The whole test and its implementation are geared towards treating management as a “do as I say or else” proposition. The bosses I’ve had who worked like that were males in all cases except one; they were also the worst bosses I’ve had (I’ve had some coworkers who prefered bosses like that, since it freed them from having to think, but that’s not my case, I admit that this is personal preference). If you so much as get one point in “willing to take orders”, they say you can’t be a manager. If you get one point in “willing to negotiate”, you can’t be a manager. Hello? My response when I got the “take orders vs give orders” explained was “you know that complaint HR people have about it being so difficult to find middle managers? You just explained it. A middle manager has to be able to take orders.”
This is something I only realized looking back, but all the way back in school girls were not allowed to yell; boys were. Girls were expected to mostly play games with no competition involved; boys were expected to compete. Now apply that kind of psycho test to this…
[QUOTE=Sattua…I tried to major in computer science and quickly decided it was an aggressive, competitive, nasty, abusive, soul-sucking place to be,…[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should read the magazine How to Suck Souls To Keep A Man, then you’d get some tips and it wouldn’t be a problem.
I think they sell it at Borders, but I don’t know what section.
At the Borders near me, magazines about architecture an graphic design are stacked with magazines like The Advocate and other gay advocacy mags. What message does that send?
I, too, have a very part-time job at my local Borders (love it, by the way!) and can attest to the fact that the management of the individual stores has a lot of autonomy in determining how signage is to be used in their store. We are a “small market” store, have different community diversity dynamics, and try to pattern our layout to what local interest might be when we are allowed to do so by the corporate office. Other MMV.
But leave the OP alone regarding the discount policy, folks! I don’t see that she intended to hurt her friend by telling us she is getting to use the discount, nor is even culpable in any way for receiving it—a manager MUST be present for each employee transaction at the registers, and clearly her friend’s store management is allowing her to use the discount at the point of purchase in spite of the corporate policy, so it’s the store’s problem and not hers…I believe if she had known it was against policy, she’d have stopped doing it. My understanding is that it wasn’t ALWAYS the case that only the employee and partner got the discount, and even now at holidays, there are deep discounts offered to “friends and family” of the employees that no one else qualifies for, so the policy can be confusing particularly if the management of her friend’s store is allowing it. I detect no intentional wrongdoing. She has said she will not jeopardize her friend’s job further. That ought to be enough.
The problem I have with the OP is that Diosa is protesting about one form of out-moded sexism but condoning another, or at least referring to it as if it’s okay, nothing to protest about.
Well, boo hoo to you. I think it’s horrible or pathetic that a magazine about tattoos or containing photos of naked women is labelled as ‘men’s interests’. I’m a straight man and I have absolutely zero interest in either tattoos or mags full of pix of naked women. Don’t buy them, don’t want to. I have a bit more respect for myself and for women than to fund that particular industry. But according to Diosa, filing this material under ‘men’s interests’ is just fine? Or what should I conclude here… out-moded sexism is A Bad Thing when it mis-characterises women, but fine and unremarkable when it mis-characterises men?
At the Borders I worked at there could be up to three categories on a single shelf. There’s no excuse for putting the science magazines (etc.) under “Men’s Interest”.
She’s lying IMO. Call her on it by talking to her supervisor.
I didn’t say she intended to hurt her friend, I just said she would never get the discount again from me if she showed she were so casual about telling it to the entire world. I had a roommate who worked at a Best Buy where, in the store’s entire history, there were only two reasons anybody had ever been fired: theft and abuse of the discount.
BTW, I hadn’t read Diosa’s response to DrDeth when I put up my post. Your roommate is breaking the rules, Diosa, but if the management’s cool with it, well, have fun I guess. Lord knows I’ve broken rules at work while my manager was looking the other way.
At the one I worked at, all the porn (hardcore, softcore, gay, straight, whatever), tattoo mags and weed mags were in a section called “Adult Interest”, because those were things that were presumably more interesting to adults. That makes a lot more sense to me.
Thank you for putting words into my mouth. That’s real sweet of you. I can see your argument about the tattoo magazines, but not what I dubbed “naked lady magazines.” Yeah, Maxim and Playboy have naked ladies, but they are predominantly articles that are focused towards male interests. Just like Cosmo has articles geared towards women, the same goes for Playboy. A certain degree of separation among the two is understandable, but when it comes to more generic things like science or history, it seems silly to me to separate the sections like that- especially in such a biased manner.
Now, if you’d like to continue telling me what I think, I’m all ears.
