Letters to the Editor
happy chick
Published Letters: 31 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Purely Anecdotal
[Read the article: Unstable starlets and little-girl voices]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with the Stern Business School professor. I work in a large law firm, and recently I have been remarking how the young female associates talk like sorority girls (I am female). They also dress like it; we are "business casual" and while people don't show inappropriate amounts of flesh, they wear simple pants and sweaters that they could have worn to law school. There is nothing that marks them as professional or wanting to be taken seriously; no "power dressing" (which need not be frumpy and can be quite stylish and sexy). I'm not sure if it has to do with Gen Y's sense of entitlement that the office should be no different from their classroom and everything should come to them as passive receptacles of information, or whether it has to do with the bogus "opt-out revolution" and these women's lack of ambition for their careers. Frankly it is annoying because I want to say to them that they are making $165K a year and there are only 8 or 9 years of practice separating them from the newest partners; who do they think is going to step up and act like a grown-up lawyer in this firm and take responsibility for our clients if they don't? Some of them are very smart and show good skills so perhaps the gravitas and confidence will come with time. I do think part of it is men's natural confidence in the workplace and independence and women's desire to build consensus and please their authority figures. We need to encourage young women to see themselves as being the people in power in 5-10 years.
-
As long as she does the work
[Read the article: My new assistant laughs at everything I say]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just chalk it up to nerves. As we've seen recently, understanding office culture is not Cary's greatest strength, and he is off-base to think she can take your job. If the work is getting done, some of what you have to do is let go of your feelings of responsibility for her behavior. You are responsible for her results (to some extent since you hired her), but not for whether others like her. I think the suggestion of talking more quietly to set a tone is good. Another thing to do is laugh back gently and say "You are so FUNNY, why do you always laugh? You make me laugh but seriously I am not even joking, that is actually what I need you to do, stop it you're cracking me up". Not so facetiously as I've made it sound, but just in a way that says that you can understand friendliness and good humor but this still needs to get done. If you laugh with her and acknowledge her that way, she may feel less nervous and the laughing may (ironically) diminish. This is purely a sign of servility, as others have suggested, and best handled with compassion.
-
Totally offensive
[Read the article: Million-dollar babies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe I've lost track of where the author's disgust with the NPR report ends and disgust with its subjects begins, or where the latter ends and disgust with the concept of large families begins (and maybe the author did too). But somewhere amidst the shotgun spray of contempt, this piece veers into the offensive. Maybe these women don't spout the right reasons for having big families, or maybe NPR paints them as ditzes (is *that* your beef, Rebecca?) but I can't believe that of 11 comments no one has said that maybe kids are a joy. Maybe they just like it. I am the oldest of 7, and being married at 33 one month ago, I might not be able to have 4 kids, and maybe if I could, I couldn't afford to educate them. But if money were no object and health permitted, I would. I have even reached that agreement with my husband. Can we honestly not find something better to complain about than two consenting, ostensibly tax-paying adults choosing to channel their resources into having and raising children that they support on their own? I can't see how this is hurting anyone else. I normally don't jump onto the bandwagon of ripping Rebecca apart but this piece SERIOUSLY misfires. R, I thought you were better than this.
-
Some theology I learned
[Read the article: Spare the rod, spoil the wife]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a practicing Catholic (though not a perfect one)and I just got married in the Catholic Church. My fiance and I had to go through marriage preparation ("pre-Cana"). The priest who taught our class has 2 masters degrees in theology and he went painstakingly into scripture to show us what God intends marriage to be. He pointed out that in the scene after Adam and Eve bite the apple, God tells them how much worse their lives are going to be than before when they were in Eden. One thing he says to Eve is "[your husband] shall rule over you". The priest was at great pains to point out that this is a description of a FALLEN state of being, what the human condition is when we don't have redemption. It is a description, not a prescription (and it is true almost everywhere in the world that men dominate women to a greater or lesser degree). More importantly, as Christians, who believe that Christ came and redeemed us, we should no longer be in that fallen state. He pointed us to the book of Hosea where God foreshadows the time after redemption/reconciliation and the wife (paraphrasing) "no longer shall call her husband master, but shall call him husband". Theologically, this priest explained, Christians should be living as though God's kingdom had come and should be a living example of it. So, husbands and wives should be completely equal partners.
I thought this was brilliant and a great answer to these CDD types (not that I knew such a thing existed until now; scary!).