(I wasn’t calling you an asshole delphica. I didn’t read it as if it was controversial to you)
I don’t think we have “Men’s Interest” or Women’s Interest" tags here in our local Borders. I think history and science stuff is under the General category. Next time I’m in the city I’ll go look.
Boy did you hit that one right on the head for me. I’ve spent the last six months stressing over this very reality. Looks like I’m not alone.
Well, she does live in Bakersfield 
Well, I regulary go to no less than 3 Borders, and what the Op sez is not true for Borders in general. It may well be for that particular store, but so? The 'zines have to be put somewhere.
In my local Borders, the closest, the “men’s skin mags” are located in a rack where it’s:
Skin
Guns, etc
Cars
It is true that the Skin magazines (which include Playgirl, Esquire and various Gay men’s softcore photo ‘zines) are labeled "Mens’ Interest". Thus literally, the next shelf down is "under the men’s interest section"and so is the bottom shelf, the car 'zines. But the car zines have their own label. So although the car section is “under” the “mens” area, it is labeled on it’s own, which appears to be the same about where the OP is whining and bitching. So, the “under” part is just happenstance.
The Science Magazines (in my local Borders) are located 4 racks to the left, next to the Homemaking 'zines, and “under” the Cooking 'zines. So, wrong again.
Do you have any evidence at all that the sections at that particular Border’s store are located that way due to sexism? Hvae you checked other Borders? Have you checked other bookstores, like B&N?
Of course, I see you have no problem at all with stealing from Borders, and thus you’re both an over-sensitive, ignorant twit- and a thief (you accept a 33% discount that you are not entitled to, thus you are stealing). Not to mention that you are very likely going to get your roomie fired. But- it’s* Borders* that has the problem, eh?
Wanna try something fun? Call each of those magazines, and ask who they are marketed to and the demographic their advertiser’s target. I don’t see a problem with Borders putting all the magazines published for women together. If you want a Hustler, I’m sure they will let you into the men’s section to buy one.
Next thing you know, you’ll entertain us with investigative photography inside the grocery store. All the jet-black hair color is segregated in the same section with African American models on the boxes! And let’s not even start on Count Chocula, who has to occupy a shelf below that celtic Lucky Charms leprechaun.
Nor at the three I’ve worked at. I think it may just be your store. They’re usually near the history/weekly/archeology stuff.
The policy (as it was written, I don’t know if it’s changed) didn’t apply to men who desired extended paternity leave, nor to people who adopted infants, so critics argued it didn’t even come close to being a policy that could be equitably applied across the board. Just to be clear, Stanford (like most universities) already has regular old maternity, paternity, and adoption leave benefits in place – it’s this particular new childbirth policy that provides really rather significant additional benefits to women who bear children. It was my impression (sorry, no cites, just what I remember reading in the news at the time) was that there was mix of people who wanted the benefit extended to other family situations, and those who felt there should be no expansion of leave benefits at all because it was a such slippery slope and people would start claiming them if they got a new puppy or what-have-you.
I’m in a bit of a rush at the moment so I don’t have time to reply to everything, but two stuck out to me:
Each section has a big sign at the top (Politics, Fashion and whatever, Men’s Interest) and below the big sign each shelf is further subdivided (in the case of men’s interest there is science, history, etc).
Well, I’m glad to hear that this isn’t some vast-Borders-wide policy. We asked the head manager at our branch last night why the magazines are organized like that and she told us that it is corporate’s call how the magazines are organized- she has no say. So either she’s lying or corporate has a different idea for how things need to be set up in good ol’ Bakersfield, California.
First of all, I apologize that I implied (to you, at least) that I had gone and looked at a hefty sample size of Borders to draw my conclusion. I was basing my OP on my experience at my one local Borders, after being told by the HEAD MANAGER that the magazine layout was a corporate decision. In that situation, I have every reason to be mad at BORDERS, even if this is something that just happens in my local store.
There is only one Borders in Bakersfield. Interestingly, early that night we had gone to both Barns and a local book chain. Neither of those two places had the magazines organized like they are at Borders. I’m not saying that’s a healthy sample size or anything, but here locally Borders is the only place that does that.
Right, so because the person I live with gets a 33% discount that her managers have no problem with her sharing with friends and family- a discount which she extended to me and that I used before I had a problem with the store- my whole rant falls, eh? Sorry, that’s not how that works. You’re reaching for something that isn’t there, because that sure as fuck isn’t stealing when it’s something that is Ok’ed by the higher ups. So you know what? Go fuck yourself for having the audacity to insinuate that I’d steal. You went so far as to call me a thief that’s ruining my friend’s job in a situation you know absolutely nothing about. So not only are you a knee-jerk having, ignorant mother fucker- and a bad debater. But- it’s me that’s the over-sensitive, ignorant twit?
Ahem…have you been taking Equipoise lessons or something?
It may be authorized by the managers in your store, not by Borders corporate headquarters. It’s a firing offense and eventually her Loss Prevention worker will discover it and there will be trouble. And I’ve been with Borders for 5 years. The only person who can get the employee’s discount is his/her legal spouse.
Well, now that I know I certainly wont take her up on her offer any more. I still don’t see how that equals me stealing when she was told it was ok by her chain of command? That logic doesn’t quite flow with me.
I didn’t say it was stealing. Just telling you the policy. It’s actually under abuse of privileges, or something. And I misspoke. It’s legal spouse OR same-sex equivalent.
Actually, when I worked at Borders about 8 years ago, that section was be labeled the “Women’s Interest” section. I wrote a letter complaining to corporate about havin women’s interest being comprised soley of fashion, health, and wedding magaines that actually got pubished in the employee’s newsletter where they gave me some bullshit excuse. They’ve classified magazines that way forever and the fashioh magazine, etc. are still considered to be in the womens interest category even though they’re not publicly labeled that way anymore.
If you’re pissed, complain to both the store manager and to corporate, In fact, point them to this thread. Even better, drop a note about it to some of the more active women’s rights bloggers and get some web action going. Only way you’re gonna see any action.
I think that would be a great category for its own sign. Not only women are interested in knowing how to suck a dick to keep a man, after all. Plus it would make for great people-watching.
I was just in a Borders (in Houston, Texas) and because of this thread I checked the magazine racks. The science and history magazine sections shared a rack with “Eastern spirituality”. The “Men’s interest” section was pretty much all Maxim and Playboy type stuff (it did have a couple of video game magazines but I think they had been moved).
You could try bluffing them. But if either one of you buys a magazine on dick sucking, the game is up.
I just wanted to say that I really admire the photographs. Your cellular phone takes excellent photographs. They have a certain clarity, fullness of color and tone, excellent contrast ratio and even range of exposure. The skin tones duplicated in some of those images are simply breathtaking.
They’re really something.
What ???
( FWIW, I do agree with your OP. Borders, like all marketing outlets, makes decisions based on assumptions of a few, disserving the needs of the many and insulting the intellects of nearly all. )
Cartooniverse
As has been said, your roomate can’t extend the discount to you. If she does so, without approval, that is stealing. However, I know that Borders is a very nice place to work, especially compared to B&N, so I accept that her Managers have Oked it, and thus it’s *not *stealing. It still could get her- and her Manager staff- into trouble.
But see, here that’s one reason why I over-reacted. Borders has been very good to you and your roomie, and yet you “bite that hand” by calling them sexist without full research.
So, I *did *over-react as I was not in possesion of the whole story. :smack: But isn’t that what you did, too?
So because she uses a discount she can’t point out something that she doesn’t like and may offend some people?