Saturday, January 21, 2006
Frenzied
That's me in one word; on top of everything else that's going on, I've had a series of visitors, and have been trying to keep the house clean in between them... and it turns out that it simply can't be done. My husband makes so much mess so fast that it's literally impossible for me to clean all of it up and still do the other things I need to; he's been making what for him is an extraordinary effort to pick up after himself, for which I'm grateful, but despite that my constant efforts are analogous to shoveling the walk while it's still snowing... an exercise in futility. It might be over tomorrow, since the last scheduled visitor, my mother, is coming then; the highest level of cleaning is necessary for her, but we'll be able to breath a sigh of relief and let things go after that... unless this couple we owe an evening of hanging out at our place to comes here soon, that is, sigh.
An update on my mother; all her tests came back negative, including the one on the lymph node biopsy, which means that, although her breast cancer is still considered stage 3 due to its size (5.5 cm and still growing), it has NOT spread to anywhere else in her body-good news at last. She's having a port put in on 2-1, and the 1st dose of chemo gets put into it on 2-6. They hope to shrink the tumor enough to be able to do a lumpectomy rather than more invasive surgery; they've even said that it might eradicate the tumor completely, although since it's been so fast-growing (she's got the kind of breast cancer young women normally get, which is why it's so aggressive) that doesn't seem too likely to me. I got her some little "get well" gifts; maybe she won't shove them in a drawer and forget about them like she does with most things she's given.
Here's an important health-related tidbit:
"Men with hernias but little or no pain can safely go without surgery unless things really start to hurt, a study found. 'Not every hernia needs to be fixed,' said Dr. Olga Jonasson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, co-author of the study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
U.S. surgeons fix more than 600,000 hernias a year, making it one of the most common procedures. The study offers guidance to doctors on whether it is OK to leave a pain-free hernia untreated.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. David Flum of the University of Washington's surgery department said hernia surgery for patients without pain may soon disappear, just as preventive tonsillectomies have done."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F75BQ03.html
As I've said in the past, alot of unnecessary surgery's being done in this country; Western medicine is devoted to curing problems by cutting things out... and that's how surgeons make their $, so their tendency is to push for it on any pretense. If you or a loved one supposedly needs surgery of ANY kind, do some research and make sure there aren't other options, such as less extreme surgery, non-surgical treatment, or leaving the problem be.
I found this fascinating:
"The scientists scanned the brains of 16 men and 16 women after the volunteers played a game with what they thought were other volunteers, but who in fact were actors. The actors either played the game fairly or obviously cheated.
During the brain scans, each volunteer watched as the hands of a 'fair' player and a cheater received a mild electrical shock. When it came to the fair-player, both men's and women's brains showed activation in pain-related areas, indicating that they empathized with that player's pain.
But for the cheater, while the women's brains still showed a response, men's brains showed virtually no specific reaction. Also, in another brain area associated with feelings of reward, men's brains showed a greater average response to the cheater's shock than to the fair player's shock, while women's brains did not.
A questionnaire revealed that the men expressed a stronger desire than women did for revenge against the cheater. The more a man said he wanted revenge, the higher his jump in the brain's reward area when the cheater got a shock. No such correlation showed up in women."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7B6LO0.html
There are all the usual reasons to expect women to feel greater empathy than men; women need it because they're the child-bearers, caretakers, etc... and don't think I'm patting my gender on the back when I say that, because I don't find it laudatory that women apparently don't like to see wrong-doers get their well-deserved reward. You probably weren't surprised that women showed more empathy over all, but did you expect men, and only men, to feel good that the cheaters got zapped? I'D be cheering on the zappers, myself, telling them to zap harder, to shock the cheaters right off their chairs... yet another of the many ways that my brain works like a man's instead of like a woman's. It gets better; my husband thinks he'd feel empathy for the cheaters, as the women did... total gender role reversal, and also indicative of his personal moral shakiness.
Something my husband and I feel the SAME about is Japanese animation genius Hayao Miyazaki, who I wrote about on 1-13; in addition to the movies I mentioned then, we've now seen:
"My Neighbor Totoro"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=106111&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
"Porco Rosso"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?channel=Movies&subChannel=sub&movieID=132006&displayBoxArt=true#Full
"Spirited Away"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=128274&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
and "Whisper of the Heart" (for which he did the screenplay but didn't direct)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113824/
and we both loved every one of them. It's belatedly occurred to us that this is ANIME, and thus getting sucked into it represents a higher level of geekdom for both of us; we'll go higher still once we start getting the t-shirts. You don't have to be a geek to love these movies, though; they're all spectacular, and kid-safe, so rent them and give yourself and your family a treat.
Hopefully, Sunday will be a day of rest, and I'll have a more cohesive post in a couple of days; the ideas are there, it's just finding the time to write 3-hour essays that's lacking. I'm getting caught up with my tasks and my sleep, although not on the same days, as you might imagine; I'm still devoted to blogging, so hang in there, more rants are on the horizon.
An update on my mother; all her tests came back negative, including the one on the lymph node biopsy, which means that, although her breast cancer is still considered stage 3 due to its size (5.5 cm and still growing), it has NOT spread to anywhere else in her body-good news at last. She's having a port put in on 2-1, and the 1st dose of chemo gets put into it on 2-6. They hope to shrink the tumor enough to be able to do a lumpectomy rather than more invasive surgery; they've even said that it might eradicate the tumor completely, although since it's been so fast-growing (she's got the kind of breast cancer young women normally get, which is why it's so aggressive) that doesn't seem too likely to me. I got her some little "get well" gifts; maybe she won't shove them in a drawer and forget about them like she does with most things she's given.
Here's an important health-related tidbit:
"Men with hernias but little or no pain can safely go without surgery unless things really start to hurt, a study found. 'Not every hernia needs to be fixed,' said Dr. Olga Jonasson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, co-author of the study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
U.S. surgeons fix more than 600,000 hernias a year, making it one of the most common procedures. The study offers guidance to doctors on whether it is OK to leave a pain-free hernia untreated.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. David Flum of the University of Washington's surgery department said hernia surgery for patients without pain may soon disappear, just as preventive tonsillectomies have done."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F75BQ03.html
As I've said in the past, alot of unnecessary surgery's being done in this country; Western medicine is devoted to curing problems by cutting things out... and that's how surgeons make their $, so their tendency is to push for it on any pretense. If you or a loved one supposedly needs surgery of ANY kind, do some research and make sure there aren't other options, such as less extreme surgery, non-surgical treatment, or leaving the problem be.
I found this fascinating:
"The scientists scanned the brains of 16 men and 16 women after the volunteers played a game with what they thought were other volunteers, but who in fact were actors. The actors either played the game fairly or obviously cheated.
During the brain scans, each volunteer watched as the hands of a 'fair' player and a cheater received a mild electrical shock. When it came to the fair-player, both men's and women's brains showed activation in pain-related areas, indicating that they empathized with that player's pain.
But for the cheater, while the women's brains still showed a response, men's brains showed virtually no specific reaction. Also, in another brain area associated with feelings of reward, men's brains showed a greater average response to the cheater's shock than to the fair player's shock, while women's brains did not.
A questionnaire revealed that the men expressed a stronger desire than women did for revenge against the cheater. The more a man said he wanted revenge, the higher his jump in the brain's reward area when the cheater got a shock. No such correlation showed up in women."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7B6LO0.html
There are all the usual reasons to expect women to feel greater empathy than men; women need it because they're the child-bearers, caretakers, etc... and don't think I'm patting my gender on the back when I say that, because I don't find it laudatory that women apparently don't like to see wrong-doers get their well-deserved reward. You probably weren't surprised that women showed more empathy over all, but did you expect men, and only men, to feel good that the cheaters got zapped? I'D be cheering on the zappers, myself, telling them to zap harder, to shock the cheaters right off their chairs... yet another of the many ways that my brain works like a man's instead of like a woman's. It gets better; my husband thinks he'd feel empathy for the cheaters, as the women did... total gender role reversal, and also indicative of his personal moral shakiness.
Something my husband and I feel the SAME about is Japanese animation genius Hayao Miyazaki, who I wrote about on 1-13; in addition to the movies I mentioned then, we've now seen:
"My Neighbor Totoro"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=106111&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
"Porco Rosso"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?channel=Movies&subChannel=sub&movieID=132006&displayBoxArt=true#Full
"Spirited Away"
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=128274&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
and "Whisper of the Heart" (for which he did the screenplay but didn't direct)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113824/
and we both loved every one of them. It's belatedly occurred to us that this is ANIME, and thus getting sucked into it represents a higher level of geekdom for both of us; we'll go higher still once we start getting the t-shirts. You don't have to be a geek to love these movies, though; they're all spectacular, and kid-safe, so rent them and give yourself and your family a treat.
Hopefully, Sunday will be a day of rest, and I'll have a more cohesive post in a couple of days; the ideas are there, it's just finding the time to write 3-hour essays that's lacking. I'm getting caught up with my tasks and my sleep, although not on the same days, as you might imagine; I'm still devoted to blogging, so hang in there, more rants are on the horizon.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
A few animal stories
First off, the possum report: Our littlest male showed up after a several-day absence with the fur missing from one side of his neck and chest, and the foreleg and ribs on that side; there were only a couple of little dots that might have been breaks in the skin, so he wasn't actually injured, but having had all that fur ripped out must have been AWFUL. He was also utterly filthy, although possums are normally very fastidious animals, washing their faces constantly, plus he wobbled a little when he walked, so my guess was that he'd had a very recent fight and was still disoriented. He ate a fair amount of food, wandered off... and a few minutes later, my husband called out from the kitchen that there was a commotion on the patio cover, so I put 2 and 2 together and sprinted for the door, knowing that there must be further fighting going on. When I got outside, I could hear them thrashing and "barking" in the foliage, and yelled "STOP THAT!! Bad possums!! Bad!! You stop that fighting!!"; silence fell, there was a rustling of leaves, and the little possum's head poked out and swung around to face me... and yes, he was looking right at me. He stayed there with his head out, but the other possum could be heard stomping around; when he tried another bark, I scolded "Be quiet, you bad, bad boy!!"... and HIS little head appeared through the branches, and he looked inquisitively at me. "You behave," I told him, and, after another minute or so of watching me, he quietly moved away; when he appeared at the feeding area a few minutes later, the wound on the side of his head looked red and wet, which tells me that it probably re-opened while he was fighting.
Mating season isn't for several months; what happens when the little female goes into heat, and the males realize they have something more than the unlimited supply of food on my patio to fight for?
On a lighter note; do you ever wonder why you're always hearing about dogs saving people from burning buildings, but never hear of cats doing so, even though there are more cats than dogs being kept as pets in this country? The reason, of course, is that to dogs people are family, people are virtual gods, and because they're loyal and loving creatures they of course do their best to rescue their humans... while to cats, humans are litterbox-cleaners and food-servers, and when disaster strikes they save themselves and then sit at a safe distance laughing, or, if it looks like the people might escape, they run back and tangle around their feet and trip them up, and laugh as they flee back to safety. There's one cat, however, that's an amazing exception to this dynamic:
"MANCHESTER, Pa. (AP) - A cat interrupted a catnap, possibly saving two lives. Jean Poole and her 9-month-old granddaughter were dozing Tuesday in Poole's home in the Newberry Estates mobile home park. Poole's 7-year-old cat, Princess, woke them up, meowing loudly.
Poole got up, smelled smoke and heard crackling flames. She went to check the wood burning stove in the living room, and saw flames at the picture window. With fire blocking the front door, Poole grabbed the baby and went out the rear door. Then she returned to get Princess.
'She woke me up. I don't know if I'd have smelled the smoke otherwise,' Poole said."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7BCC82.html
While it's unclear to me whether that cat was trying to save or BE saved, the people would almost certainly have succumbed to smoke inhalation and/or been burned alive without her intervention, so I'd say that Princess should get the credit for a save.
I found an even MORE astonishing animal story today:
"TOKYO (AP) - Gohan and Aochan make strange bedfellows: one's a 3.5-inch dwarf hamster; the other is a four-foot rat snake. Zookeepers at Tokyo's Mutsugoro Okoku zoo presented the hamster - whose name means 'meal' in Japanese - to Aochan as a tasty morsel in October, after the snake refused to eat frozen mice.
But instead of indulging, Aochan decided to make friends with the furry rodent, according to keeper Kazuya Yamamoto. The pair have shared a cage since.
'I've never seen anything like it. Gohan sometimes even climbs onto Aochan to take a nap on his back,' Yamamoto said.
Aochan, a 2-year-old male Japanese rat snake, eventually developed an appetite for frozen rodents but has so far shown no signs of gobbling up Gohan - despite her name.
'We named her Gohan as a joke,' Yamamoto chuckled. 'But I don't think there's any danger. Aochan seems to enjoy Gohan's company very much.'"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7AO08F.html
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! Seeing is believing; here's a pic of them together in their box:
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20060118/JAPAN_HAMSTER_AND_SNAKE.sff_TOK301_20060118045630.html?date=20060118&docid=D8F7AO08F
Could this be more than friendship? This is a male and a female, so... could it be love? It seems crazy, but so is a starving snake's refusal to eat a plump rodent, and its permitting said rodent to SLEEP on it, so...
It's nice to know that little miracles like these happen in the world, isn't it?
Mating season isn't for several months; what happens when the little female goes into heat, and the males realize they have something more than the unlimited supply of food on my patio to fight for?
On a lighter note; do you ever wonder why you're always hearing about dogs saving people from burning buildings, but never hear of cats doing so, even though there are more cats than dogs being kept as pets in this country? The reason, of course, is that to dogs people are family, people are virtual gods, and because they're loyal and loving creatures they of course do their best to rescue their humans... while to cats, humans are litterbox-cleaners and food-servers, and when disaster strikes they save themselves and then sit at a safe distance laughing, or, if it looks like the people might escape, they run back and tangle around their feet and trip them up, and laugh as they flee back to safety. There's one cat, however, that's an amazing exception to this dynamic:
"MANCHESTER, Pa. (AP) - A cat interrupted a catnap, possibly saving two lives. Jean Poole and her 9-month-old granddaughter were dozing Tuesday in Poole's home in the Newberry Estates mobile home park. Poole's 7-year-old cat, Princess, woke them up, meowing loudly.
Poole got up, smelled smoke and heard crackling flames. She went to check the wood burning stove in the living room, and saw flames at the picture window. With fire blocking the front door, Poole grabbed the baby and went out the rear door. Then she returned to get Princess.
'She woke me up. I don't know if I'd have smelled the smoke otherwise,' Poole said."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7BCC82.html
While it's unclear to me whether that cat was trying to save or BE saved, the people would almost certainly have succumbed to smoke inhalation and/or been burned alive without her intervention, so I'd say that Princess should get the credit for a save.
I found an even MORE astonishing animal story today:
"TOKYO (AP) - Gohan and Aochan make strange bedfellows: one's a 3.5-inch dwarf hamster; the other is a four-foot rat snake. Zookeepers at Tokyo's Mutsugoro Okoku zoo presented the hamster - whose name means 'meal' in Japanese - to Aochan as a tasty morsel in October, after the snake refused to eat frozen mice.
But instead of indulging, Aochan decided to make friends with the furry rodent, according to keeper Kazuya Yamamoto. The pair have shared a cage since.
'I've never seen anything like it. Gohan sometimes even climbs onto Aochan to take a nap on his back,' Yamamoto said.
Aochan, a 2-year-old male Japanese rat snake, eventually developed an appetite for frozen rodents but has so far shown no signs of gobbling up Gohan - despite her name.
'We named her Gohan as a joke,' Yamamoto chuckled. 'But I don't think there's any danger. Aochan seems to enjoy Gohan's company very much.'"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060118/D8F7AO08F.html
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! Seeing is believing; here's a pic of them together in their box:
http://apnews.myway.com/image/20060118/JAPAN_HAMSTER_AND_SNAKE.sff_TOK301_20060118045630.html?date=20060118&docid=D8F7AO08F
Could this be more than friendship? This is a male and a female, so... could it be love? It seems crazy, but so is a starving snake's refusal to eat a plump rodent, and its permitting said rodent to SLEEP on it, so...
It's nice to know that little miracles like these happen in the world, isn't it?
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Here's an idea; show some sense at work
For 2 decades or so, the alleged experts in work psychology have been telling us that the way to get ahead is that, when our boss notices something good we've done, we should switch their attention to what our co-workers did, that we should LIE and claim that our co-workers deserve part of the credit even if they don't, and, if something goes wrong, we should take the full blame; they called this insanity "being a team player"... but *I* always called it "making your employer think you're a far less valuable employee than you really are."
Guess who's been proven right?
In a little blurb on page 184 of the January 2006 issue of Cosmo, it says; "A study found that employees who describe themselves as team players were the least likely to be promoted-probably because they put the needs of others before their own career goals." I'm sure that's part of it too, but giving your boss the impression that you're never more than partially responsible for anything good, and are always fully responsible for anything bad, still gets my vote as the primary cause.
The so-called experts have made a repeated issue of how employers want to hire team players, but they misunderstood what employers meant by that; they want people who can act effectively as part of a group, yes, and they love the fantasy that you'll put the best interests of the team, and thus the company, ahead of your own, but no sane person actually expects or wants you to LIE about what part you played in whatever happens at the office, or to lose your opportunities to tell your boss about what you've produced by singing the praises of other people instead... so remember that your salary is tied to what YOU accomplish, NOT what the team accomplishes, and act accordingly.
A tangential issue is; in general women are more likely to be willing to hide their lights under bushels to be part of a team, whereas men, although trained from earliest boyhood to be part of teams, will ALSO try to be seen as the star players. The cold hard truth is that traditional male behavior in the workplace is still seen as the standard for correctness, for professionalism, and for being management material, so any ladies out there who are still following their childhood programming to be non-threatening and "let the boy win" need to do a 180 and start acting more like men in the office.
Another dead-wrong piece of advice I've seen many times is for women to use their attractiveness (in addition to their skills) to influence people and get ahead in the workplace; we're all aware that hot babes who sleep with the boss can leapfrog over more deserving folks to get the goodies, but it turns out that aside from that special case it's a BAD idea to flirt:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-08-04-sex-usat_x.htm
"Study says flirtatious women get fewer raises, promotions
By Del Jones, USA TODAY
Women who send flirtatious e-mail, wear short skirts or massage a man's shoulders at work win fewer pay raises and promotions, according to a Tulane University study to be presented Monday at the Academy of Management annual meeting in Honolulu.
In the first study to make plain the negative consequences of such behavior, 49% of 164 female MBA graduates said in a survey that they have tried to advance in their careers by sometimes engaging in at least one of 10 sexual behaviors, including crossing their legs provocatively or leaning over a table to let men look down their shirts.
The other half said they never engaged in such activity, and those women have earned an average of three promotions, vs. two for the group that had employed sexuality. Those who said they never used sexuality were, on average, in the $75,000-$100,000 income range; the others fell, on average, in the next-lowest range, $50,000 to $75,000.
The women in the study ranged in age from their mid-20s to 60. The average woman was 43 and had received an MBA 12 years ago."
Here's the list of "sexual behaviors" they were asked about:
I wear a skirt or something more revealing than usual around clients or supervisors to get attention.
I flirt with people at work.
I draw attention to my legs by crossing them provocatively when in meetings or sitting with a group of men at work.
I hint or imply that I am attracted to a man (men) at work even if I am not.
I purposely let men sneak a look down my shirt when I lean over a table.
I massage a man's shoulders or back while at work.
I sent flirty or risque e-mails to male co-workers.
I tell male co-workers or clients they look sexy or 'hot.'
I allow men to linger at certain places of my body while hugging them.
I emphasize my sexuality while at work by the way I dress, speak, and act.
I cringe to contemplate what % of women that are younger and/or not MBA's do these things... and how much success it's costing them.
From that same article comes a prime example of how even a wildly successful businessman can have no clue as to how to advise women about workplace behavior:
"... Donald Trump, who has advised women to 'use those God-given assets' and be sexy, at least to a point."
Using sexuality as a "tool" in the workplace is just plain unprofessional. Why? Men don't do it. Can you imagine a MAN wearing a sexy outfit to work to try to get a female manager to give him special treatment, or even trying to flirt his way into being given the best assignments? The traditional workplace was overwhelmingly male, remember, and since a man's boss was always another man, it'd never have occurred to a male employee that doing anything "sexy" at the office could have ever been anything but a disaster. Nowadays, there are lots of female managers, but men still do NOT (as a rule) try to use their sexuality to get ahead; they expect their skills, hard work, and networking ability to get them what they want. Since flirtatious behavior has no place in the office anyways, as work and social time are very different things, this is one old-time rule that should remain unchanged... and that means where clothes are concerned, too, ladies.
The point of a suit is to cover, conceal and totally de-sexualize your entire anatomy; why else would men be going to work all these years looking like gray or navy rectangles? A man's suit is baggy and structured so as to not reveal any of the contours of his body, and the kind of shirt he's required to wear ensures that all of his skin is covered except his face, hands and part of his throat; any more skin visible than that, or anything that shows the shape of the body, is unprofessional. The only exception is the skirt, which, although it shows the woman's legs, is counter-intuitively seen as more conservative than wearing pants as the men do; however, the skirt must NOT be short, tight, sheer, lacy, or in any other way confused with a non-work skirt, and bare legs are absolutely NOT acceptable. Plenty of women manage to wear appropriate skirts, but forget that sleeveless shirts and necklines that dip lower than the throat, which show more skin than a man ever does, are NOT professional; many of the colors and prints that women wear but men do NOT are likewise unprofessional... like it or not, what women wore to the office in the 70's, which was essentially a skirted version of the male work outfit with a bow on the throat-hugging shirt replacing the tie, is still the only truly professional thing a woman can wear to work (minus the bow, in most parts of the country), just as the male version is the only professional thing a MAN can wear to work.
It never ceases to amaze me how women who go to work in the same sorts of outfits they'd wear to parties or clubs, with their cleavage showing, miniskirts, stiletto heels, animal prints, flashy jewelry etc, will then whine about how they're not being taken seriously... is the cause and effect so hard to see here? Yeah, I know, it's not fun to wear plain, severe, neutral clothing every day; MEN don't like it either, but THEY do it, and without complaint, even though they're stuck with ties and really ugly shoes, so just suck it up and dress to be seen as equal in professionalism as the men... or accept that your fashion choices are sabotaging your success.
And finally, there's my biggest pet peeve for the workplace; crying. It seems crazy to even have to bring this up, but it is absolutely, positively, NOT OK to boo-hoo at the office, EVER. Have you ever seen a MAN cry at work? No. Why? Because it's unprofessional, childish, and guaranteed to make your co-workers, not to mention your boss, see you as weak, immature, pitiful, and unable to cope with life. I've had to hammer a friend of mine about this, because she'll start wah-wah-ing at the drop of a hat, and it's gotten her sent to talk to personnel, but she still claims there's nothing wrong with it... and in the same breath, wonders why she's being passed over for promotions, of course. Her argument is that it's ok because it's a "natural function"; my reply is that a bowel movement is a natural function too, but you shouldn't do THAT in the middle of the frigging office either. She'll say "Yeah, you're right," but a week later I'll hear about some other trivial thing she was crying about in full view of her co-workers; I've tried to persuade her to at least run to the bathroom before breaking down, so as not to make a public spectacle of herself, but she hasn't managed that one either, sigh.
The workplace is a society in miniature, and, exactly as with any other society, there are unwritten rules about every aspect of each member's behavior, and strategies that'll get you what you want (within reason); if you use some common sense to figure out what the rules and strategies are, that gives you an edge over everyone else... and isn't that the quickest way to achieve success?
Guess who's been proven right?
In a little blurb on page 184 of the January 2006 issue of Cosmo, it says; "A study found that employees who describe themselves as team players were the least likely to be promoted-probably because they put the needs of others before their own career goals." I'm sure that's part of it too, but giving your boss the impression that you're never more than partially responsible for anything good, and are always fully responsible for anything bad, still gets my vote as the primary cause.
The so-called experts have made a repeated issue of how employers want to hire team players, but they misunderstood what employers meant by that; they want people who can act effectively as part of a group, yes, and they love the fantasy that you'll put the best interests of the team, and thus the company, ahead of your own, but no sane person actually expects or wants you to LIE about what part you played in whatever happens at the office, or to lose your opportunities to tell your boss about what you've produced by singing the praises of other people instead... so remember that your salary is tied to what YOU accomplish, NOT what the team accomplishes, and act accordingly.
A tangential issue is; in general women are more likely to be willing to hide their lights under bushels to be part of a team, whereas men, although trained from earliest boyhood to be part of teams, will ALSO try to be seen as the star players. The cold hard truth is that traditional male behavior in the workplace is still seen as the standard for correctness, for professionalism, and for being management material, so any ladies out there who are still following their childhood programming to be non-threatening and "let the boy win" need to do a 180 and start acting more like men in the office.
Another dead-wrong piece of advice I've seen many times is for women to use their attractiveness (in addition to their skills) to influence people and get ahead in the workplace; we're all aware that hot babes who sleep with the boss can leapfrog over more deserving folks to get the goodies, but it turns out that aside from that special case it's a BAD idea to flirt:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-08-04-sex-usat_x.htm
"Study says flirtatious women get fewer raises, promotions
By Del Jones, USA TODAY
Women who send flirtatious e-mail, wear short skirts or massage a man's shoulders at work win fewer pay raises and promotions, according to a Tulane University study to be presented Monday at the Academy of Management annual meeting in Honolulu.
In the first study to make plain the negative consequences of such behavior, 49% of 164 female MBA graduates said in a survey that they have tried to advance in their careers by sometimes engaging in at least one of 10 sexual behaviors, including crossing their legs provocatively or leaning over a table to let men look down their shirts.
The other half said they never engaged in such activity, and those women have earned an average of three promotions, vs. two for the group that had employed sexuality. Those who said they never used sexuality were, on average, in the $75,000-$100,000 income range; the others fell, on average, in the next-lowest range, $50,000 to $75,000.
The women in the study ranged in age from their mid-20s to 60. The average woman was 43 and had received an MBA 12 years ago."
Here's the list of "sexual behaviors" they were asked about:
I wear a skirt or something more revealing than usual around clients or supervisors to get attention.
I flirt with people at work.
I draw attention to my legs by crossing them provocatively when in meetings or sitting with a group of men at work.
I hint or imply that I am attracted to a man (men) at work even if I am not.
I purposely let men sneak a look down my shirt when I lean over a table.
I massage a man's shoulders or back while at work.
I sent flirty or risque e-mails to male co-workers.
I tell male co-workers or clients they look sexy or 'hot.'
I allow men to linger at certain places of my body while hugging them.
I emphasize my sexuality while at work by the way I dress, speak, and act.
I cringe to contemplate what % of women that are younger and/or not MBA's do these things... and how much success it's costing them.
From that same article comes a prime example of how even a wildly successful businessman can have no clue as to how to advise women about workplace behavior:
"... Donald Trump, who has advised women to 'use those God-given assets' and be sexy, at least to a point."
Using sexuality as a "tool" in the workplace is just plain unprofessional. Why? Men don't do it. Can you imagine a MAN wearing a sexy outfit to work to try to get a female manager to give him special treatment, or even trying to flirt his way into being given the best assignments? The traditional workplace was overwhelmingly male, remember, and since a man's boss was always another man, it'd never have occurred to a male employee that doing anything "sexy" at the office could have ever been anything but a disaster. Nowadays, there are lots of female managers, but men still do NOT (as a rule) try to use their sexuality to get ahead; they expect their skills, hard work, and networking ability to get them what they want. Since flirtatious behavior has no place in the office anyways, as work and social time are very different things, this is one old-time rule that should remain unchanged... and that means where clothes are concerned, too, ladies.
The point of a suit is to cover, conceal and totally de-sexualize your entire anatomy; why else would men be going to work all these years looking like gray or navy rectangles? A man's suit is baggy and structured so as to not reveal any of the contours of his body, and the kind of shirt he's required to wear ensures that all of his skin is covered except his face, hands and part of his throat; any more skin visible than that, or anything that shows the shape of the body, is unprofessional. The only exception is the skirt, which, although it shows the woman's legs, is counter-intuitively seen as more conservative than wearing pants as the men do; however, the skirt must NOT be short, tight, sheer, lacy, or in any other way confused with a non-work skirt, and bare legs are absolutely NOT acceptable. Plenty of women manage to wear appropriate skirts, but forget that sleeveless shirts and necklines that dip lower than the throat, which show more skin than a man ever does, are NOT professional; many of the colors and prints that women wear but men do NOT are likewise unprofessional... like it or not, what women wore to the office in the 70's, which was essentially a skirted version of the male work outfit with a bow on the throat-hugging shirt replacing the tie, is still the only truly professional thing a woman can wear to work (minus the bow, in most parts of the country), just as the male version is the only professional thing a MAN can wear to work.
It never ceases to amaze me how women who go to work in the same sorts of outfits they'd wear to parties or clubs, with their cleavage showing, miniskirts, stiletto heels, animal prints, flashy jewelry etc, will then whine about how they're not being taken seriously... is the cause and effect so hard to see here? Yeah, I know, it's not fun to wear plain, severe, neutral clothing every day; MEN don't like it either, but THEY do it, and without complaint, even though they're stuck with ties and really ugly shoes, so just suck it up and dress to be seen as equal in professionalism as the men... or accept that your fashion choices are sabotaging your success.
And finally, there's my biggest pet peeve for the workplace; crying. It seems crazy to even have to bring this up, but it is absolutely, positively, NOT OK to boo-hoo at the office, EVER. Have you ever seen a MAN cry at work? No. Why? Because it's unprofessional, childish, and guaranteed to make your co-workers, not to mention your boss, see you as weak, immature, pitiful, and unable to cope with life. I've had to hammer a friend of mine about this, because she'll start wah-wah-ing at the drop of a hat, and it's gotten her sent to talk to personnel, but she still claims there's nothing wrong with it... and in the same breath, wonders why she's being passed over for promotions, of course. Her argument is that it's ok because it's a "natural function"; my reply is that a bowel movement is a natural function too, but you shouldn't do THAT in the middle of the frigging office either. She'll say "Yeah, you're right," but a week later I'll hear about some other trivial thing she was crying about in full view of her co-workers; I've tried to persuade her to at least run to the bathroom before breaking down, so as not to make a public spectacle of herself, but she hasn't managed that one either, sigh.
The workplace is a society in miniature, and, exactly as with any other society, there are unwritten rules about every aspect of each member's behavior, and strategies that'll get you what you want (within reason); if you use some common sense to figure out what the rules and strategies are, that gives you an edge over everyone else... and isn't that the quickest way to achieve success?
Sunday, January 15, 2006
What is WRONG with people?!!
Do you remember the sites run by folks who claimed they'd kill their bunnies if they didn't get certain sums of $ donated to them? They'd have cute bunny pics, and sick pics like the bunny on a cutting board or in a cooking pot, rabbit recipes and even pics of butchered and cooked rabbits (GAG), and they supposedly actually got some $ until PayPal closed them down... if you don't remember any of this, you can read about them here
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/savetoby.asp
Now, someone else is using the same idea on a much smaller scale
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dead-or-Alive-Goldfish-from-an-Aquarium_W0QQitemZ5656595910QQcategoryZ1467QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I don't know how long that URL will be good, because the auction is probably contrary to some eBay rule, so here's the text from it:
"FOR SALE:
1 DEAD OR ALIVE GOLDFISH
The fish has been in my aquarium for 2 week and has been eating my guppies, I either kill it or sell it, the choice is yours!
Will send fish in a bag with enough air for probably 2 days, the bag will be in a box.
PS. At end of auction if there are no bids, I will flush the goldfish down the toilet."
And then there's a pic of the little fish... it's probably going to end up dead no matter what, the poor thing, because it's unlikely to survive being shipped even if some kind soul DOES bid on him.
If you had to dispose of a mouse, how would you do it? Whatever your answer was, I bet it WASN'T "toss the live mouse in a fire," right? Sadly, a New Mexico man did exactly that
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/08/mouse.fire.ap/
"Vengeful mouse sets house ablaze
Monday, January 9, 2006; Posted: 2:24 p.m. EST (19:24 GMT)
FORT SUMNER, New Mexico (AP) -- A mouse got its revenge against a homeowner who tried to dispose of it in a pile of burning leaves. The blazing creature ran back to the man's house and set it on fire.
Luciano Mares, 81, of Fort Sumner said he caught the mouse inside his house and wanted to get rid of it.
'I had some leaves burning outside, so I threw it in the fire, and the mouse was on fire and ran back at the house,' Mares said from a motel room Saturday.
Village Fire Chief Juan Chavez said the burning mouse ran to just beneath a window, and the flames spread up from there and throughout the house.
No one was hurt inside, but the home and everything in it was destroyed."
I've seen comments from other bloggers about this shameful episode, and the phrase "instant karma" keeps coming up; I'm sorry that an elderly man lost everything, of course, but when you do something cruel you have to be prepared for the karmic backlash.
Here's the worst one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/3647835.stm
"A 10-year-old boy is in hospital with serious burns after a prank inspired by cult TV programme Jackass went wrong.
Joe Armstrong from Lancashire was engulfed in flames when he jumped over a fire after seeing a similar stunt on the MTV show.
He suffered burns to his chest and thighs after petrol was apparently squirted on to the flames."
Where were this child's PARENTS when he was jumping over a FIRE? What were they doing while the wood was collected, lit, and the boy was gearing himself up for this insanity? Ten years old is too young to be playing anywhere without an adult keeping an eye on him... but old enough for him to know better than to do such a stupid thing, and if he was that lacking in judgment he clearly needed even closer observation than others his age.
"Joe's parents have called for the show to be banned, but Channel 4 has said Jackass was shown responsibly."
This echoes the incident I posted about on 1-7-06, where an unwatched toddler ate magnets and eventually died from it, and the mother's response was to scream about the dangerousness of the toy they came from, rather than the dangerousness of not watching a little kid.
"Joe, from Darwen, is being treated at Booth Hall Children's Hospital and will be scarred for life."
Please take a minute to send good thoughts out to Joe; hopefully, with plastic surgery he'll be able to have a normal appearance eventually.
"Joe's friend, 15-year-old Michael Davies, was filming the stunt for his own website.
The site mimics the Jackass programme, which shows people carrying out dangerous stunts.
On Wednesday Michael said there would be no further stunts and that the website would be closed down.
'He's like my little brother and he's a little kid as well,' he said."
Where were this moron's parents when he was working on that website?!! Do you see why you have to monitor EVERYTHING your kids do online? That this boy thought that having a much younger child do something so dangerous was somehow ok means that he's got serious problems, and shouldn't have been allowed to wander around unsupervised either... and on what planet is it acceptable for a 15 year old and a 10 year old who aren't related to be hanging out together? Would YOU let a 10 year old go off alone with a 15 year old?
In this final quote, the asterisks are mine:
"Joe's mother, Allyson Hughes, says it is time Jackass and similar programmes were taken off air.
'Just stop it, ban it. How would they like their children in this position that I am, going what I'm going through.'
In a statement Channel 4 said: 'Jackass is always shown well after the watershed, when young children are not expected to be watching.
'In addition, at the start of each programme strenuous targeted warnings are issued.'
***Police said parents needed to be more aware of what their children [are doing]*** and have launched an investigation into the incident."
Our world is, for the most part, an adult world, and things have to exist to accommodate adults, some of which won't be ok for kids; while it's wise to have laws in place that restrict kids from buying booze, getting into theaters that show porn, driving cars and so forth, beyond that it's the job of the PARENTS to prevent their kids from seeing, hearing, eating, drinking, smoking or whatever those things that aren't appropriate for their age group. Those boys wouldn't have been trying to duplicate a stunt from that show if they'd never SEEN it, and as clueless as they clearly are they absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to see a show that's meant for adults... what were they even doing up that late?
Folks, kids are NOT miniature adults. They do NOT have adult knowledge, understanding, analytical ability, logic, reason or judgment. They can NOT navigate the dangers of the modern world without constant adult input and adult SUPERVISION... and if you fail to provide it for them, there's likely to be trouble eventually.
Wouldn't it be nice if parents went back to providing proper guidance to their kids BEFORE something like this happens again?
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/savetoby.asp
Now, someone else is using the same idea on a much smaller scale
http://cgi.ebay.com/Dead-or-Alive-Goldfish-from-an-Aquarium_W0QQitemZ5656595910QQcategoryZ1467QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I don't know how long that URL will be good, because the auction is probably contrary to some eBay rule, so here's the text from it:
"FOR SALE:
1 DEAD OR ALIVE GOLDFISH
The fish has been in my aquarium for 2 week and has been eating my guppies, I either kill it or sell it, the choice is yours!
Will send fish in a bag with enough air for probably 2 days, the bag will be in a box.
PS. At end of auction if there are no bids, I will flush the goldfish down the toilet."
And then there's a pic of the little fish... it's probably going to end up dead no matter what, the poor thing, because it's unlikely to survive being shipped even if some kind soul DOES bid on him.
If you had to dispose of a mouse, how would you do it? Whatever your answer was, I bet it WASN'T "toss the live mouse in a fire," right? Sadly, a New Mexico man did exactly that
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/08/mouse.fire.ap/
"Vengeful mouse sets house ablaze
Monday, January 9, 2006; Posted: 2:24 p.m. EST (19:24 GMT)
FORT SUMNER, New Mexico (AP) -- A mouse got its revenge against a homeowner who tried to dispose of it in a pile of burning leaves. The blazing creature ran back to the man's house and set it on fire.
Luciano Mares, 81, of Fort Sumner said he caught the mouse inside his house and wanted to get rid of it.
'I had some leaves burning outside, so I threw it in the fire, and the mouse was on fire and ran back at the house,' Mares said from a motel room Saturday.
Village Fire Chief Juan Chavez said the burning mouse ran to just beneath a window, and the flames spread up from there and throughout the house.
No one was hurt inside, but the home and everything in it was destroyed."
I've seen comments from other bloggers about this shameful episode, and the phrase "instant karma" keeps coming up; I'm sorry that an elderly man lost everything, of course, but when you do something cruel you have to be prepared for the karmic backlash.
Here's the worst one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/3647835.stm
"A 10-year-old boy is in hospital with serious burns after a prank inspired by cult TV programme Jackass went wrong.
Joe Armstrong from Lancashire was engulfed in flames when he jumped over a fire after seeing a similar stunt on the MTV show.
He suffered burns to his chest and thighs after petrol was apparently squirted on to the flames."
Where were this child's PARENTS when he was jumping over a FIRE? What were they doing while the wood was collected, lit, and the boy was gearing himself up for this insanity? Ten years old is too young to be playing anywhere without an adult keeping an eye on him... but old enough for him to know better than to do such a stupid thing, and if he was that lacking in judgment he clearly needed even closer observation than others his age.
"Joe's parents have called for the show to be banned, but Channel 4 has said Jackass was shown responsibly."
This echoes the incident I posted about on 1-7-06, where an unwatched toddler ate magnets and eventually died from it, and the mother's response was to scream about the dangerousness of the toy they came from, rather than the dangerousness of not watching a little kid.
"Joe, from Darwen, is being treated at Booth Hall Children's Hospital and will be scarred for life."
Please take a minute to send good thoughts out to Joe; hopefully, with plastic surgery he'll be able to have a normal appearance eventually.
"Joe's friend, 15-year-old Michael Davies, was filming the stunt for his own website.
The site mimics the Jackass programme, which shows people carrying out dangerous stunts.
On Wednesday Michael said there would be no further stunts and that the website would be closed down.
'He's like my little brother and he's a little kid as well,' he said."
Where were this moron's parents when he was working on that website?!! Do you see why you have to monitor EVERYTHING your kids do online? That this boy thought that having a much younger child do something so dangerous was somehow ok means that he's got serious problems, and shouldn't have been allowed to wander around unsupervised either... and on what planet is it acceptable for a 15 year old and a 10 year old who aren't related to be hanging out together? Would YOU let a 10 year old go off alone with a 15 year old?
In this final quote, the asterisks are mine:
"Joe's mother, Allyson Hughes, says it is time Jackass and similar programmes were taken off air.
'Just stop it, ban it. How would they like their children in this position that I am, going what I'm going through.'
In a statement Channel 4 said: 'Jackass is always shown well after the watershed, when young children are not expected to be watching.
'In addition, at the start of each programme strenuous targeted warnings are issued.'
***Police said parents needed to be more aware of what their children [are doing]*** and have launched an investigation into the incident."
Our world is, for the most part, an adult world, and things have to exist to accommodate adults, some of which won't be ok for kids; while it's wise to have laws in place that restrict kids from buying booze, getting into theaters that show porn, driving cars and so forth, beyond that it's the job of the PARENTS to prevent their kids from seeing, hearing, eating, drinking, smoking or whatever those things that aren't appropriate for their age group. Those boys wouldn't have been trying to duplicate a stunt from that show if they'd never SEEN it, and as clueless as they clearly are they absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to see a show that's meant for adults... what were they even doing up that late?
Folks, kids are NOT miniature adults. They do NOT have adult knowledge, understanding, analytical ability, logic, reason or judgment. They can NOT navigate the dangers of the modern world without constant adult input and adult SUPERVISION... and if you fail to provide it for them, there's likely to be trouble eventually.
Wouldn't it be nice if parents went back to providing proper guidance to their kids BEFORE something like this happens again?
