In theory, your approach might work. You apparently have not realized yet that theory and the facts on the ground do not always align.
I am 43, and I have been in customer service jobs and similar pretty much my whole life. I can assure you that there are people walking around who ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT LISTEN until a man gets involved.
You would do well to remember the alleged Einstein quote – “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Theory is all well and good, but us practical folks prefer to do what actually works, instead of doing what “should” work.
And you know for a fact that this is one of those situations?
I’m a petite female now in my 60s, so I’ve had decades of dealing with crappy guys who “ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT LISTEN” and until I hit menopause I looked about 15 years younger than my actual age. So I have had plenty of opportunity to deal with assholes on my own as a not-especially-imposing female.
Don’t even get me started on the three and a half years I spent running a chamber of commerce back in the 1990s, when 100% of the membership consisted of entitled white men who thought nothing of asking me to do things like call a restaurant on their behalf to complain that they found a worm in their broccoli.
Strangely, I survived and even accomplished my agenda without ever once calling on my father or my husband to take over for me. Did I consult my husband and get his advice on how to handle matters from time to time? Of course I did. But I took care of matters on my own.
The part that I quoted was not a counter example, and was actually an example of a strawman that you created.
I note that you didn’t actually answer the question. Does that mean that you would leave your mother to navigate an emergent issue with her flight on her own, not helping her out any?
This attitude strikes me as being on a willfully malicious misreading of the context of the posts in this thread. It was in response to a strawman, an accusation of “should have simply done everything for her, not letting her manage on her own?”.
Since it was right up there in the post that you quoted, I doubt it was an accident on your part. I do wonder why people like you play these games, do you get some sort of internet points out of it?
That actually would not be an analogous situation to the one in the OP. That would be a situation that you have made up out of whole cloth that is not related to, or analogous to, but it does have the benefit that it allows you to think you made some sort of point.
In this situation, people were intentionally defrauding her. So, an analogous situation would be your mother calling you up, and telling you that she had been bumped off her flight, and that they wanted her to pay an extra $470 dollars in order to get on the next one.
This is true. However, it is entirely unlike the situation or solution in the OP. It is a figment of your imagination that you think will win you some internet points.
Not that I expect you to believe me, but there was no malice, and while I disagree with your characterization entirely, let’s assume for the moment it is correct, in which case it would most certainly have been an “accident” as I really have no interest in playing games. To be honest, I’m a bit puzzled - I truly don’t understand what you mean. You may have my internet points if you like.
Umm, I was just riffing on someone else’s example. I only “made it up” in the sense that I didn’t go back to make sure I was using the precise example that another poster before me created. The overall theme was “stranded at the airport,” nothing more.
I agree that your version, where mom was being defrauded, is indeed much closer to what the OP described.
Part of the issue, for me at least, is that the dynamics are different when it’s parent-solving-child’s-problem vs. child-solving-mom’s problem. An adult child who was properly raised probably feels a debt of gratitude to their parent for making them into the kind of person who knows what to do in a tough situation, so in some sense they “owe” the parent.
On the other hand, a parent owes it to their child to teach them to become the kind of person who knows what to do in a tough situation. And one who has the self-confidence to follow through.
That’s fair, but it’s also incumbent upon men to call each other out for sexist behaviour, as JohnT did, especially when asked directly to do so by the woman concerned. The type of person who is more inclined to listen to a male voice is EXACTLY the sort of person who needs to hear a male voice say “sexist behaviour is unacceptable.”
You can’t mentor someone through the process of going “full scorched earth.” You just have to show them how it is done.
If everyone on this planet were capable of doing what JohnT did here, there would never ever be problems with customer service. It isn’t just a matter of strategy. It isn’t even really a strategy. It’s about a decision that "this ends, right here, right now, and not stopping until you are (figuratively) stomping on the corpses.
You simply can’t do this unless you absolutely know how it all is going to end. There are multiple ways this could have gone wrong. It takes experience of knowing exactly what triggers executives like this. It takes authority.
It’s like Karen vs the Manager.
(The sketch is even funnier if you know that Rowan (the Manager) almost never stands up for his employees)
Adam (the guy in the red shirt) knew all the right things to say. But simply didn’t have the experience, the confidence, nor the authority that the manager in the black shirt had. Sometimes you just have to escalate. It’s why bosses exist. And parents. They are often the last line of defense, and there is nothing wrong with deferring to them when you need too.
a) a comic sketch not meant to reflect real life literally, but rather with exaggeration and humor
b) a sketch that taps into the undeniably sexist “Karen” meme
c) A video where the company (not the consumer, who is in fact the parent of a child who was ripped off) wins.
But if you find it a helpful illustration of your point, cool. I get your point about the manager having experience, confidence, and authority.
Reading comprehension among all of us, myself included, not always being as good as it should be, I feel compelled to remind readers that in light of the additional background @JohnT presented, I’ve already stated that I’m no longer taking him to task for his response in the situation outlined in the OP.
I stand by my larger point, however, which is that male relatives commandeering everyday annoying situations with jackasses in order to protect a young woman is NOT good for anyone.
Thank you for that. I don’t know what I would have done if you hadn’t pointed that out.
A sketch that tapped into the realities of working retail.
It’s called an “analogy.”
As in:
Yes. It was a helpful illustration of my point.
As Rowan would say: “Irrelevant.”
I think the larger point here is that you assumed this was a case of a “male relatives commandeering everyday annoying situations with jackasses in order to protect a young woman” when the OP made it CLEAR that this had escalated far beyond an “everyday annoying situation with jackasses”. And the OP was also clear that this wasn’t a case of a male relative commandeering to “protect a young woman.” From the OP:
I don’t think it could have been any clearer than that. “Do you want me to take the lead” can in no way be misconstrued as “commandeering.”
“male relatives commandeering everyday annoying situations" on behalf of adult females is a bad thing, in my book, and I stand by that.
Look, I know this is the pit and all, but I just can’t work up the level of outrage you seem committed to. Sometimes mature humans see things through different lenses, based on valid experiences and values. I guess this is one of those situations.
@JohnT, through subsequent posts, has made a decent case for his handling of the situation, and I’ve said so in posts #40 and #51. This in no way changes my view that women need to stand up for themselves and be supported by the men in their lives to do so. You’re of course welcome to disagree.
Just so we are all clear about Sophia - she moved to NYC right after high school, and her mother and I remained in San Antonio, over 1,600 miles away. She went to St John’s for 1 semester, Fall 2020, and withdrew, saying COVID-era college education wasn’t worth the full price they were charging.
Her plan was to find a job, find an apartment, and live in NYC long enough to become an in-state resident so she qualifies for cheaper tuition. She found a job paying $55k/year, she found an apartment in Harlem, and she has been fully independent since the age of 18.
Sophia is now a NY state resident, starting the Bureau of Manhattan Comm College for her 101’s, with her transferring to the Fashion Institute of Technology in Fall 2023 for her marketing major/photography minor classes. (She has already arranged it with both institutions that she only takes BMCC classes which transfer over.)
About a year and a half ago I told her that I effectively withdrew from the job of ‘telling Sophia what to do’ long before, and that she’s doing so well that I’m not even in the “give unsolicited advice” field any more with her.
Anyway, it’s not like Sophia can’t adult, quite the contrary. She is very independent, extremely competent, sells and presents herself well, saves her $ like a mf, and lives her life as she plans it. It’s not every child you would blithely say ‘yeah, that support yourself living in NYC @ the age of 18 idea is totally doable’… but with Sophia, yeah.
…I mean, on the face of it, it really looks like that it’s you who can’t let this go. My original post wasn’t intended to be that serious. Which is why I linked to the Viva la Dirt League video. A comedy skit. That you decided to take it super-seriously seems like a “you” thing, not a “me” thing, IMHO.
It’s weird that you seem to think that anyone in this thread is opposed to the view that “women need to stand up for themselves and be supported by the men in their lives to do so.” Because I certainly didn’t disagree. And the OP certainly made it clear that this was exactly what happened.
That doesn’t make any sense to me. She posted her reservations about the OP when everyone else was patting him on the back. Who could she score points with by doing so? Plus, after @JohnT addressed her reservations, she withdrew them.
And @Banquet_Bear: your post sure seemed quite serious to me. You lectured @CairoCarol about something she already indicated she knew. And you used the video as, in your words, “an example” of what you were describing. And you did all of this after she had withdrawn her reservations, and after @JohnT had made it clear that he didn’t take offense. Plus you post parsed angrily in reply to her post, which usually means you’re taking things quite seriously.
What I see here is @CairoCarol, as a woman, was more sensitive to a possible issue in the OP. She addressed it in a way that was trying to be polite, and the OP did not get offended. He addressed her concerns, and she accepted that. I don’t see any reason for anyone to be upset at her.
And I very much hope I’ve successfully aired my reaction without lecturing or causing offense, nor making my post too long. It’s not easy for me at all.
…she was still arguing in the post I responded too, and she implied that I didn’t think “women need to stand up for themselves and be supported by the men in their lives”. I think I’m allowed to respond to that, don’t you think?
Yep. It was a humorous video. I could have chosen a serious video, but I chose one that I thought both represented the idea I was trying to get across, but also was funny so that it wasn’t taken too seriously.
As Rowan would say: “irrelevant.”
“Anger” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not angry at all. This is just how I’ve always posted.
I think you played the father card brilliantly. I’m sure most of those executives have teen ot adult daughters, and by humanizing the situation you had them responding as fathers.
Well, you did claim willful misreading so I’m responding to your characterization. You claimed that I was acting in bad faith, I was not, so my response is that your accusation is in bad faith.
Maybe it’s not, and we are talking past eachother, but that was over your accusations, not your position towards the OP.
I’ll agree that is was a bad analogy. And my point there was entirely to point out how bad an analogy it was. I don’t think that analogy was really made in good faith, as it utterly changes and trivializes the actions of the OP.
On that, I think we can agree. But I think that the OP’s actions were a beneficial part of that process of teaching and learning, and while it seems you have come around to that view, the argument I was having was when you had not.
And I’ll stand by my point that people shouldn’t kick puppies, but that’s as relevant to this thread as yours.
But then went on to double down, twisting other’s words and claiming bad faith in order to continue to make their point. That was what I took exception to.
That’s always been the question on why people seem so insistent on winning them. What do they matter? But some people really seem to want to run up the score in their head.
I’ve never believed in points or in winning the internet, so my focus has always been on how the “game” is played, not on who is “winning.” So, I’ll call it out when I see shots below the belt. Being the pit and all, I don’t need to be coy, and can straight up call it as I see it.
See, this is the sort of bad faith that I am calling out. That a poster disagrees with them on any part of their argument implies that the poster is arguing that women don’t "need to stand up for themselves and be supported by the men in their lives to do so. " This is a deliberate and malicious mischaracterization, meant to imply that the poster is arguing something completely other than they actually are.
This in no way changes my view that people shouldn’t kick puppies. You’re of course welcome to disagree.
