Conference turris::womannotes-v2

            -< don't worry, be happy (what's the face for sarcasm? >-

    Unfortunately the ingrained sexism and classism of the business
    world often mean that a professional woman in a predominantly male
    group frequently has to choose her associations carefully if she
    wants to succeed. 
    
    A woman who is friends with the secretaries runs a real risk of
    being treated like the secretaries, paid like the secretaries, and
    taken as seriously as the secretaries.  Choosing friendship with
    the secretaries, however rewarding the friendships may be, can
    damage her career. 
    
    --bonnie

    Re .2, I know men get hit with classism, too.  Digital may very
    well be better than a lot of other places, but it's not perfect
    and could be a lot better.  What I was addressing before was the
    particular aspect of classism that affects feminism where women
    who have "made it" may act snobby towards women who still hold more
    traditional jobs such as secretary.
    
    My ex-husband who works at DEC as a software engineer told me one
    story involving just men.  He was in a computer room looking for
    a printout when a manager type came in and started rudely yelling
    at him about not doing something.  He asked the guy what he was telling
    him for, and the manager said, "Aren't you a computer operator?"
     My ex said, "No, I'm a software engineer from blah-blah-blah group."
    and the guy was all apologetic and said, "I'm sorry.  I never would
    have talked to you like that if I knew you were an engineer, but
    I thought you were a computer operator!"

    (Yet, being a computer operator is thought of as a step up for
    secretaries!)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .1 - "...runs a real risk of being treated like the secretaries,
    paid like the secretaries, and taken as seriously as the
    secretaries..."
    
    Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if the secretaries were treated well,
    paid decently, and above all, taken seriously??  I feel very angry
    that secretaries and their work are so trivialized!  I'm proud of
    the work I do as a secretary.  Helping a group run smoothly and
    supporting the "professionals" _is_ important work.
    
    Sure, there are some secretaries who live up the stereotypical image
    of nail-filer and coffee-fetcher, but I think you can find some true 
    examples of _any_ stereotype.  I'd like to believe that any _real_ 
    professional values the work of her/his secretary, and that
    association with secretaries isn't career-threatening.
    
    Fellow secretaries and professionals - am I being naive?  What's
    your input?  Maybe I shouldn't be feeling so good about my job...? 
                                          
                        ...Lisa V...

           
 
    Re .1, that's why I prefer working with men, and why I would *never*
    work as a secretary for another woman.  Most professional men, being
    more secure in their roles, are not afraid to be friendly to
    secretaries.
    
    It's that type of attitude which perpetuates the idea that Women's
    Lib is only for women who already have professional, high paying
    jobs.  Why should I want to align myself with a bunch of snobby,
    professional women's libbers who think they're too good to talk
    to me or be friends with me?
    
    As Mary said, being a secretary is just another job.  Women who
    think they can't be friends with other women who happen to be
    secretaries, are just perpetuating the system that has kept most
    women down to begin with.
    
    Whatever you do, don't start being friendly to the women in the
    cafeteria or the woman who empties your waste basket!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	It really get me angry when people say "just a secretary"!
    I used to work in a plastic shop doing piece work before I went
    to school for a few months, received a certificate and landed this
    job. And now I am damn proud of myself.  And I really don't care
    if there are women who don't want to be friends with secretaries
    because it might hurt their career!  We don't need them.
    
    	I have one woman in my group.  I do not report to her, she's
    not my manager - but I do work with her and I do do things for her.
    We are friends, in fact we have become good friends over the past
    year.  We socialize outside of work - now does that mean that because
    of that her career might be affected???
    

    Might I point out that .1 was not expressing my personal opinion?
    Stating a fact of business life does not mean I advocate it or
    think it shouldn't be changed.  The lack of respect accorded to
    secretaries and other support people in this company is one of its
    biggest business problems. But saying "that's bad and it shouldn't
    be that way" is no solution. 
    
    There's also a difference between the kind of friendliness that's
    "socializing" and the basic politeness one owes one's coworkers.
    Anyone who yells at people of lower rank, whether computer
    operators or secretaries or road repairmen, is inexcusably rude
    and that's all there is to it. 
    
    But the fact remains that sexism and classism are factors in
    choosing who gets promoted.  I know a woman who was interested in
    management who was told, in so many words, that her "unprofessional
    behavior" was a factor in her not getting promoted to supervisor.
    One of the aspects of that unprofessional behavior was that she
    seemed unable to relate to her peers in the engineering group. She
    preferred the company of other women who happened to be
    secretaries and operators. She started spending her time with the
    engineers and developing contacts and is now a supervisor. 
    
    It's easy for you and I sitting here in a notes file to say that
    she should have sacrificed her career for the sake of having lunch
    with who she wants to, but I don't feel like I can make that
    judgement for her.  I don't think I could take a job that required
    me to make such drastic changes in my personal style, but others
    have no trouble letting the company decide everything they do
    between 8 and 5. 
    
    The purpose of being here is to earn my living, to get paid a good
    wage for a job I feel good about doing.  If that includes
    friendship, that's well and good, but it's not the purpose of
    work.  A lot of hard feelings come from confusing good working
    relationships with friendships. 

    --bonnie 

    Kinda frosts my butt when I hear ". . .just a ___________." (fill
    in the blank), particularly when it applies to work.  In general,
    I suscribe to the philosophy that all work is honorable and 
    valuable. . .
    
    
    . . .especially and particularly the work *I* do, dammit!
    
    Steve
    

	Any group without a ____1_____ that knows his or her business
	is not going to function well. Most people, no matter what
	their job is, need to interact with people who perform other
	jobs in order to get their own work done, and that work becomes
	part and parcel of your own. So to devalue someone elses work is 
	to devalue your own. 

					Tom_K

	1 - {Secretary, Documentation Writer, Engineer, Manager, Operator,...}
	

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================


    Re .7 (this was originally 4.48 in response to 4.47 which is now
            .7)
    
    Actually, what I really think is that if all women engineers,
    supervisors and managers took lunch and became friends with whoever
    they chose, that, after awhile, the managers who try to threaten
    them about it would just give up when they realized the women wouldn't
    back down.  In other words, I have a difficult time believing that
    who a person's friends are will really hold them back if they have
    the qualifications to become a manager, as long as they conduct
    themselves in a professional manner.
    
    An example: if I happened to become friends with a woman manager,
    and she were to join me and 5 or 6 other secretaries every day in the
    cafeteria for lunch and we all gossiped and giggled like half-wits
    then, yes, it might have a negative affect on her success
    professionally.  However, if she and I quietly went out to lunch
    together once a week, I really don't think anyone would dare say
    anything about it.
    
    A few years ago when I worked in a different department
    and facility in DEC, there were 2 female engineers in our group.
     I became friendly with both of them.  We would go to lunch on
    occasion, and every so often they would come in my office to talk.
     They were both feminists with liberal ideas and they seemed to
    have no fear of befriending a secretary.  In fact, I've noticed
    this fear mostly only with women managers, supervisors, and product
    managers.
    
    Earlier in my "career" at DEC, I worked as secretary for several
    product managers.  It was in that group that one female product
    manager (whom I didn't support as secretary) actually told me that she 
    had often wanted to ask me to lunch but was afraid to be friendly with 
    secretaries for fear she would be treated like one.  The irony
    is that I became friends with several of the male product managers
    in that group and often went to lunch with one or more of them.
     One of my closest friends in the group was a black male who had
    graduated from Harvard.  He wasn't afraid to become friends with
    a secretary, and he was a product manager.  
    
    It's too bad there has to be a class system imposed on us by industry.
    
    Lorna
      
    

 

    
    re: .10
    
    >It was a group that had one female product manager (whom I didn't
    >support as a secretary) actually told me that she had often wanted
    >to ask me to lunch but was afraid to be friendly with secretaries
    >for fear she would be treated like one.
    
    	This really gets me mad.  Treated like what?!?!?!?  I know that
    being a secretary is not the greatest job in the world, but it
    certainly is not the worst either.  I know that people say things
    about us, but is it all that bad that some woman don't even want
    to be friendly because someone might *say* something?  Give me a
    break - 
    
    

    
    Re: .12
    
    > i know its not possible -- but the solution would be to give all
    > the secretaries, janitors, garbage collectors, whatever, a week
    > off.  i bet you wouldn't here people saying, "just a this" or
    > "just a that" anymore.
    
    An astute observation.  Where I used to work, just about exactly 
    this collection of people went on strike.  And you're right...they 
    weren't taken for granted any more after that.
    
    .jim
    

    Re: .13
    
    >because someone might *say* something
    
    I think it was more like "because someone might do something." 
    Like take them less seriously, give them fewer of the responsibilities
    that are rightly their province and consequently hinder their chance
    for contribution and advancement.

    At my last job, I became good friends with the groups secretary. We did
    aerobics together, had lunch and coffee breaks together. I think the
    biggest fear of some women is that they will start being 'treated' like
    a secretary in terms of the work that they are given. I noticed that
    after making friends with her, I was often asked to do things she
    usually did when she was not there.  These items were not always a part
    of the job requirement but she usually did them such as shopping for a
    party, writing up lists, making photo copies, filing reports, taking
    meeting notes.  Finally I complained to her saying I felt like an
    overpaid secretary (a slip of the tongue on my part) - but after
    studying computer science for 4 years - that is what I wanted to do was
    computer science, not making photo copies, filing etc.  She understood
    the way I was feeling - she was in a degree program at night and
    expected that when she was done she would get 'career' related work
    to do (she was studying marketing) and not be 'treated' as a secretary.
    Finally she suggested we just meet after work or off the premises.
    But instead I just left the company to work for Digital - now we
    can meet whenever we want!

    My last job was with a little Mom and Pop consulting firm which
    consisted of 14 technical people, an office manager and a secretary.
    The technical positions were divided evenly between men and women.
    The secretary was a close friend and confidant to almost all of the
    guys and only one of the women (the office manager, who was her friend
    before she came to work for the firm).  I left there nearly two
    years ago and I still spend a (long-distance) hour on the phone with
    her catching up on things every month or two.

    Anyway, all of the guys (with the possible exception of "Pop", the
    company VP) were always courteous to Tracey, and considerate of her
    time constraints and pressures.  We also knew and appreciated just how
    much she was picking up about computing (she would often sit and watch
    one of us work for a while just to pick up a few new commands) and
    trusted her to proof-read our specs and other documents.  The women, on
    the other hand, all treated her (and still do) as "just a secretary".

    It hurts me to know that this talented woman, a divorced mother of two
    who struggles to get *anything* out of her ex, is still getting sh*t for
    pay.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I love capitalism, but it gets a
    little ragged around the edges when we fail to pay people what they're
    worth simply because we think that we can replace them easily.  This
    company would take a major performance hit if they lost Tracey, but I'd
    bet they'd rather let her go and spend many months searching out a
    merely adequate replacement than pay her anything like she's worth. 
    And there's absolutely no chance for advancement where she is.

    							-- Mikey

    This is quite sad. I never really knew that it was not the best
    thing (sic) in the world to befriend the secretary. Hmmm... Quite
    often the secretaries are the only normal people in the group!
                                 
    Karen

    I believe it is a snobbish assumption on the part of some women
    that they will be treated differently if they are friendly with
    secretaries, or a secretary.  People who are confident about their
    place in life, or in work, should not be afraid to be friends with
    whoever they want.  It seems to me that simply saying, "I'm sorry
    I'm not a secretary.  I'm an engineer (or whatever) and I have my
    own work to do."  should be sufficient if somebody tries to get
    you to make copies for them or something.  The two female engineers
    who were friends with me in one of my previous groups were never
    treated like secretaries or expected to do secretarial work.
    
    One of my closest friends is a woman whom I met several years ago
    when she was a technical writer and I was doing a brief stint as
    a word processing operator between secretarial jobs at DEC.  I had
    to type the stuff she had to write.  (Dec Stds - we were both bored
    to death!)  I never noticed it held her back.  She went on to be
    a course developer, and made friends with whoever she wanted at
    that job.
    
    I have worked as a secretary for quite awhile now.  It seems to
    me that men are used to having women for secretaries, and that over
    the years, both have become somewhat comfortable with their roles.
     Most men feel secure about the position they've attained.  They
    probably expected to have a job that good ever since high school
    and they have no problem with the way they treat their female
    secretaries.  Of course, there are differences.  Some are more friendly
    than others.  Some are obnoxious.  But, in general, they are not
    breaking new ground.  But, women who attain management positions
    sometimes don't seem sure *how* they should treat their female
    secretaries.  Some of them wind up treating the secretaries worse
    than most men treat them because of this.  I get the impression
    that professional women aren't quite sure *how* to treat women who
    still have traditionally female jobs.  The light, casual joking
    and teasing, and even casual flirting on occasion, that sometimes
    goes on between female secretaries and male professionals is of
    no use.  
    
    I sometimes think that some women who have attained management
    positions act scornful of women who still have typically female
    jobs.  I sometimes think they *do* think they are too good for us.
    
    Then, of course there are the exceptions, the few women who seem
    more enlightened than most professional men.  I'll never forget
    one instance when I was made to feel like I wasn't even human, or
    at best a maid.  It was several years ago in another group at DEC.
     I had been asked to bring in a huge tray of coffees to a meeting.
     When I got to the door of the conference room it was closed, both
    my hands were full and nobody realized I was there.  I kicked the
    door with my foot!  Finally one of the men noticed I was there and
    opened the door.  I walked in, put the tray full of coffees on the
    table and *not one* of the men (about 15 of them) said Thank You
    - not one word!  I put down the tray in silence and turned to walk
    out.  Just before I went out the door, the *one* woman in the meeting,
    a product manager, looked around the table with a disgusted look
    on her face and then said, "Thank you, Lorna" in a loud voice. 
    I said "Your welcome" and left.  Not one man had even acknowledged
    my presence in bringing in the coffee.  I really appreciated that
    one woman speaking up at that moment because I felt like a sub-human
    the way I was being treated.
    
    There are two issues - how people are treated on the job and feeling
    free to make friends with whoever you want regardless of their job.
    
    In any case, I guess I don't think much of people who put personal
    ambition above the feelings of other people.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	Re: .15
    
    	Sorry, I ment to say - because someone might *do* something!
    	You say that they could be taken less seriously.  I think
    	it's stupid.  Are we taken less seriously than other positions?
    	Probably - but there are alot of managers out there who wouldn't     
        be doing so well, if us little people weren't around....    
    		
      
      	I know that some people who aren't secretaries complain about
    	having to do some of the things that we secretaries are suppose
    	to do and they say that it's not their job or not in their job
    	description or whatever.  I, probably as well as other secretaries,
    	know that I have had to do things too that are not part of my
    	job....
    
    
    	

    re: .7
    
    A late reply on a very active note...
    
    Bonnie,
    
    As to the woman who "seemed unable to relate to her peers in the
    engineering group..."
    
    Although I wouldn't call that 'unprofessional behavior' I would
    be concerned about her ability to manage people that she couldn't
    relate to.  There was a woman in the last company I worked for,
    she couldn't relate to anyone, man, woman, secretary, other managers,
    I mean, her interpersonal skills were quite deficient.  But my manager
    made her a project leader and it was pure hell for all those who
    had to report to her.  So if someone, man or woman, is going to
    be supervising engineers, I would hope that that person could relate
    to them.          
    
    On the subject of secretaries in this company, there is a terrible
    morale problem, secretaries don't feel valued, and from some of
    the behaviors I've seen around here, I can understand why.
    
    The systems/admin group here in personnel has just finished a major
    needs analysis study.  A few of the things that came out in the
    interviews was that secretaries aren't included in staff meetings,
    therefore they don't feel part of the team, secretaries get saddled
    being babysitters for managers' mail accounts, to the extreme that
    a short note to someone gets written on a piece of paper and handed
    to the secretary to type into the manager's mail account, etc.,
    etc.  If a secretary is invited to staff meetings, it's usually
    for the purpose of taking minutes of the meeting.  Personally, I
    think this type of treatment of secretaries is terribly wrong, and
    it seems that many have lost sight of the lofty notion of 'do the
    right thing.'
    
    Laura
    

    The one time that I was referred to as "just the TAG", I blew up.
    That was during my first assignment, and that was almost 2 years
    ago.  Just because I am a Digital Temporary doesn't make me a second
    class citizen.
    
    BTW, "Blew up" is a bit of overkill.  What I actually said was "I
    have a name; please use it."  And the person later apologised.
    
    I now use "The TAG" as another of my many nicknames.
    
    K.C.-the-TAG

    A suggestion for {secretaries, friends of secretaries, etc.} who
    are asked by other members of the group to do something outside
    of their job responsibilities:
    
    Say to them something like "Oh, you don't know how to do _______?
    Come along with me, and I'll teach you!"  Say it sincerely, and
    follow through.  They'll probably be so embarassed at "not knowing
    how to do something Just A Secretary" can do, that they'll probably
    never ask again.
    
    If they say something like "Oh, I'm too busy."  Say something like
    "Well stop by when you have more time."
    
    I won't guarantee that this approach will get you a good review, but
    the look on their faces will be worth the monetary loss!  ;^)
                                                             
    Jack
    

    re .21:
    
    > As to the woman who "seemed unable to relate to her peers in the
    > engineering group..."
    > 
    > Although I wouldn't call that 'unprofessional behavior' I would
    > be concerned about her ability to manage people that she couldn't
    > relate to.
            
    Laura,
    
    I couldn't agree more. I'm been struggling for two days now about how 
    exactly to bring this up. You've said what I've been trying to come up
    with. 
    
    The reason I've been struggling is that so much depends on the phrase
    "unable to relate to one's peers". Did they reach this judgement
    merely because she is friendly with the secretaries and operators,
    or does she really have a problem relating to the engineers and
    managers? The conclusion of the anectdote (she started "making
    contacts" and is now a manager) leads me to believe that she really
    wasn't relating to the engineers and was spending all of her "off"
    time with secretaries and operators.
    
    This is what bothers me, though, that last sentence sounds to me
    like the "classism" that is being denounced here. I don't have enough
    time or energy right now to work up an essay about just what I think is
    "classism" and what isn't. But let me just say that I don't think
    my previous paragraph is classism.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .23
    
    Temporary Assignment Group
    
    Steve (degree of certainty only so-so here. . .anyone know "fer
    shur"?)
    

    .27
    
    you are correct (the G used to mean something else but was
    changed years ago.
    
    Bonnie

       The classim that's been refered to here covers more than just
       secretaries. How many of you know technical folks that move into
       management and then stop socializing with the (I really hate this
       label for some reason I can't pinpoint) the "individual
       contributors" in their old group? I suppose the phrase that best
       describes this is "birds of a feather flock together" and that
       is something of universal attitude about how people are viewed.

       I learned from my years in the hospital that you should always be
       on good terms with the folks who perform the backup work for your
       job. If I had a patient get violently ill I needed the housekeeping
       staff right away cause my job was to manage the patient was until
       the doctor arrived and their's was to make sure the room was
       cleaned to prevent infection from spreading. It took all of us to
       provide the right patient care. All the parts are important. liesl
       

    Re: .29
    
    >I suppose the phrase that best describes this is "birds of a feather
    >flock together"
    
    I consider that pretty natural.  People associate with their
    colleagues, which is why they socialized with the 'individual
    contributors' when they were technical and stopped socializing when
    they moved into a different career.  Some friendships or associations
    simply don't endure over time.  I suspect the associations that
    *do* endure have more common ground than just work.

    re: .26
    
    Yes, Steve, she really was spending all her "off time" at work
    with the secretaries and she really wasn't spending any time with
    the engineers.  I thought that's what I said the first time, but
    obviously not everyone who read my note understood that point. It
    wasn't a question of being unable to relate to the engineers; she
    worked well with the rest of the group when it was strictly a
    matter of work, and her coding skills were good. 
    
    But I assumed several things in my note were clear when apparently
    they weren't. 
    
    I wasn't talking about either basic politeness to one's coworkers
    or about real friendships that presumably continue outside of
    Digital but rather about the quasi-friendly socializing that
    occasionally obliges you go to parties thrown by other members of
    your group.  They're nice people, fun to spend a few hours with,
    but all you have in common is the project, and when you and they
    move on to new projects, you'll each acquire a new working set, so
    to speak.  [Nothing wrong with this, by the way, unless you're
    mistaking it for real friendship of the kind Marge is talking
    about.] 
    
    I was hoping somebody else would make this point -- I hate
    to be militant and I hate to indict entire institutions.  but
    sometimes you have to be, and we're blaming the wrong person
    here.  We're blaming the woman who gets some success instead
    of the corporate structure that makes the division necessary.
    
    When I mentioned the danger of being treated "like a secretary," I
    wasn't talking about unfounded fears, I meant the real (though
    apparently decreasing, thank God) danger that a professional woman
    will not be given the chance to perform as a professional. Refer
    to the salary note, which includes a string discussing how often
    women are hired at a level lower than that for which they're
    qualified.  Note how many of us have mentioned in one place or
    another that we never include typing skills on our resumes so we
    won't wind up in the typing pool instead of in the job for which
    we trained.  Add the number of us who have had to take steps, even
    change jobs, to get assignments with real work in our area of
    expertise instead of bug fixing and fixing up somebody else's
    circuit diagrams. 
    
    The men of this world are still, on the whole and in most
    companies, judging the professional women by the same standards
    they use to judge a good secretary.  Competent, quiet, efficient,
    friendly when you flirt with them, not demanding any credit,
    always cooperative and willing to "cooperate" (read: be
    deferential) on key issues rather than insisting on doing it their
    way.  Nobody of either sex is going to get very far in marketing
    or sales on quiet self-effacement.
    
    By blurring the lines between professional women and secretaries,
    this form of sexism is doing a disservice to both groups -- it's
    denying the secretaries the credit and value for the important
    work they do perform, and it's categorizing all women as of value
    only inasmuch as they support the "real" work done by "real" men
    -- or more often in the group around here, by "real engineers". 
    
    And yet who are we blaming?  The men who've set up this corporate
    standard of undervaluing the support work the same way they
    undervalue the women in their own group? No.  We're blaming the
    women who are fighting to get their work valued and rewared as it
    should be.  We're blaming the women who say "You have to treat me
    like a professional, not like your secretary; you have to
    distinguish between us" instead of the men who refuse to see
    either woman's contributions.
    
    --bonnie

>       How many of you know technical folks that move into
>       management and then stop socializing with ...
>       the "individual
>       contributors" in their old group?

I often stop socializing with people not in my immediate vicinity (moving from
home town to college, college to work, one job to the next). Some people seem
to be able to hold on to tons of friends and acquaintances; I only have the
time/energy/desire for a retaining a few old friends each lifechange;
acquaintances are almost always whoever seems to be around me. 

	Mez

    While reading this string I have been thinking of the difference
    between 'respect' and 'friendship'.  For me they are two different
    things.  I respect my friends, but all the people I respect are not my
    friends.
    
    I believe all individuals deserve respect, and in the work setting,
    this means valuing and recognizing the contribution of everyone.  And
    encouraging and allowing everyone to meet their potential.  We need
    the different skills and opinions of everyone to do a good job.

    I work hard at assuring I give respect to all.  There have been cases
    where this respect has not been deserved, but luckily these have been
    isolated cases rather than the norm.

    But friendship in the work setting is a different matter.  I guess my
    definition of friendship may be more narrow than some people's.  My
    friends are small in number.  I have many acquaintances that I enjoy
    being with, but friendship is a higher level with more responsibility/
    bond with the other person.  I'm not at work to form friendships,
    although this can be a byproduct.  I'm at work to build new products
    for the company to sell.  I enjoy working on teams where the people
    share this view, where we have a common goal.

    I agree with the responses that say "classism" exists and is a bad
    thing in the work setting.  I submit that it is a lack of respect for
    the position and the individual that deepen the classism that exists.
    The old 'walk a mile in my shoes' line keeps coming back to me.  If we
    only knew the effort that each person puts into making us successful,
    we'd be a lot more circumspect about how we perpetuate classism.

    
    This whole thing has the flavor of deja vu (sp).
    
    Two incidents come to mind, here:
    
    While working as a co-op student for Digital, myself and another
    individual gave a free sign-language class to the (15 or so) members
    of our group.  We met once a week, for a 1.5 hour lunch break, and
    since the manager was also in the class, everything was cool that
    way.  (Justifiable use of company time, etc.)
    
    One week, we informed the manager that we would be away (forgot
    exactly why), and so would not be able to give the class.  He conveyed
    this to his SECRETARY. (Who, in my opinion, is a great reason that
    people develop negative images of secretaries - this is the same
    person, when I asked for a Digital telephone book, didn't have one
    and didn't know where to get one...  But, I digress.)  The secretary
    sent out one of those tedious All-in-One mail messages, to the effect
    of:
    
    "Due to their being away, the students will not be teaching their
    sign class this Tuesday."     ^^^^^^^^
    
    This really frosted my buns.
    
    I sent out a reply, to all recipients of the original message, which
    said:
    
    "Students?  I thought we were the teachers!"
    
    Mucho apologies followed shortly thereafter, and the whole department
    got a good thigh-slapper at her discomfiture, as well as that of
    the manager's, since he'd approved the text of the message before
    it went out.
    
    
    Another situation:
    
    I was working as a PC Technician back at school, and went out on
    a service call.  Now, "service call" can be anything from a fried
    motherboard, to an unplugged machine, to severely messed up software,
    you name it.  
    
    I get there, and there's this department chairperson (faculty member),
    who makes a face when he sees me, and finds out that *I'm* the one 
    that was sent, instead of a "real" technician.  I introduced myself, 
    and proceeded to work on the problem.  He was constantly questioning 
    my ability to work on the machine, "Do you know what you're doing?  
    Are you sure?  Have you had training on this before?"
    
    The phone rings.
    
    During the course of the conversation, he remarks on the phone that
    "some kid, a student" is working on his PC, trying to get it back
    up again.  (Note: He probably assumed that I wouldn't hear him,
    as it *is* a college for the deaf...  Not that *that* is a good
    defense, but ...)
    
    Now, this guy was notoriously abusive to *all* the technicians,
    so I just quietly collected my tools, and left.  I arrived back
    at the office, and told my supervisor that there was no reason that
    I should have to suffer this kind of abuse, and that I felt he owed
    me an apology - I was doing a professional job, getting paid for
    it, and I felt that I deserved the same respect that any other person
    would get for doing a service, regardless of my age or status as
    a student.  
    
    Fortunately, he backed me up, and we bucked it up another level.
    My division head had a chat with the chairperson, and the level
    of etiquette increased manyfold in a remarkably short period of
    time.
    
    :^)
    
    Bill

       Due to the somewhat vagabond lifestyle I lead while working at
       hospital jobs (I would burn out every six months to a year and
       have to quit for a few months) I have had a number of low level
       in-between type jobs. There is no doubt that lower paid (and hence
       lower class) jobs have just as much stress as high level jobs
       with not a quarter of the freedom to be human. You could get
       fired for being five minutes late, or not letting the boss get
       friendly. And I can't believe how managers could act like you
       couldn't read above a 3rd grade level much less think.

       I suppose it's natural to some extent to want to categorize
       people, I know I do my share, but the attitudes towards the down
       and outs in our society suck. In a Simon and Garfunkel song there
       are words to the extent "seeking out the poorer quarters where
       the ragged people go". It's something every American should do
       for a time to get a real perpective on how classist we really
       are. liesl

    Re .37 and the hypothetical question: Well, yes, one of the candidates
    does seem more attractive to me - the orderly. You see, I'm one of
    those people who wears jeans whenever I can, drives an economy car, and
    is made very, very uneasy by people in stylish clothes and sports cars.
    
    I suppose that makes me classist too, although for me it's the
    individual "symptoms" rather than one sweeping label. It isn't
    "doctors" or "Porsche owners" that turn me off, but the combination of
    characteristics would give me pause. Oh, the assumptions that I would
    make about a Porsche-driving doctor might be completely false; it isn't
    a given that he's more interested in material things than the next
    person, or that he's vain. But I have to admit that those are the
    thoughts that would first come to mind.
    
    Fair? Nope. Realistic? Maybe; odds are a person with those interests
    would not be interested in me...
    
    -b 

	
>	I have never been single so I never had to deal with this,

Bob, how'd you manage this?
	Mez

    re .35, Bill, I don't really understand the points you are trying
    to make.  You give an example of a secretary who made a mistake
    in sending out a mail message.  You give an example of a rude person
    you had to deal with when fixing a machine.  I know that there are
    rude people in all walks of life.  I also know that secretaries
    sometimes make mistakes, as do most humans, even engineers.  Are
    you trying to suggest that because one secretary that you knew was
    not competent at her job, that all secretaries deserve to be treated
    like second class citizens and be underpaid?
    
    I'm sure I can find examples of engineers and managers who have
    been rude and incompetent as well.  Then, maybe we can all be justified
    in treating each other like shit.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .40
    
    Lorna, I think (of course, I could be wrong...) that Bill was just
    giving other examples of "classism"...namely those directed at him
    when he was a "lowly" student/technician... 
    
    I did not get the impression at all that he was trying to put down
    secretaries (because one made a mistake). Nor did I get the impression
    that he was trying to show that "all secretaries deserve to be treated
    like second class citizens and be underpaid". Nor did I get the
    impression that he was trying to justify treating another like sh*t.
    
    Did I miss something here?                                          
    
    -Amy.

    Re .41, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted his reply.  Sometimes it is
    difficult for me to understand exactly what other people are getting
    at.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .40, .41, .42...
    
    Picture this:
    
    Bill, sitting at his terminal, catching up on the latest notes.
    
    Hits return key, 307.40 comes on the screen.
    
    Gasp. Clutches heart.  Looks fearful.
    
    Lorna, I am *very* sorry if it came out sounding that way; I meant
    it more in the spirit of .41 (classism as related to "students").
    
    I would *hope* that I've learned enough here in =wn= to not make
    that kind of (possibly fatal) blunder, dumping on secretaries. 
    Like all office workers should, I appreciate secretaries...
    
    Bill

    RE:  -1

    Ya.....but do you think of them as real people??

>    Ya.....but do you think of them as real people??

Fake people? Mannequins?

That's a pretty interesting question, and I'd like to answer for myself, but I
don't quite understand it...
	Mez

	
	re secretaries:

	I can see entire groups fall apart because the taken-for-granted
secretary is taking her earned vacation.  It is during this time when I
*really* enjoy letting people who depend on her/him know how I feel.
"You mean _YOU_ can't do that!!!"  I know I can't and I try to show my
appreciation.  I do what I do, for what I can't do, it doesn't if you can
spot a flaky chip or tell me how to fill out this *^%$@$ form, Thank you
for helping me.  

			KBear

    re: .44, re: my .43
    
    Of course; people with needs, feelings, and desires.
    
    Bill

    Judging from the number of addresses I had to remove, this memo
    is probably now one of the most widely circulated ones ever written.
    
    I hope it produces action; the addressees are senior enough!
    
    						=maggie
    
    ===================================================================
    

                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:      9-Dec-1988 01:42am GMT
                                        From:      ELAINE NEAL @PKO 
                                                   NEAL.ELAINE AT A1 at FDCV13 at PKO 
                                        Dept:      U.S. FIELD EMP. REL.
                                        Tel No:    223-7606

TO:  ROBERT HAYLES @OGO

CC:  JOSE LUGO @WSA
CC:  SHERMAN PATTERSON @PKO
CC:  CYNDI BLOOM @PKO

Subject: Secretarial Project - Valuing Differences Concerns

As a follow-up to the meeting that you, Sherman and I had awhile ago, I am 
listing below some of the concerns that we have heard from secretaries in focus 
groups throughout the U.S., as well as some that have been surfaced from 
Personnel Consultants.  As you meet with your staff you may find a way to share 
this information, or as people put on the "Valuing Differences Seminars", they 
might keep these concerns in mind in case they surface and can find a way to
address them.

1.  Secretaries feel like second-class citizens.  They do not receive the
    same benefits as WC4s (i.e., they have to fill out time cards, do not
    get the same time off, and part of the benefit package is different.)
    When programs are delivered by Personnel, they are usually for exempts
    (i.e., JP&Rs, JECs and recognition programs).  In fact the focus on
    exempts is so obvious that all secretarial focus groups across the U.S.,
    and even management focus groups, brought this topic up.
    
2.  Secretaries are not treated as members of the team.  They often do
    not take part in staff meetings, and when they do their opinions are
    not valued.  Also, many times they are requested to take minutes, a
    task that they believe can be shared by members of the team.  They are
    also not given the same treatment as other staff members - formal and
    regular 1/1s.  Any time spent with the manager is usually rushed and
    often over the phone.  Discussions are normally to give the secretary
    more work or obtain the work they requested.

3.  Secretaries are tied to their desks and the telephone.  Managers
    are often inconsiderate about allowing them to attend peer meetings
    and training and development activities and helping obtain telephone
    and job coverage for them to do so.  Secretarial meetings I have
    presented at have been poorly attended because the manager expects
    them to be "at their desks."

4.  Managers in the Areas often do not budget for and commit to or allow
    secretarial training.  Secretaries are expected to walk on the job and
    be immediately knowledgeable.  They are under incredible stress to learn
    hardware and software systems on their own as well as their job and
    knowledge of the business.  Until the New Hire Orientation Program was
    put in place for secretaries in Hdqts., this was also the case in
    the Greater Maynard and So. NH area.

5.  Secretaries across the U.S., in Digital, and in SSMI do not feel
    valued and recognized for the work that the do.  They do not feel
    treated as professionals in the secretarial career path.  Managers
    and staff members view secretaries as, "just a secretary," and "only
    a girl."  They also think that they are and always will be non-exempts
    and that they are not capable of further development.  The truth is
    that 21% of our SSMI workforce is degreed (10% Associates, 10%
    Bachelors, and 1% Masters including some double Masters) and many
    secretaries have excellent skills and competencies as well as an
    extensive knowledge of the business.

6.  Some managers promise that they will help degreed individuals career
    develop if they will come on board as secretaries.  Some of these
    managers do not end up assisting these people in their career develop-
    ment because they are afraid of losing them.  Managers know there is a
    shortage of skilled secretaries and that it often takes a long time
    to hire a new one and get them up to speed.

7.  98.6% of the SSMI secretarial workforce is female.  Only 1.4% is male.
    There is a belief that when secretaries begin to be respected for
    their "chosen profession" and treated as professionals by the
    organization, more males might want to enter the workforce.  Secretaries
    think that if more males were in the workforce, the work would be
    valued more and would be higher paid.

8.  Males who are in secretarial jobs are often perceived by managers
    to be gay.  This is especially prevalent in California where there
    are a high number of gays in certain cities.

9.  The level of stress on clericals/secretaries in the U.S. is extremely
    high.  It exceeds that of air traffic controllers.  Stress in the
    U.S. Field Areas is especially high where managers are on the road a
    great deal of the time and secretaries are left to run the office and
    support a large group of people.

10. Some secretaries find it difficult to take lunch or obtain phone
    coverage for themselves to take lunch.  This adds to their stress and
    feelings of not being valued by both managers and the company.

11. Secretaries are often given "last minute tasks" by managers and
    expected to stay late and get the job done.  Managers often do
    not effectively plan meetings and presentations and place the
    burden on the secretary to get the job done on time.  When managers
    do this over a period of time, secretaries gain a high level of
    frustration.

12. Secretaries often do not feel empowered to request job plans,
    development plans, career plans, attendance at peer meetings,
    and even 1/1s with their managers, even at the higher secretarial
    job levels.  Because they are treated as second-class citizens,
    they often treat themselves that way. 

I am sure there is more to say, but the above should give you a good feeling for 
why secretaries do not feel respected and valued as both human beings and
the professionals that many of them are.

Whatever you can do to help change consciousness in SSMI towards this very 
valuable and critically short workforce is appreciated.

   
                
  




Distribution List:

BECK @RANCHO @VAXMAIL,
BENTON @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
DGAMBA @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
FOWLER @EUCLID @VMSMAIL,
HOWERTON @DZIGN @VAXMAIL,
KGENDRON @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
KOCH @CSSE @VMSMAIL,
LIPTAK @DPEFIN @VMSMAIL,
MBURNCE @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
MLEVINE @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
OCONNELL @DZIGN @VMSMAIL,
RASKOB @MASADA @VAXMAIL,
ROGERSJ @VIDEO @VMSMAIL,
SIMONS @FAVAX @VAXMAIL,
STEELE @BRUTUS @VMSMAIL

Found this on Usenet sci.med (I suspect it was misplaced by a mailer).
If you want to communicate with the author, send mail to
	decwrl::"[email protected]"
If you want to subscribe to comp.society.women, send an inquiry message
(subject HELP) to ROLL::USENET to get information on Usenet subscriptions.

 
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
Subject: Re: Preponderance of women as tech-support people
Reply-To: [email protected] (Julie Rohwein)
Organization: MIT Media Lab
 
In article <[email protected]> roy@phri (Roy Smith) writes:
>
>	I've noticed that when I call a computer company for tech support,
>I tend to get to talk to a woman more often than I get to talk to a man.
>I'm not talking about the first N levels of people you get to talk to (who
>are also mostly women) but when you finally get to talk to somebody who
>really knows what is going on.  Why is that?  I've got several theories:
 
 
I ran across a researcher last year whose work is pertinent to this 
observation.
 
His name is Phillip Kraft, and he teaches at one of the SUNY campuses. 
(Specific information is in my thesis box, which I have yet to unbox.
maybe next week :-)).  Over the last ten years or so, he has been looking into
the status of women in computing, specifically in software.  When I heard him
speak, he presented a number of interesting results. (If anyone is interested,
specific citations will be available when the aforementioned box is unboxed.
 
	1.  Survey of a number of persons with "software-type" job 
		classifications -- I don't remember  the number off hand
 
		Participants were asked to estimate the amount of time 
		spent on the  job in various activities.  These activities
		included technical things like coding, debugging and designing,
		organizational type things like meetings and memo writing,
		service activities and sales related activites.
 
		A cluster analysis (which plots variables based on the
		frequency with which they  occur together), revealed 
		an interesting organizational chart.  It showed a technical
		track and a sales track, both of which merged into a 
		managerial track.  These areas were overwelming populated
		by males.  Females, on the other hand, by and large, inhabited
		an area characterized by "soft and fuzzy" descriptors:
		dealing with customer complaints, "hand holding", 
		troubleshooting.  The female cluster was quite isolated 
		from the other data.  Also, the female cluster contained
		a wide variety of job titles, ie it was not just that most
		women had service-type, but that in whatever job category
		they fell into, women found themselves in these roles.  
 
	2.  Analysis of the types of software jobs held by men and women, along
		with salaries received revealed a "woman's track" in computer
		related work. Women tended to hold jobs with little or no
		possibility of advancement within the place of employment.
		Analysis of salaries revealed  a "woman's salary" as well.
		When examined versus time spent in the profession, women's 
		salary levels plateaued after a few years, while men's salaries
		continued to climb.  
 
The talk included some intersting anecdotal information as well.  Kraft noted
that computer programming began as an entirely female profession. As an earlier
poster noted, the first programmers were drawn from "computation" departments
which prior to electronic computers consisted of women with pencils and paper
and BA's in mathematics.  Men did not enter the profession in any numbers 
until the early fifties when the rise of NORAD brought an large influx of money
and interest to software development.  
 
julie rohwein
[email protected]
...!mit-eddie!media-lab!julie
 

                                                           
        I searched the titles for "ism" and this was the best place
    	to put this, second best might be a hot button.
    
    	I have a serious "ism" against people who exhibit _extremely_
    	poor English language usage and style - several words misspelled
    	in each sentence, many incorrect verb tenses, etc...
    
    	When I see this in notesfiles, I think the person exudes stupidity.
    	I wonder how this person could have been hired into Digital.
    	It pains me to read their notes so much that I hit next-unseen 
    	as soon as I see their name.  And not reading someone's notes     
    	is only something I do of people I have absolutely no respect for - 
    	two people max.
    
    	I admit to this as an "ism" because poor grammar could have
	resulted from a disadvantaged education.  {but if I were their
	manager, I would suggest they take an adult education English
	composition course}
    							nancy b.
    

    nancy b
    
    but I have a terrible problem with spelling, a combination
    of never being able to spell well in hs and college, thinking
    faster than I write (this mainly causes me to leave off final
    letters on words) and having a bad computer link from home
    which garbles my mail and sometimes my notes.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	Bonnie,
    
    	I don't perceive you to have a spelling problem at all!
    
    	What I meant was a _severe_ problem.  A couple of spelling
    	or grammar errors per page is very easy to do. That is not
    	what I'm referring to at all...
    							nancy b.
    

    nancy b.
    I have to admit that people asking for advise itch my teeth
    
    next most frustrating is when people use their/there incorrectly
    
    :-)
    
    bonnie j

    in re .55
    yes

    re: spelling and grammar
    
    I had the same bias: that inability to use the language properly
    indicates lower intelligence.  Something recently happened that
    opened my eyes to another possibility, and it was most embarrassing.
    
    A man who worked in a nearby engineering group writes horribly. It's
    not just his spelling and grammar, but he seems incapable of expressing 
    himself in a coherent manner.  His sentences are garbled, his
    paragraphs have no logical flow.  His written work was my first 
    contact this man, and I was appalled.  
    
    More contact reveals that he rarely writes anything, but far prefers to
    communicate orally (to the annoyance of some people who work with
    him).  The man is very intelligent.  He is also severely dyslexic.  He
    copes by setting up his VMS environment to compensate.  For example,
    his login.com defines "rid", "dri", and "rdi", so that no matter what
    he types, he gets DIR.  He is very self-conscious about his writing,
    but cannot rely on his own perceptions to proof-read what he writes.  
    
    It still embarrasses me to remember the nasty thoughts I had the first
    time I read something he had written. 
    
    Beth

    Don't forget, too, that in a worldwide company like DEC, you may be
    reading the writing of someone whose native language is completely
    unlike English, anyhow.  So you have to somewhat sensitive to that
    aspect of s person's writing.  I, too, tend to discount
    sloppily-written prose more than I perhaps should.
    
    /Charlotte

    There is still another reason for "bad spelling and grammar" that is 
    understandable and excusable.  For many of the people writing, English
    is a second language, not their primary, and it is a *very* difficult 
    language to learn!  However, any language at first is difficult, and 
    I have the greatest admiration of someone who tries to communicate
    while they are still uncomfortable.  There is no better way to learn,
    but it can be embarrassing (can you tell I've been in this position
    8-) 
    
    To be honest, there are some usages that also cause me to grit my
    teeth, especially when I *know* the person knows better, but have
    found that usually there is a reason for most foulups.  (Of course,
    sometimes the reason is laziness - *that* I have a real problem
    with...)
    
    Linda

    Samuel R. Delany, one of my favorite writers, is dyslexic and his
    manuscripts are full of dreadful misspellings. 
    
    I read enough Renaissance lit that I'm used to personalized orthography
    anyway.  As for "bad grammar", if the construction is used in
    conversation (or if it's amusing!), it's OK by me.  
    
    Fixed spelling and grammatical rules are fairly new to English and,
    IMHO, haven't been that successful.  Although I try to follow them as
    best I can, within reason... 
    
    (To those whose hot button is "punctuation should be inside quotes
    instead of outside quotes", my apologies.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

         <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HUMAN_RELATIONS.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? >-
================================================================================
Note 890.70               Abuse of the English Language                 70 of 73
STKAI2::LJUNGBERG "Lights!Camera!Action!TIMBER!"    155 lines  12-DEC-1989 16:01
             -< Englih CAN be a bit tricky to a foreigner like me >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I know this is a bit out of context, since it's more about
    pronunciation than meaning - and I don't really want to
    wake this topic up again...but here goes! 
    

    
    The following verses were written after the war by a Hollander 
    whose knowledge of English, it will be noted, was extensive.
    From The Sunday Times some years back - without permission...
    
    Dearest creature in creation,
    Studying English pronunciation,
    I will teach you in my verse
    Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
    I will keep you, Susy, busy
    Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
    Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear.
    So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
    Pray console your loving poet,
    Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
    Just compare heart, beard and heard,
    dies, diet, lord and word.
    Sword and sward, retain and Britain
    (Mind the latter, how it's written).
    Made has not the sound of bade;
    Say - said; pay - paid; laid, but plaid.
    Now I surely will not plague you
    With such words as vague and ague,
    But be careful how you speak,
    Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
    Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
    Pipe, snipe, recipe, choir,
    Cloven, oven; how and low;
    Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
    Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
    Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
    Typhold, measles, topsails, aisles,
    Exiles, similes, reviles;
    Wholly, holly, signal, signing;
    Thames, examining, combining;
    Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
    Solar, mica, war and far.
    From desire, desirable, admirable from admire,
    Lumber, plumber, bier but brier;
    Chatham, brougham, renown, but known,
    From knowledge; done, but gone and tone;
    One, anemone, Balmoral;
    kitchen, lichen; laundry, laurel;
    Gertrude, German; wind and mind;
    Scene, Melpomene, mankind;
    Tortoise, turquoise, chamois - leather,
    Reading, reading, heathen, heather;
    This phonetic labyrinth
    gives moss, gross, brooch, ninth and plinth.
    Billet does not sound like ballet;
    bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;
    Blood and flood are not like food,
    Nor is mould like should and would.
    Banquet gives no clue to parquet,
    Which is said to rhyme with darky.
    Viscous, viscount; load and broad;
    Toward, to forward, to reward.
    Your pronunciation's okay
    When you say, correctly, croquet.
    Rounded, wounded; live and grieve;
    Friend and fiend; alive and sleeve;
    Liberty, library, heave and heaven;
    Rachel, ache, moustache; eleven.
    We say hallowed but allowed;
    People, leopard; towed but vowed.
    Mark the d'fference, moreover,
    'Twixt mover, plover and then Dover.
    Leeches, breaches, wise, precise,
    Chalice, but police and lice;
    Camel, constable, unstable;
    Principle, disciple, label;
    Petal, penal and canal;
    Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal;
    Suit, suite, ruin; circuit, conduit,
    Rhymes with "shirk it" and "beyond it".
    And it's very hard to tell
    Why it's pall, mall but Pall Mall.
    Muscle, muscular; gaol, iron;
    Timber, climber; bullion, lion;
    Worm and storm; chaise, chaos, chair;
    Senator, spectator, mayor;
    Ivy, privy; famous; clamour
    And enamour rhyme with hammer.
    Pussy, hussy an possess;
    Desert, dessert and address.
    Golf, wolf; countenance; lieutenants;
    Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.
    River, rival; tomb, bomb, comb;
    Doll and roll and some and home.
    Stranger does not sound like anger,
    Neither does devour like clangour.
    Soul but foul, and gaunt but aunt;
    Font, front, wont; want, grand and grant;
    Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
    Then say singer, ginger, linger.
    Real and zeal; mauve, gauze and gauge;
    Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.
    Query does not rhyme with very,
    Nor does fury sound like bury.
    Dost, lost, post; doth, cloth and loth;
    Job, job; blossom, bosom; oath.
    Though the difference seems little, 
    We say actual but victual;
    Seat and sweat; chaste, paste and caste;
    Leigh and eight and freight and height;
    Put, nut; granite, unite.
    Feoffer does not rhyme with heifer,
    Nor does reefer rhyme with zephyr.
    Dull, bull; Geoffrey, George; ate, late;
    Hint, pint; senate and sedate.
    Scenic, phrenic, and pacific;
    Science, conscience,; scientific;
    Tour, but our; and succour, four;
    Core provides a rhyme for door.
    Gas, alas, and pass, and was -
    Dickens started off as "Boz".
    Sea, idea, guinea, area;
    Psalm and charm; Maria, malaria;
    Youth, south, southern; cleanse and clean;
    Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
    Look up alien and Italian;
    Dandelion and battalion.
    Sallied, allied; yea and ye -
    Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!
    Say aver, but ever, fever;
    Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
    Never guess - it is not safe;
    We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.
    Heron, granary, canary,
    Crevice, and device, and eyrie;
    Face, but preface and efface;
    Phlegm, phlegmatic; ass, glass, bass;
    Large, but target; gin, give, verging,
    Ought, out, joust and scour; and urging.
    Ear, but earn; and wear and tear
    Do not rhyme with here but there.
    Seven is right and so is even,
    Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
    Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk;
    Tunnel surely rhymes with funnel?
    Yes it does - and so does gunwale.
    Islington and Isle of  Wight,
    Housewife, verdict and indict.
    Aren't you mixed up, reader, rather,
    saying lather, bather, father?
    Finally, what rhymes with tough -
    Though, through, plough or cough? Enough!
    Hiccough has the sound of "cup" -
    My advice is - give it up!

	Count me in - I have a number of grammar/spelling/usage "classist"
views.

	And, as for EASL (English As a Second Language), I can usually tell
based on sentence structure that the person is not a native speaker,
and that triggers a great easing of my classist expectations.

	Favorite hot spot:

	Use "less" when the object is non-countable, "fewer" when the object
is countable.

	There is less sand in this pail.
	There are fewer grains of sand in this pail.

	"8 items or less" is *always* wrong - and I've yet to see a grocery
store get it right.

						--D

Ray:

>   (To those whose hot button is "punctuation should be inside quotes
>   instead of outside quotes", my apologies.  (: >,)
    
  I read somewhere that putting the "other" punctuation inside the
  quotes was a result of what could be typeset, and had nothing to
  do with the way it "should" be.  After all, to us computer types,
  it's *OBVIOUS* what belongs inside or outside of a quoted string,
  right [:-)] ?

                                   Atlant

RE . 62

	
	Or how about "1/3 less calories"   AAAARRRGGHHH!!!!!!
	I HATE that!  You'd think whoever's designing the packaging or
	advertising should have a clue about the English Language.

	Sue

    
    They aren't interested in playing to the box seats, but rather
    the bleachers...
    
    Advertisers play what gets results, and dreadful English
    constructs work just fine for many mershandise lables

Dear Mr/Ms Language Person,

I couldn't find the answer in Strunk and White.

When you use smiley faces in sentences (within parens ;-), does the mouth
count as a parenthesis or not (not that it really matters ;-)).

john

John:

  Use the Universal Grammar Hack and cast your sentance in such a fashion
  as to avoid the bit-of-grammar that you're not sure of!  [:-)]�

                                   Atlant


� Note the clever use of square brackets to delimit this
  parenthetical comment!

    I'm sure that Strunk and White would suggest you eschew use of such
    silliness in favor of writing with sufficient clarity that your
    intentions are unambiguous.