Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
Never even thought about it until in an interview...
[Read the article: The great pantsuit debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why am I not surprised at all about this article being in the WSJ?
Ok, so disclosure -- I'm one of those proverbial 'young-uns' (at least, at 25, I THINK I still am...)
A few years ago I went to an interview with a recruitment agency for a temp-job at a big investment bank. I wore black pants and a tailored black suit jacket. This was pretty much the only thing resembling a proper matching suit I owned. During the interview I asked some sort of question about how formal the office was (I assumed formal, since hey, investment bank, right?) and the interviewer assured me that 'Oh they're not too formal. You'd be fine in a pants-suit instead of a skirt'. Before then, it had never occurred to me that pants were somehow less business formal than a skirt. Never. I still don't quite understand to be honest.
I asked an older woman acquaintance of mine about this, and she explained that skirts were more formal than pants, and that "You wouldn't go to a wedding in pants". Which I agree with -- I wouldn't go to a wedding in pants. I also wouldn’t wear a business suit to a wedding either though. I'd probably wear a nice dress, which in turn I would never wear to an interview...
So yeah. I guess if you're from the days where women in an office were usually there to answer the phone and make coffee, and you could smoke in your office, then maybe you can't quite get used to ladies wearing a nice matching pants/jacket ensemble. I can only hope those sorts of people are on their way to retirement, and I'll only have to worry about their pants-hatred in places like the golf-course and in line at the supermarket at 11 am Tuesday morning.
I think women (and men) should look nice and well put-together at work. That doesn't mean pants suits are less formal than a skirt-suit. A nice suite and good look shouldn't say 'I don't care', and if anything a pants-suit to the interview is a safer bet, since you don't have to worry about things like runs in your pantyhose 2 min before your interview.
-
Personally couldn't agree more
[Read the article: Roe, 35 years later]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I personally couldn't agree more with many of the sentiments expressed by the women in this article.
I don't know if I would ever have an abortion, and probably would never have a late-term abortion, but unlike many, I respect the choices of others.
I also see how the so called 'pro-life' movement is a contradiction of itself in their treatment of young/poor women who actually have their baby, and their opposition to safe and effective means of contraception.
I'm pro-choice but want there to be fewer abortions. I think the best way to achieve that is to:
* teach kids about effective safe contraception;
* make contraception readily available and inexpensive, to all people of all ages and classes;
* educate people about pregnancy and childcare;
* provide economic help to single mothers, poor families, and young families so that they feel they can afford to have children;
* stop stigmatising teenagers and poor people who 'get themselves knocked up';
* provide free healthcare to all children under 18 and to pregnant women;
* create a society where grandparents and other relatives are able to, and want to help care for the younger generation;
* provide high-level free education and childcare for children from all backgrounds, especially poorer ones.
Now, how many of the above do you see the 'pro-life' movement supporting?
If you want to stop so many abortions, women need to be able to feel that they will be able to care for their children, or that it will be the right time. They also need to have access to contraception so they don't get pregnant in the first place.
All I see is the right-wing trying to chip away at these ideas (free healthcare, help for the poor, access/education about contraception), which leads me to believe that they don't actually give a damn about stopping the 'foetal genocide', and rather care more about restricting women's rights.
-
did anyone siding with the kid actually read that transcript?
[Read the article: Virginia schools' Web scandalette: "Get over it, kid!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So... whats the big deal again?
A teenager decides that 3 inches of snow means he should have a day off (lol at that one, I grew up in CT where 3 inches would NEVER mean a snow day. Less than 6 inches and crying for a snow day? Grow some balls, young man!), so he decides to call a school administrator at his home before 6.30am.
Now, I don't care if the Dean is a 'public servant', no one should be called at their home (I presume said Dean has an office number he can be reached at during appropriate office hours) before 7 am! Its completely rude, and good on the wife for pointing it out!
I can only imagine if one of my customers went and found my personal phone number (which, ZOMG, is listed in the whitepages) and called me at 6.30am to ask me about one of my products. I'd think 'WTF is this person doing calling me at 6.30am... AT HOME?'
From what I've seen the wife has had enough of school crap interfering with her husbands personal life, and she got a bit pissed off. Totally understandable! She didn't swear at the kid, or call him any names. OMG she called some theoretical kids 'snot-nosed brats'.
So what does this kid do? Goes and shows the world what a snot-nosed brat he is. I think shes right, spend a bit more time in school and a bit less time harassing people before the ass-crack of dawn, and you might go somewhere.
For the record I'm 25 and think the kid's a moron. If he called my house at 6.30am I would've said something a lot more nasty than that lady did. Someone should publish HIS private phone number on the internets and see how he likes it.
What a dumbass.