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.

Losing Jobs without Losing it All

I've noticed a trend lately in the columns that is a clear reflection of our troubled economy: lots and lots and LOTS of letters from folks who have lost their jobs, or whose friends and spouses have. Most of the writers simply want to know how they can best be helpful and supportive, without coming across as patronizing (in particular if they still have a job, especially at the place from which the person was terminated). These two samples juxtapose nicely, and give perspective from both sides. First, Miss Manners:

Dear Miss Manners: Several of my co-workers were recently laid off. Some of them are finishing up a few things for a week or two before they leave, and others left the same day.

What do you say to an acquaintance who was just laid off? It’s a painful time for them, and I want to say “I’m sorry” or “Are there things I can do to help?” but I don’t want to come across as pitying them, or as saying “Ha-ha—I’m still here, and you’re not, sucks to be you!”

I feel awful for these long-term coworkers, but I’m not a close enough friend to actually know what they would need or appreciate. I also feel guilty about still having my job, but this isn’t a time to whine about me, it’s a time to reach out to them.

A card seems stupid and pointless. A nonconversation sounds awkward and awful. Ignoring it seems worse. A gift certificate or some such seems to assume that they are in dire financial straits.

Gentle Reader: What about taking each one to lunch, your treat, and not bringing up the subject?

The gesture itself shows that you care, without any of the undertones that you fear. You will then be able to adjust your tone to the way each is handling it and offer practical help if it seems relevant. Miss Manners would consider this especially graceful if your invitation is made or repeated after they have left, to show that they are missed and not forgotten.

Then, Abby:
DEAR ABBY: In this day of massive cutbacks and layoffs, please remind your readers that people who have recently lost their jobs need their friends now more than ever.

Having found myself in this situation, I know firsthand that people I thought were my friends truly are not. The phone calls and e-mails stopped almost immediately when word got out that I was laid off. Being treated as if I have some sort of contagious disease has been as bad as losing my job. I know what happened to me is a sign of the times and no reflection on me.

So -- to all of you who have chosen to no longer communicate with me because of my employment status: I am fine. I have a positive attitude. This will not keep me down. I realize that my possibilities are endless. However badly you treat me now, when you are in the same situation, I will be there for you.

To the wonderful man in my life, thank you for standing by me and giving me daily encouragement. To my family, whom I worship beyond belief, thank you for your understanding and continued support. You have made me the person I am, and because of you, I will succeed. -- UNEMPLOYED ... NOT DOWN AND OUT

DEAR NOT DOWN AND OUT: Thank you for so eloquently pointing out that people who have lost their jobs should not be abandoned, and that the support of friends and family is crucial.

Although family relationships are our primary source of emotional support, the relationships we form at work and our work-related contacts can become like an extended second family.

If these relationships are treated as expendable, it can often be as traumatic as the death of a loved one. When a death occurs, there can be as many as five distinct stages of grief. These are anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. However, when it comes to job loss, there is also the added element of fear.

This is why I am appealing to you, my readers. No one can ignore the fact that times have grown uncertain. Millions of good, hardworking individuals have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. More bad news may be on the way.

Now is the time for all of us to reach out a hand to encourage and help one another. People who are unemployed should not be made to feel they have been discarded. There is strength in numbers. We will all be stronger if we stand together and observe the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- LOVE, ABBY

I would venture that it's unlikely that most people see termination as a contagious disease and hope to dodge it by avoiding contact. Rather, like the writer of the first letter, they probably just don't know how best to express their support without trivializing or coming off as superior--afraid of causing offense, they choose instead to do nothing.

Abby compares the trauma of losing a job to the grief of losing a loved one--I think the reactions of friends, relatives and former colleagues in both situations are comparable: when we don't know what to say or do, we too often do nothing at all. While I'm glad the writer of the second letter has such strength and confidence, its clear that her friends' passivity and distance has made her pretty bitter towards them--to the extent that she's written them off as not "real" friends. This abandonment has redoubled the pain of her termination, and she's not going to take it!

A good reminder to us all that thoughts and intentions don't do much--it is words and more importantly actions that tell others we care about them and haven't forgotten or abandoned them.

The Lunch Crowd

From Miss Manners:

Dear Miss Manners: I am appalled that on more than several occasions, I have had friends, family or employers assume that since they don’t have lunch (during an entire day when I’m helping them), neither do I.

At the very least, I would like them to state, “I don’t have lunch, but you’re welcome to do so at this time, if you chose.” I don’t think it’s my place to bring it up, since I’m on their turf.
I end up very starving and very angry. In my opinion, it’s highly disrespectful to assume that someone who is helping you has no interest in lunch. I would never let a friend, relative or employee go without lunch, and I am amazed that people even consider conducting themselves in this manner.

Gentle Reader: Feeling grouchy, are we? Have a sandwich; you’ll feel better.
Miss Manners cannot offer you one at the moment, but she can offer you the means to get one. Simply ask, “When are we breaking for lunch?” While your hosts certainly should have offered, it is not odd for you to ask because, you point out, lunch is part of the normal routine.
Should the answer be “Oh, I never have lunch,” you can cheerfully reply, “Well, I do, so I think I’ll take a break and go get some.” In cases where you are doing a favor, you might add,
“So maybe we should break for the day.”

I can definitely see this from both sides of the (lunch) table. I get cranky when I don't eat and need to if I'm to maintain my sanity and to keep working through the day. But I'm also known for not breaking for official meals. I'll snack or graze, or decide to take lunch at 4:30 or something, and tend to feel constricted by folk who need to stop and sit down with a sandwich, a milk carton, an apple, and a cookie at precisely noon for Lunch. Nevertheless, the folks who do are smarter than I am: they know they need the break and the fuel, and take it. Everyone's different and runs on a different schedule.

I have to say though, that as a sporadic eater who half the time forgets to feed herself, it can be exhausting to keep track of which people you're working/socializing with need to eat specific meals at specific times and make plans to meet all of their needs. As Miss Manners suggests, if this is you, I think you should just say so and take care of it yourself. (This is different when you're a guest somewhere and your host has the responsibility for making sure you have the things you need--this can still wear me out as hostess because I forget--not because I'm evil and sadistic--but it's still my job and one I took on).

When you're working on a project together (at work or with friends or relatives) it's your own job to stand up for yourself and eat when you need to--don't expect others to take care of it for you. Especially "during an entire day when [you're] helping them"--these kind of help-days are more common, I think, with older relatives. They may not feel the need to eat as much, or may not have the means to treat you to lunch. Alternatively, workaholics may get so into what they're doing they have no idea how much time has passed.

Just as you shouldn't have to skip lunch to accommodate them, they shouldn't have to stop working and eat because you want to. Just eat (or don't) as you choose!

Update on Passive Aggressivity:

It doesn't go away. Ever.

Abby is a Sassy Pants!

As you may or may not know, "Dear Abby" is written by Jeanne Phillips, the daughter of the original "Abby," Pauline Phillips (twin sister of Esther Lederer, aka Ann Landers...it's an inbred field!)

That's Pauline on the left, and Jeanne on the right. (Borrowed this picture from http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2718.html, which borrowed it from somewhere else, with more permission than I have.)

Jeanne has been the voice behind Abby for a number of years, but lately, something has changed. I wish I could dig out the column that first triggered this thought in my mind (MUST figure out how to access column archives on the Trib website). In April, I swear something snapped in Jeanne, and since then she's been sassy to the point of snarkiness...even bordering on bitter. It's a flavor I'd never picked up before in her column, but for the last few months it's been particularly evident. Today's column is a good example.

The writer has a pretty major dilemma: a friend has admitted that she's being sexually harrassed at work, but is afraid to report it, because the perpetrator is a major client, and turning him in could jeopardize her employment.

Abby gives the expected, and I thnk we'd all agree, the politically correct, answer: "It is important that Millie report what has been happening to her boss. It is her employer's responsibility to see that she is not bothered...Whatever is driving your friend's harasser, it is vital for Millie's emotional well-being that the person is stopped. Laws protect people in the workplace, but only if the harassment is reported."

But look what comes in the middle, the "..." part: "I have long thought that people who use their position of power to sexually harass are either so pathologically narcissistic they can't believe everyone isn't bowled over by their charm (which, of course, is delusional thinking), or so pitifully unattractive and insecure they must bully their target into submission."

WHOA! Abby, tell us what you really think! I sort of like her new 'tude, but it does throw me off. As I mentioned before, we expect a certain level of consistency from our advisors. Even if I like the change, it makes me wonder....what's going on with Abby? Is she cracking down, or just cracking up?