones. It became clear to me that there is nothing "feminine" about those type of feminist. They are in essence, masculine women.

I don't think so much that they're "masculine women" I think it's more of a case of misinterpreting what it means to be a man and mistakenly aping the very worst traits of men and adopting none of the good ones. What we wind up with in that case, is the worst of both sexes and the best of neither -- a wholly unhealthy situation. Contemplate the cattiness of women with the overt aggression of men with neither empathy or self-control as a mitigating force. It's not pretty, is it.

I'm reminded of something I read Carl write a long time ago, I can't remember the thread, and pardon me if I can't quote this directly, but it was something about the gentlemen of days gone by being more kind, understanding, compassionate, etc. Carl was pointing up that this was basically the hallmark of a true gentleman. Someone who has the strength to get the job done, but is kind enough not to walk all over people while he does it. When looking at it for what it is, I'm left to reason that a good man, or a gentleman is really a healthy balance of masculine and feminine characteristics. I'd wager that the same holds true for women.

I wrote that quite a while ago in defence of my thesis that the "box" of "allowed behaviours" for men is, indeed, shrinking -- and shrinking fast. Much of this, of course, is in a societal context, and since my lens is US-specific since that's where my life-experience is it may not apply elsewhere. Caveat lecteur. The normalisation of psychopathic behaviours, the normalisation of violence, and the decline in general standards of behaviour are symptomatic of something deeply pernicious and pervasive in this country. I tend to frame it in economic terms, since that approach has been the best I've found for predicting future events, but in order for the model to actually produce accurate results the notions of ethics, self-restraint, and empathy had to be absolutely excised from the formula. I detest the results, but they are astoundingly accurate -- and would tend to produce the sorts of types we have "at the top" now. Since throughout history, "little people" have tended to ape their superiors, we see that sort of behaviour now getting out into the general population -- mainly because it's been normalised by the elites and the business community.

In the midst of the mess with my ex- last year, what's left of my family "suggested" that I cut my hair and look a little more business-like. When I explained that I had no desire to ape the deeply-flawed, and likely mentally-ill, world of what passes for "respectability" today -- and backed it up with examples -- they grudgingly let go of the notion. As it all shook out, I came out of it with scratches, scrapes, and the odd dent, but mostly survived OK -- and retained my own individual identity.

The world doesn't need more "feminine men" or "masculine women": what it needs is to allow both sexes to be able to display the entire range of emotions, to behave in ethical manners, and to function as fully-fledged human beings, not caged animals. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[pelmut]

...The modern business ethic (if you can call it that) where it's "dog eat dog", "winner take all", and "greed is good" isn't a reflection of what a healthy society -- or mind -- looks or functions like. If one looks at those high-up in Corporate America, one catches a glimpse of a deeply psychopathic world in which ethics have no place -- worse than "no place", but a place where you are at an absolute disadvantage if you exhibit even the slightest trace of ethical behaviour. ...

It's not that modern: in the 1890s, "American business methods" were considered 'pushy' by English standards and the behaviour in the 1930s of a certain large American company has been described as "dealing with competitors as though it were stock-car racing".

[moonshadow]

...The modern business ethic (if you can call it that) where it's "dog eat dog", "winner take all", and "greed is good" isn't a reflection of what a healthy society -- or mind -- looks or functions like. If one looks at those high-up in Corporate America, one catches a glimpse of a deeply psychopathic world in which ethics have no place -- worse than "no place", but a place where you are at an absolute disadvantage if you exhibit even the slightest trace of ethical behaviour. ...

It's not that modern: in the 1890s, "American business methods" were considered 'pushy' by English standards and the behaviour in the 1930s of a certain large American company has been described as "dealing with competitors as though it were stock-car racing".

I've seen a lot of this when I worked for Hobart out of Roanoke. It was a locally owned business, highly competitive, always chasing a dollar. It's interesting that that mentality is what really started me down the "New Age" path. When I left Hobart because I had gotten burned out with all of the money worshiping, I decided to start my own business. I went around the region promoting Lunar Services, which I wanted to be a very ethical, straight forward, fair, and just cooking equipment repair business. I got a few customers, but not enough to really cut the safety net of stocking groceries where I currently work. The day I got my contractors license, was the day that every other repair business in the area seemed to take to the region trashing my name. I even refused to go after my former employers customers. I had a few of their customers, but they came to me, not the other way around.

Ultimately Carl, it was a dog eat dog business. Survival meant one thing and one thing only.... kill or be killed. I decided my soul wasn't for sale. Pulled the plug, and went full time where I work now taking the job in Abingdon as a in house deli and meat room repair man. Despite my fickle relationship with my current employer regarding my dress, I'm still happy to receive a paycheck every Thursday, not having to worry about the stresses that come with starting up a business. Which is good anyway. If I hadn't of, I would NOT be wearing skirts today, there is no way in hell I could have operated a cooking equipment and refrigeration business in this area while being seen in a skirt or dress in all the restaurants I was soliciting work in. I would have been a true slave to my gender role.

The skirts are worth it...

[crfriend]

It's not that modern: in the 1890s, "American business methods" were considered 'pushy' by English standards and the behaviour in the 1930s of a certain large American company has been described as "dealing with competitors as though it were stock-car racing".

I am given to understand that the US has always been considered a bit of a backwater when it comes to ethical an civilised behaviour, but I'm fascinated by the second component of your statement. Can you provide a citation for that so I might sate my curiosity? I didn't know the cancer of corporate psychopathy went back that far.

Hilariously,I coined the term "go-go banking" back in the 1980s in anticipation of a financial "panic" (to use the old term; the new one is either "recession" or the now-deprecated one, "depression") -- and it happened right on schedule, and down to the usual culprit, unsecured debt. It's clear that nobody on this side of the Atlantic has learnt a lick in 35 years. (Save for the fact that those who cause the panics always get bailled out by the taxpayers.)

[Kirbstone]

Here, since the Crash was caused by unscrupulous bankers, it has taken The State eight long years to put three such prominent bankers behind bars. Having done so, they've been given ludicrously short sentences....a couple or three years. And the taxpayers' bail-out is ongoing & affects everyone.

Tom.

[dillon]

Here, since the Crash was caused by unscrupulous bankers, it has taken The State eight long years to put three such prominent bankers behind bars. Having done so, they've been given ludicrously short sentences....a couple or three years. And the taxpayers' bail-out is ongoing & affects everyone.

Tom.

Consider your country lucky justice came at all. It has yet to happen here and apparently never will. With politicians protecting the financial institutions that caused the mess, no one has been held legally accountable.

[john62]

Recently I read a book about IBM in the 1920/1930s. The writers view was that Nazi Germany could not have done what they did without IBM eg when they invaded the Low Countries the Nazis's went to the town halls took all the IBM cards ran though their IBM machines and found where every Jew lived, the concentration camps needed the IBM machines to run and keep accurate figures. When the US cut trade ties with Germany, that division of IBM moved to Switzerland and continued trading until the end. Then the machines were needed to rebuild Europe. Of course other large companies from other countries did the same and still do.

John

[Tor]

Without reading the book in question, it sounds like a question of records existing, and perhaps how easily such records could be scanned and located. Short of evidence otherwise, I'd tend to expect that the captured town hall would have had the equipment needed to inspect the cards, obviating the need for Germany to buy the machines. Failing that, they could have employed some people practised at reading the cards visually (not impossible at all) or read hand written cards plucked from files, depending on which situation prevailed.

Perhaps if clerks had to write everything on a card by hand they would have kept less extensive records, but that is a question of how the capabilities of technology marching onward are used, not an indictment of the company that supplies the technology.

Sounds like an interesting book, but there are probably enough others on my list that it would take me a long time to get to it.

[john62]

However if the company did not provide the technology then history maybe different.

John