@smokediver68 I'm not going to put through another comment like this from you that completely skips the substance of the argument and makes it personal about our writers and company, but I wanted folks to see this one for what it is. (Ronni may have her own response.)
Media criticism is something we do -- and people who take it personally are free to do that, but that's not how it's meant. The Clarion-Ledger still purports to be a statewide daily, backed by the largest newspaper company in the country. While it is perhaps increasingly irrelevant, it remains the "paper of record" in these parts. So, in my opinion, they have a responsibility to the community.
Carrying water for this meme -- that somehow the Byron case got special treatment because she's a woman -- is *at best* confusing correlation for causality. And it happens to be a REALLY bad fit for this case, because the only logical premise is that it matters if a woman gets different treatment for the same crime, and this particular case is a bad fit for that premise.
The C-L needs to get beyond this "national new channel" level of discourse and move to the next level in their coverage -- context -- something that you don't actually seem to have a quibble with since you didn't address any of the substance of Ronni's piece.
As for Ms. Apel "making us look good" I hope that's true (I've never heard of her, but don't have any reason to doubt it), but that doesn't make this piece any better -- something which we might rightly blame on her editors more than her if they gave her the assignment. Nor does that C-L's Monday-morning grandstanding on a story that they've completely whiffed on.
As for your other comment about our up-to-date list of bands -- you're welcome, and thanks for reading! We pour every resource we have into all aspects of our reporting and we enjoy offering high quality content as a service to our readers.
That's my bad. I wrote the draft and I'm a little notorious for my spelling errors. (You should see how many times I've screwed up "Horhn" in the past few weeks.) I apologize to Donna and the staff for making them look bad and to Mr. Lumumba for the error.
@kingkeylion Sorry you found this confusing. The way I read it, the legislation is clearing Jackson to get the "boost" discussed that it wouldn't be able to get without authority from the state; the photo is of the councilman quoted in the story. Thanks for reading!
In this case, NotMuch, you might be able to lend some first-hand experience. What do the principals at your firm look like? Could you send some links or pictures?
I'd love to hear the stories of women breaking into the ranks of partnership and top management in your firm thanks to the value that the engineering world places on their talents and their remarkable organizational skills.
It sounds like you, as president, have the potential to be a real catalyst of institutional change both for your own firm and your industry -- and it would be impressive -- even transformative -- if we could hear and retell that tale, particularly coming out of Mississippi.
*Todd, you apparently believe in the same transfer of your own experiences as the only possible scenario--you just can't accept that Scott1962 has never witnessed sexism, and your only explanation is that he is looking in the other direction in denial...*
@NotMuch -- First, let me say that I share the confusion over what (a.) Madison County and (b.) Christianity have to do with anything Donna is saying.
That aside, it's laudable that you live in the futuristic world of engineering that proves to be a mecca for women, where they name their salaries, are listened to with rapt attention and frequently complimented on their appearance by men both less skilled and organized that they.
However, I'm a little concerned that you're doing the very same thing that you accuse Donna and me of -- extrapolating your personal perceptions to somehow generalize about the state of things.
I present two counterpoints. One, a quick Google search brings up this [2011 article at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers website][1] and this [2012 article at the same place][2], which point to the persistent (and thankfully narrowing) salary gap between men and women in engineering, showing women's salaries at about 80% of men's. Also, there's [this 2014 article][3] that shows women at about 13 percent of the engineering workforce, up from 4 percent in the 1980s, but still somewhat short of stated goals.
Second, you may be aware of this [study of the engineering field that found a great number of women leave the profession][4] because of the male-dominated culture that was unfriendly to their needs and advancement:
*Among the common factors that women cited as their reasons for leaving the profession were too much travel, working too many hours, lack of real or perceived opportunities for advancement, and uncivil work environments where women were treated in condescending or patronizing manners. Only 25 percent of the women who left engineering did so for family reasons.*
This [recent piece in the Washington Post][5] discusses women leaving engineering because of, among other reasons, their inability to reach the highest rungs of management in firms.
*You created a human being in a needy state. You have a debt to care for that human being. Of course the state should mandate that you fulfill your debt to care for your child.*
Ah. Interesting. Is this the part of your argument that applies to rape cases? I thought it was because life began in the eyes of God at conception.
Once we remove an appeal to God as the exclusive premise in your argument, as you've now done (with some justification -- Jesus himself said nothing about abortion; indeed the Bible doesn't mention it specifically) -- it's interesting to note the tenor of *blame* -- perhaps we could call it "judgement"? -- sneaking in.
The "you" in the quoted sentence appears to be the mother (I've seen no evidence that Personhood legislation mandates any action on the part of the the father even though he was there -- with or without God -- at the moment of conception) and it seems to be her "duty" that she's to suffer for her transgressions by, say, allowing herself to be raped or molested, or for failing to use birth control, or for using birth control that failed, or in cases where she finds that she's carrying a child that won't make it to term, or that will be severely disabled, or that she knows she can't care for properly during or after the pregnancy.
Do you see the problem? (I assume you don't. After all, it's not really *your* problem.)
Maybe if Personhood mandated taking the zygote out of the woman who doesn't want or can't take it to term and putting it in someone who can -- or putting it in the father so he could bring it to term -- then your judgement wouldn't seem so one-sided and inhumane.
But the problem is it doesn't work that way, so your only option is to take the perfectly in-God's-image human girl or woman right there in front of you and condemn her without regard to circumstance to whatever fate she has in store in favor of -- and with extreme prejudice for -- the *potential life* she may or may not bring into the world.
How can we rectify this situation? DrewHymer has made his stance clear. We judge the person who is already here and have the state mandate her actions. Why? Because she is, in his judgment, required to fulfill her "debt." (Would similar words work? Trespasses? Sins?)
And that's why -- for my money and vote -- I don't think it makes any sense that we should defer to DrewHymer's opinion when it comes to whether a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions.
I certainly will look for opportunities to keep your opinion from becoming law, DrewHymer. Not that you aren't welcome to your opinion, because it's a "free country."
Even if your opinion is that the country should be a *less free for others*.
Here's why I don't think you'll do it. Because I don't think you're really who you say you are. I don't think you work around a lot of women and I don't you hire in the corporate world.
Why? Because of statements like this:
*They'll be interviewed by people like me who will not hire them. And why? Because the entire time we're talking she's waiting for me to ask her to spend the night and it's easy to detect that defensiveness.*
Or maybe it was because she had a firm handshake.
I don't think you've got this job because god bless america i hope you don't have it. But if you do, please prove it.
Here's the deal. I'm a white American male. And Donna is not "at war with me" or my kind. She's an observer who notices things. And she has the right to.
So I'm saying this to you -- man to man, handshake as firm as you can stand -- prove it.
(Oh, and I apologize if you find this comment at all *abrasive*; because Lord knows you seem like the sensitive type.)
*I have many women working for me in entry level as well as key management positions and I have never witnessed this.*
@Scott1962 I've got to say, if you're really in management as you suggest and you've *never* witnessed "this" (which I assume is meant to refer to some of the sexism that Donna has seen) then my working hypothesis is you're looking HARD in the other direction.
I've seen it -- I've been in business for myself since two years into my career, and I've still seen sexism -- on non-profit boards, in public meetings, in daily life. I try to model something else and probably don't always succeed because I'm used to being listened to and I like the sound of my own voice.
Judging from this screed, you're pretty pleased with the dulcet tones of your own opinion as well.
Let's take this as an example:
*Let's look at the other side based entirely on things you've written in the past. You have so much contempt for the residents of Madison because in your mind their decision to move was fueled exclusively by racism and nothing else was a factor. You've written of women who are you as being "meek" because they don't get in people's faces screaming "MY WAY!"*
Well if that ain't a big ol' batch of you bringing your own issues to the table, I don't know what is. None of that is what Donna's saying -- it's what you're hearing. And you don't just hear with your ears, but with the blob between 'em. Might be something gumming up the works.
Fortunately, the piece isn't meant for you; and the people who will get something out of this piece will probably see something... instructive... in your comments, as well.
For instance, you say this:
*But it's also abrasive. And when you're abrasive the reaction you're going to get doesn't have a damn thing to do with your breasts but you claim it could be nothing else.*
I did a search on Donna's piece and didn't find the word "breasts" in it. That's all you, big daddy.
I did find the word "abrasive" in the dictionary and it seems to describe your tone in this comments.
Oh, but then... but then. This came, like from Hollywood:
*I've been in business many years and I do not like a firm handshake from a woman. I don't know why but I don't.*
And suddenly the jukebox screeches and skips and grinds to a halt and the whole bar goes... "what. the. hell. did. he. say?!"
And suddenly it seems like 1962 wasn't the year you were born, Scott, but the year you're still living in.
So here's what I'm thinking. You've got a lot to say -- and apparently you're ready to die on this particular battlefield.
So... tell us who you are, what your position or ownership stake is and what company you're talking about.
tstauffer says...
Horhn is spelled with an "h" FYI. ;)
On Candidate Profile: John Horhn
Posted 7 April 2014, 10:08 a.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
@smokediver68 I'm not going to put through another comment like this from you that completely skips the substance of the argument and makes it personal about our writers and company, but I wanted folks to see this one for what it is. (Ronni may have her own response.)
Media criticism is something we do -- and people who take it personally are free to do that, but that's not how it's meant. The Clarion-Ledger still purports to be a statewide daily, backed by the largest newspaper company in the country. While it is perhaps increasingly irrelevant, it remains the "paper of record" in these parts. So, in my opinion, they have a responsibility to the community.
Carrying water for this meme -- that somehow the Byron case got special treatment because she's a woman -- is *at best* confusing correlation for causality. And it happens to be a REALLY bad fit for this case, because the only logical premise is that it matters if a woman gets different treatment for the same crime, and this particular case is a bad fit for that premise.
The C-L needs to get beyond this "national new channel" level of discourse and move to the next level in their coverage -- context -- something that you don't actually seem to have a quibble with since you didn't address any of the substance of Ronni's piece.
As for Ms. Apel "making us look good" I hope that's true (I've never heard of her, but don't have any reason to doubt it), but that doesn't make this piece any better -- something which we might rightly blame on her editors more than her if they gave her the assignment. Nor does that C-L's Monday-morning grandstanding on a story that they've completely whiffed on.
As for your other comment about our up-to-date list of bands -- you're welcome, and thanks for reading! We pour every resource we have into all aspects of our reporting and we enjoy offering high quality content as a service to our readers.
On How The Clarion-Ledger Got It Wrong: The Importance of Context
Posted 3 April 2014, 11:26 a.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
That's my bad. I wrote the draft and I'm a little notorious for my spelling errors. (You should see how many times I've screwed up "Horhn" in the past few weeks.) I apologize to Donna and the staff for making them look bad and to Mr. Lumumba for the error.
On JFP Endorses Chokwe Antar Lumumba for Mayor; Vote Today 7 a.m.-7 p.m.
Posted 2 April 2014, 12:05 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
@kingkeylion Sorry you found this confusing. The way I read it, the legislation is clearing Jackson to get the "boost" discussed that it wouldn't be able to get without authority from the state; the photo is of the councilman quoted in the story. Thanks for reading!
On Jackson Could Get $30 Million Boost From Lawmakers
Posted 31 March 2014, 5:08 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
In this case, NotMuch, you might be able to lend some first-hand experience. What do the principals at your firm look like? Could you send some links or pictures?
I'd love to hear the stories of women breaking into the ranks of partnership and top management in your firm thanks to the value that the engineering world places on their talents and their remarkable organizational skills.
It sounds like you, as president, have the potential to be a real catalyst of institutional change both for your own firm and your industry -- and it would be impressive -- even transformative -- if we could hear and retell that tale, particularly coming out of Mississippi.
On Proud to Be the Boss
Posted 29 March 2014, 5:49 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
*Todd, you apparently believe in the same transfer of your own experiences as the only possible scenario--you just can't accept that Scott1962 has never witnessed sexism, and your only explanation is that he is looking in the other direction in denial...*
@NotMuch -- First, let me say that I share the confusion over what (a.) Madison County and (b.) Christianity have to do with anything Donna is saying.
That aside, it's laudable that you live in the futuristic world of engineering that proves to be a mecca for women, where they name their salaries, are listened to with rapt attention and frequently complimented on their appearance by men both less skilled and organized that they.
However, I'm a little concerned that you're doing the very same thing that you accuse Donna and me of -- extrapolating your personal perceptions to somehow generalize about the state of things.
I present two counterpoints. One, a quick Google search brings up this [2011 article at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers website][1] and this [2012 article at the same place][2], which point to the persistent (and thankfully narrowing) salary gap between men and women in engineering, showing women's salaries at about 80% of men's. Also, there's [this 2014 article][3] that shows women at about 13 percent of the engineering workforce, up from 4 percent in the 1980s, but still somewhat short of stated goals.
Second, you may be aware of this [study of the engineering field that found a great number of women leave the profession][4] because of the male-dominated culture that was unfriendly to their needs and advancement:
*Among the common factors that women cited as their reasons for leaving the profession were too much travel, working too many hours, lack of real or perceived opportunities for advancement, and uncivil work environments where women were treated in condescending or patronizing manners. Only 25 percent of the women who left engineering did so for family reasons.*
This [recent piece in the Washington Post][5] discusses women leaving engineering because of, among other reasons, their inability to reach the highest rungs of management in firms.
[1]: https://www.asme.org/career-education/a…
[2]: https://www.asme.org/career-education/a…
[3]: https://www.asme.org/career-education/a…
[4]: http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/may/…
[5]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/…
On Proud to Be the Boss
Posted 29 March 2014, 5:49 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
Sounds like maybe he should take a "leave of abstinence" from the station.
On Gulf Coast News Anchor Wants LGBTs to Take 'Gaycation'
Posted 28 March 2014, 5:34 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
*You created a human being in a needy state. You have a debt to care for that human being. Of course the state should mandate that you fulfill your debt to care for your child.*
Ah. Interesting. Is this the part of your argument that applies to rape cases? I thought it was because life began in the eyes of God at conception.
Once we remove an appeal to God as the exclusive premise in your argument, as you've now done (with some justification -- Jesus himself said nothing about abortion; indeed the Bible doesn't mention it specifically) -- it's interesting to note the tenor of *blame* -- perhaps we could call it "judgement"? -- sneaking in.
The "you" in the quoted sentence appears to be the mother (I've seen no evidence that Personhood legislation mandates any action on the part of the the father even though he was there -- with or without God -- at the moment of conception) and it seems to be her "duty" that she's to suffer for her transgressions by, say, allowing herself to be raped or molested, or for failing to use birth control, or for using birth control that failed, or in cases where she finds that she's carrying a child that won't make it to term, or that will be severely disabled, or that she knows she can't care for properly during or after the pregnancy.
Do you see the problem? (I assume you don't. After all, it's not really *your* problem.)
Maybe if Personhood mandated taking the zygote out of the woman who doesn't want or can't take it to term and putting it in someone who can -- or putting it in the father so he could bring it to term -- then your judgement wouldn't seem so one-sided and inhumane.
But the problem is it doesn't work that way, so your only option is to take the perfectly in-God's-image human girl or woman right there in front of you and condemn her without regard to circumstance to whatever fate she has in store in favor of -- and with extreme prejudice for -- the *potential life* she may or may not bring into the world.
How can we rectify this situation? DrewHymer has made his stance clear. We judge the person who is already here and have the state mandate her actions. Why? Because she is, in his judgment, required to fulfill her "debt." (Would similar words work? Trespasses? Sins?)
And that's why -- for my money and vote -- I don't think it makes any sense that we should defer to DrewHymer's opinion when it comes to whether a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions.
I certainly will look for opportunities to keep your opinion from becoming law, DrewHymer. Not that you aren't welcome to your opinion, because it's a "free country."
Even if your opinion is that the country should be a *less free for others*.
On ‘Personhood’ May Be Back
Posted 25 March 2014, 11:11 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
Here's why I don't think you'll do it. Because I don't think you're really who you say you are. I don't think you work around a lot of women and I don't you hire in the corporate world.
Why? Because of statements like this:
*They'll be interviewed by people like me who will not hire them. And why? Because the entire time we're talking she's waiting for me to ask her to spend the night and it's easy to detect that defensiveness.*
Or maybe it was because she had a firm handshake.
I don't think you've got this job because god bless america i hope you don't have it. But if you do, please prove it.
Here's the deal. I'm a white American male. And Donna is not "at war with me" or my kind. She's an observer who notices things. And she has the right to.
So I'm saying this to you -- man to man, handshake as firm as you can stand -- prove it.
(Oh, and I apologize if you find this comment at all *abrasive*; because Lord knows you seem like the sensitive type.)
On Proud to Be the Boss
Posted 20 March 2014, 11:14 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
*I have many women working for me in entry level as well as key management positions and I have never witnessed this.*
@Scott1962 I've got to say, if you're really in management as you suggest and you've *never* witnessed "this" (which I assume is meant to refer to some of the sexism that Donna has seen) then my working hypothesis is you're looking HARD in the other direction.
I've seen it -- I've been in business for myself since two years into my career, and I've still seen sexism -- on non-profit boards, in public meetings, in daily life. I try to model something else and probably don't always succeed because I'm used to being listened to and I like the sound of my own voice.
Judging from this screed, you're pretty pleased with the dulcet tones of your own opinion as well.
Let's take this as an example:
*Let's look at the other side based entirely on things you've written in the past. You have so much contempt for the residents of Madison because in your mind their decision to move was fueled exclusively by racism and nothing else was a factor. You've written of women who are you as being "meek" because they don't get in people's faces screaming "MY WAY!"*
Well if that ain't a big ol' batch of you bringing your own issues to the table, I don't know what is. None of that is what Donna's saying -- it's what you're hearing. And you don't just hear with your ears, but with the blob between 'em. Might be something gumming up the works.
Fortunately, the piece isn't meant for you; and the people who will get something out of this piece will probably see something... instructive... in your comments, as well.
For instance, you say this:
*But it's also abrasive. And when you're abrasive the reaction you're going to get doesn't have a damn thing to do with your breasts but you claim it could be nothing else.*
I did a search on Donna's piece and didn't find the word "breasts" in it. That's all you, big daddy.
I did find the word "abrasive" in the dictionary and it seems to describe your tone in this comments.
Oh, but then... but then. This came, like from Hollywood:
*I've been in business many years and I do not like a firm handshake from a woman. I don't know why but I don't.*
And suddenly the jukebox screeches and skips and grinds to a halt and the whole bar goes... "what. the. hell. did. he. say?!"
And suddenly it seems like 1962 wasn't the year you were born, Scott, but the year you're still living in.
So here's what I'm thinking. You've got a lot to say -- and apparently you're ready to die on this particular battlefield.
So... tell us who you are, what your position or ownership stake is and what company you're talking about.
On Proud to Be the Boss
Posted 20 March 2014, 11:14 p.m. Suggest removal