Another Professional Opinion on "Professional Women"

Earlier this summer, I (along with many other readers) objected to Kathy and Marcy's (of Annie's Mailbox) use of the term "professional woman" to denote "sex worker." Originally, a female lawyer wrote in to protest, and M&K insisted the term was a "common" way to refer to sex work. I had never heard it that way, and a Google search revealed no connection between the two. Today, another professional woman--this one a scholar--weighs in:

Dear Annie: Your reply to "Professional Woman," who complained about your use of the term to refer to a stripper, was way off base. Sure, most people probably knew that you were referring to some sort of sex worker, but how sexist is that?

In the 19th and even 20th centuries, the phrase "public woman" was used to refer to prostitutes on the assumption that any woman who would occupy public space without a proper male escort must be a prostitute. It provided a handy way to exclude middle- and upper-class women from public spaces, stigmatize working-class women (who appeared regularly in public spaces), and render as sexual prey all women who went out in public.

The double entendre implicit in the phrase "professional woman" undoubtedly serves a similar purpose, insinuating that sex work can be a profession for women and also that "professional women" are sexually available. It's sexist and discriminatory. — Leigh Ann Wheeler, Associate Professor of History, Binghamton University (SUNY)

Who's the Boss?

This letter to Annie's Mailbox really hit home for me:

Dear Annie: I work for a family company and am grateful to have a job in this economy. But while we employees have had benefits drastically cut, the owners have bought new luxury homes and cars and just returned from an overseas vacation that included a safari.
I am a loyal employee, but it seems we are the only ones making sacrifices for the good of the company. Morale is low, and I can no longer be the cheerleader I once was.
I want my employer to know that, despite how they have treated us, I will continue to do my best, but there are other employees who don't feel this way. How can we get the boss to take a closer look at the message he is sending before everyone walks out? I still love this company and want it to succeed. — Unappreciated

Dear Unappreciated: The problem is, your boss knows that no matter how he treats his employees, it will be difficult for them to find another job in this economy. He takes advantage of the fact that, despite the grumbling, they are not likely to leave. This is a terrible way to treat the people who work for you.
Since you care about the health of the company, appoint yourself the spokesperson for the staff and see if you can get a few people together to speak to the boss privately. (There is safety in numbers.) Tell him he deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but you've noticed it lowers morale when he appears to be flaunting his wealth at the expense of his struggling employees. Say that you want his company to be successful and a great place to work, and consequently, you worry when your fellow employees don't feel valued and appreciated. Then ask how you can help.

While I understand why this person would feel frustrated and resentful, I see this situation from the other side, as well. My dad owns a small business and over the years has had many tough decisions to make about providing benefits for his staff, supporting branches in one, two, or three locations, all while keeping the company afloat.

At the end of the day, does he take home more than his employees? Yes he does. He also assumes all the risk, all the responsibility for keeping the company's head above water. It's his name on the lease, or the deed. It's his catastrophe if the building floods or burns down (he's been through both).

This writer's situation is not the same as that of a bitter middle manager not caring to support the luxurious lifestyle of a high-powered exec. making 10-times his salary when they work at the same publicly traded mega-corporation. The rules are different.

This writer mentions a drastic cut in benefits--my dad personally feels the weight of trying to fairly provide benefits for his employees and their families. For small businesses, this is not easy, and it's not cheap. He negotiates the best plan the company can afford, and no, it's not great. And, yes, I'm biased, but to me that doesn't mean he should put his personal investments and family savings--whether they be for the mortgage payment or for a vacation--into providing a cheaper insurance policy for 15-20 other people. (Not to mention that the cost of one personal vacation hardly equates to covering such business expenses over any ongoing period of time).

The business owner is not your parent, personally responsible for your expenses. He or she is your boss, and their first responsibility in that role is to the company. The line between a small business and its owner is a tough one to define. The owner takes on a great deal of personal investment and risk, and hopefully has a personal and personable relationship with his or her employees--but the owner's number one job--at the risk of everyone's unemployment--is keeping the business afloat.

Benefits have not been cut so the owner can pocket the extra cash and take a safari vacation. The fact that he took a vacation and has a nice car does not mean he's "flaunting his wealth" at the "expense" of anyone. Almost certainly, benefits have been cut in order to make rent, utilities, and payroll. In other words, benefits have probably been cut so that jobs won't be cut. And by the way, if the business owner is on the company plan, HIS benefits have been slashed, too.

In the end, it's not the employees' place to tell the owner how to spend his own money--just as it's not the owner's place to tell the employees how to spend theirs.

If the pay and benefits offered at this position aren't enough to get by on, or are no longer worth the work, then it's time to start looking for a new job. Yes, times are bad. But if your job is unworkable, that's what you do. But if you like the job, the company, and the boss, you might try losing some of the bitterness.

K&M's advice to ask the boss how to help boost up fellow employees and make sure that everyone feels valued is good, but it comes on the tail of stating, without any evidence, that the owner is Mr. Potter-like, sneering ironically from his wheelchair about his employees' job-paralysis--it's misleading (not to mention just made up), and certainly doesn't give the writer the right attitude to take back to work.

Personal rant aside, what really bothers me about this is the way the employees seem to have turned on their boss. The boss has almost certainly always made more than the employees, so it's not fair to be upset that that's still the case. If he or she was fair-minded, honest, and treated employees well in good times, it's also not fair to suddenly grow bitter and suspicious when things get rocky. If, on the other hand, the boss was a tightwad and a jerk all along (and that could be the case), they would have known that already, too--it's not the vacation that makes that relevant.

The only specific change in the workplace that these disheartened employees have noted is the cut in benefits--which affects the boss just as much as the employees. Things are bad, but that's not their boss's fault. They seem to be looking for a scapegoat, someone to take the fall for the fact that things are rough all over. And unfortunately, that's yet another common downside to being the boss.

Word to the Wise

I usually am pretty satisfied with the column written by Kathy and Marcy (former editors of Ann Landers' column), but lately they've been slipping up with language, then printing the letters of readers who call them on it and defending themselves. Not sure if they're short on "real" letters or what, but these just make them look foolish.

For example, a week or so ago, a reader took them to task for mixing up "e.g." and "i.e."
The reader was correct, and polite and clear about it, and Marcie and Kathy recognized this. But they should have stopped there. Instead, they went on to say, "We often see and hear "i.e." applied to mean "for example" and had no idea it was incorrect. "

You spent decades editing a newspaper column syndicated around the world, and you had no idea it was incorrect? It's an easy mistake to use the wrong one here and there--we all do it. But it's frustrating to learn that professional writers and almost-journalists-by-proxy haven't heard of the difference between the two.

In another example, today they totally blew off a reader who wrote in to protest their use of the term "professional woman:"

Dear Annie: "Patrick in Stockton, Calif.," said men enjoy strip clubs because they aren't getting what they need from their wives at home. You said, "Insecure men often prefer professional women because they don't care what the guy is like as long as he has money."

As a practicing attorney, I consider myself a professional woman, and I most certainly DO care what a guy is like. I finally concluded you must have used the term "professional women" in reference to females who work in the sex trade. That's certainly an unconventional use of the word "professional."

My dictionary says a profession is "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation." Strip clubs and lap dances? I don't think so. — Professional Woman

Dear Woman: Please tell us you are joking. "Professional woman" is a common term used to denote a female who is paid for sex-related work. A reference to "professional women" in a letter about strip clubs should not bring to mind an attorney, unless you have talents of which we are unaware.

Wait, a common term? Really? I've never heard the phrase used in that way, so I did a quick Google search. I was sure that if "professional woman" was code for "sex worker," the Internet would be kind enough to show me--probably graphically.

Top 10 results of my search?

1) Professional Woman Magazine Summer 2009. Featuring: Kimora Lee Simmons The Sassy and Savvy Business Woman

2) The Professional Woman Network is an international training organization designed to assist individuals in starting a consulting and seminar business

3) A collection of the best women's career networking and professional associations -- a guide for job-seekers.

4) The Professional Woman Speakers Bureau is a private, international network of independent consultants and trainers who are available to present workshops,

5) Professional Women's Network, Inc. is a professional organization of dynamic business and professional women in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, area.

Ok, I think 5 is enough to make my point.

The most "colorful" things I saw were links to an association for professional women wrestlers, and one to a professional womens' rodeo association.

I scrolled through the first 5 pages of results, and nary a mention of sex workers. I think Marcy and Kathy are way off here, and it bothers me that they didn't even bother to LOOK before responding--and bashing their reader. "It's common" and "we hear it all the time" aren't explanations that inspire much confidence. Come on, ladies, get it together!

As a side note, the term professional woman is kind of an awkward one, suggesting that you've been trained as, and are being paid to act as, a woman (Hm, what would that look like?) as opposed to a professional lawyer, professional doctor, professional dancer, etc. It seems to me that "female professional" or "woman professional" would be the correct way to indicate that you're a professional [something], and also a woman.

Double Your Flavor, Double your Fun

It's a great day when the same question shows up in two different columns, I can remember the first when reading the second, and I can find both!

Printed by Carolyn (April 22) and Annie's Mailbox (June 3), the question is:

Dear Annie: Recently, an e-mail correspondence between my mother and sister somehow ended up in my inbox. I can only assume it got there by mistake because it was full of criticism and hurtful comments about my family. The saddest part is that I had no idea either of them had issues with my wife or the way we raise our kids. My wife has been the only saving grace. She was able to calm me down and help me deal with the pain. She read the e-mail, deleted it and made sure I said nothing about it to my mother or sister to avoid damaging the relationship permanently.

We are supposed to celebrate July 4th with my extended family. [Carolyn's column printed"We are supposed to see these family members soon" instead] I'd like to go and enjoy the day, but fear I might slip and say something about the e-mail or engage in a conversation that might not be appropriate for a family gathering. What should I do? — Stressed-Out Son

Kathy and Marcie's brief, pragmatic response:

Dear Stressed: It is not unusual for family members to criticize each other, especially in-laws, in private. (You and your wife have probably done the same.) No one is looking for trouble, which is why Mom and Sis would never dream of saying these things to your face. We know your wife was trying to spare you, but it might be better to discuss this openly. Tell your mother and sister that you saw the e-mail and are disappointed they harbor such negative feelings, but you hope you can all get past it. In order to salvage the relationship, you must find a way to forgive them.

And Carolyn's longer, more pondering one:

You're right; your wife made an elegant save. Unleashing the raw emotions of your discovery would likely have made things worse.

Now that you've had time to collect yourself, though, you can figure out your next move by gauging whether you'll be able to get past this. No doubt you are hurt; that's a given. The question is whether this pain is out of proportion to your other feelings about your sister and mom.

One way to approach it is to consider things you've said to your mom about your sister, to your sister about your mom, and to your wife about both of them. Imagine what would happen if these conversations ever fell into the wrong hands.

In other words, if you've had conversations similar to the one you intercepted, and you've just never been busted, then I would use that to remind yourself that exchanges intended to be in confidence aren't always pretty. As long as they aren't motivated by spite, they can help friends and family understand each other, work through grievances, and even warn each other when something is amiss. If the e-mail could be considered well-meaning, by even the most elastic of stretches, then you have grounds for a conscious decision to let go.

If, on the other hand, there's no room to interpret the message as anything but mean-spirited, then you might reasonably expect the injuries won't heal on their own. If so, you owe it to yourself to say, calmly, to your mom (or sister, if you're closer to her) that you received the e-mail. Let her know, and then let her speak her piece.

That represents your best chance at eliciting context and remorse, the two most healing quantities they can supply at this point. You obviously aren't planning to estrange yourself from the family, so that leaves you with two plain if difficult choices: Make peace with them, or with yourself.

Arrrrgh, the only thing worse than accidentally sending an email specifically to the very person you didn't want it to go to is being the person who receives it (discussion for another time: the merits and challenges of the emergency follow up email featuring "PLEASE DELETE EARLIER MESSAGE IT WAS NOT MEANT FOR YOU" in the subject line).

Carolyn, as usual, advocated taking a long look at oneself, and making a fair effort to understand the other person's perspective before acting--she's often more reflective than Annie's Mailbox. But, even after all that reflection (which I'm not trying to devalue) her advice was, in the end, virtually the same as theirs.

And I pretty much agree with it, too. It's too bad the first double printed letter I've found since I've been actively paying attention wasn't a more controversial one!

Also: it makes me giggle that Carolyn's editors replaced "the 4th of July" with "soon." At the time that this guy wrote to Carolyn, his bile was rising even as he looked toward an event 3 months (possibly more) in the future, with no intention of seeking any resolution in the interim.

Given that, and given that he clearly wrote to multiple columnists, I think Carolyn at least (maybe too late for Kathy and Marcie) could have just told him to drop the issue for a week or two or even more, and carry on with life as usual. If it's still eating at him, and the deleted words are still burned on his brain, and he can't communicate normally with mother and sister, THEN follow through on clearing the air with them.

Also, it seems impossible that the sister/mother didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize their mistake. They, too, are probably just waiting for the storm.

On Thrifty Gifting....

A disgruntled woman (I think) wrote in to Marcie and Kathy Sugar of Annie's Mailbox, "irritated" that her cousin, whose wedding she recently attended, had commented to her parents (Disgruntled's aunt and uncle) that she (bride) and hubby had not received gifts from Disgruntled (alias assigned by me) or Disgruntled's sister. (Her letter here).

Disgruntled hadn't sent/brought a gift, because she "couldn't afford it," and wants to know, "should I have just stayed home because I couldn't afford a gift?"

Marcie and Kathy suggest that while of course, a gift can never be "mandatory," and that often young adults in transition expect to be included in their parents' "family" gift, bringing a gift to a wedding is "customary and appropriate," and if Disgruntled truly couldn't manage it, perhaps she ought to have sent a card instead.

I think it's unfortunate that all the wedding brouhaha that's been brewing the last couple of decades has put everything and everyone so off-kilter that no one can seem to find the right path through a situation that doesn't need to be that difficult.

First of all, it wasn't great form of the bride to mention to her parents that she hadn't received a gift. Unless it was truly under the guise of wondering if it got lost or disconnected from the card, etc., which I doubt.

But it wasn't great form of the cousin to just show up empty-handed, either. I agree with Kathy and Marcie on the "custom" of bringing gifts to a wedding...I'd compare it to Christmas (if, in your family, gifts are traditional at Christmas). At both occasions, gifts are not and can't be technically required, but if you don't give them, there will likely be hurt feelings and misunderstandings.

I think the real problem here is the cousin's perception that she can't "afford" a gift. And that's where the wedding industry, the above mentioned "brouhaha" comes into play. When things get tight at Christmas, we knit scarves, we make scrapbooks, we frame pictures, we provide services for each other, etc. The problem here is that wedding gifts have been portrayed as needing to be so expensive that this woman actually thought it would be better to bring NOTHING than something as a token of goodwill and good wishes.

With some thought and effort, Digruntled could have brought something perfectly lovely and meaningful without spending much money (a throw embroidered with the names of the couple and date of the wedding? ingredients for a relaxing night in? a photo album in the wedding color and style and a promise--with follow-through--to fill with with pictures snapped on the big day?).

And then we have to keep our fingers crossed that the cousin bride would see it that way--though given her raising the gift issue with her parents, perhaps we shouldn't be too optimistic.

If the cousin truly truly truly could afford NOTHING, perhaps she should have talked it over with her parents or sister, planning to go in together, or at least "signing the card" on her parents gift (if they sympathized with her situation and were cool with it) so there would be a some indication of her thought and participation.

And the wedding was only 4 months ago, so while it would have been ideal to handle this before, it's not too late to send a gift with a card wishing them the best.

"I can't afford it" is reasonable justification for many, many things....but in some cases, where part of the event is sharing a spirit of love and generosity for the new couple it really sa cop-out.

Of course, this doesn't apply if the couple has already run any generosity family and friends were feeling into the ground months before the wedding. If the bride has temporarily lost her mind or is actually crazy, evil, and tallying up material and cash gifts at the wedding door, Disgruntled would have been better off not going at all, and not just because she couldn't afford it.

Taking it personally?

I was recently informed by a former reader that he'd ditched this blog when he was offended by something I'd written earlier this fall.

Of course, pissing people off is a major sign that you've "made it" as a writer (and for such glory, I'm willing to accept a readership of 3 people rather than 4! Maybe).

Nevertheless, I wanted to address the issue, since this is the first time I've been boycotted, and that seems worth marking in some way.

On December 16, I posted a response to a letter from Annie's Mailbox, written by Ann Landers' former editors. The letter was from a young woman in college who was unhappy in her relationship with her back-home boyfriend, who sounded like less than a treat. He had a history of emotionally and verbally abusing her, she said, as well as a history of mental illness in his family that seemed to be manifesting itself in his behavior. He was, at the very least, unstable and easily angered. And yet her question was whether she should break up with him, or if instead she should "throw her life away with the wrong guy."

My main beef with her letter was the way she phrased her question. Not "I'm afraid of my boyfriend and don't know how to end the relationship" but "Should I throw my life away on the wrong guy?"

Seriously, those were her words. And I commended Marcie and Kathy for looking past what she said, and getting to the heart of what she seemed to mean: that the bf was scary and unstable, and she wasn't sure how to end it.

However, I also felt that their advice might not be so helpful. The writer (not me, but the writer) described the boyfriend as abusive, unstable, and potentially mentally ill. As a result, I didn't think that Kathy and Marcie's advice, to become so obsessed with her studies that he wants to break up with her out of boredom, would be very effective. If he is all the things that the writer (again, not me) says he is, than I think he'll be more focused on controlling her and the state of their relationship than rationally considering whether or not they still have anything in common.

My former reader was put off by the fact that I described the boyfriend as potentially schizofrenic--but that came from the writer herself, not from me. More personally offensive to him, though, was my parenthetical sidenote wondering whether there was a "creepy age discrepancy" between the two.

"As the product of a 'creepy age difference,'" he said, "I was offended."

However, this post was hardly about age difference in relationships on the whole. I caught a whiff of what sounded like it might be an age gap, and pointed it out. When a relationship is already abusive and unbalanced, a discrepancy in age that gives the abuser an even more unbalanced amount of power and authority over the other person becomes creepy, whether it's a difference of 3, 9, or 20 years.

In contrast, I truly believe that relationships between people of compatible and balanced emotional, social, and intellectual levels can and often do thrive, no matter the numbers involved.

To sum up--my problem wasn't with the age difference, which I inferred (it was never confirmed in the letter). I simply felt that if there was such a difference, it would only compound the unfortunate situation in which this young woman found herself, and make it more difficult for her to get out of the relationship.

I stand by my original answer, though this episode was a good reminder to me that the odd phrase can put people off so much that they totally stop reading.

"That's what you would do if a columnist did something like that, right?" the former reader asked me.

Nope. I'd write in to them and voice my opinion. That's what I've done for years, and I'd encourage readers here to do the same! Conversation is what keeps this interesting. I don't have all the answers, and whether or not we agree, I'd like to hear what others think.

And your question would be....?

Often people who write in to advice columnists seem to just want a chance to vent, receive justification for their feelings, or confirmation for a choice they've already made. Too many of their letters end with "Was I right?" (How boring...at least give the columnist more wiggle room than "yes" or "no")

But sometimes I really have to wonder. Did you need help with this one? This is from "Annie's Mailbox," an advice column maintained by the women who were Ann Landers' editors. And they were more patient and generous with this chica than I would have been.

Dear Annie: I'm a sophomore in college and live far away from my hometown, so I rarely see my friends or family. I wouldn't mind so much except that I'm in a long-distance relationship with "Rob," whom I have known since I was very young.
I know such relationships can be difficult, but this one is completely over the top. Rob has always been emotionally and verbally abusive, but now he has gotten so bad I'm afraid he's becoming mentally unstable. Schizophrenia runs in his family, but he refuses to seek counseling.
Here's the real problem. I've met another guy. "Alex" is funny, sweet and kind, and he loves me a lot. The feeling is mutual. What do I do now? Should I dump Rob and risk making him angry? Should I ditch Alex and be miserable? Should I throw away my life for the wrong guy?
— Didn't Mean To Two-Time

I'm sorry. The "real problem" begins with the fact that you've met an apparently normal human? "Should I throw away my life for the wrong guy?" Yes. Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan! What???

Marcie and Kathy picked up on the fact that this girl is likely afraid of her scary boyfriend, and mostly talked to that issue. Wise and kind of them, as I mentioned:

Dear Didn't Mean: So you've outgrown Rob, who is unstable and abusive, but you don't want to make him angry because he's a little scary. You can talk this over with one of the university counselors. Then tell your parents that you want to break up with Rob, but you are worried about his potential for being abusive.
It would be best if you could find a way to separate yourself gradually and naturally. Be nice on the phone and in your e-mails, but not too friendly or romantic, and don't contact him too often. Don't say you miss him or love him. Talk about class to the point where he's bored. Your aim is to convince Rob he'd like to move on, too.

But I sort of feel like a potentially schizofrenic, undiagnosed, untreated, manipulative person is not going to get bored and move on if she turns cool, cordial, and really really academic. He'll just get mad about how little attention she pays to him and freak out that she doesn't love him anymore. Which is true. She should just make a clean break, as soon as possible. (Also, it's weird that she's known him since SHE was very, very young, not since WE were very very young. Sounds like there's potential for a creepy age discrepancy here.)

Also: do not jump right into a relationship with Alex! If he's macking on you when you're clearly already in a relationship, and one that is unhealthy, there's something weird going on. Is he drawn to your neediness? Sadness? His ability to comfort you and make you laugh when you're being made miserable? What's he going to do when you're no longer in misery? You want to be with someone who wants you when you're healthy and happy. And even if Alex turns out to be cool, and not into suffering, stifled girls, you're not going to get healthy and happy jumping right into something else. Be single for awhile.