Non-IT WTF: Feminism WTF



  • I'm doing a treading-water-type-job while I work on launching a product. As part of my job, I call people and ask them to do surveys. It's very important that we speak to an equal number of men and women, for statistical purposes.

    And, typically, we find that women are willing to do surveys in the afternoon. (Not my fault or problem) So we typically have to "pre-screen" for males in the evenings. That is, if we find we're talking with a female, we have to ask if there's a male in the household we can speak with. And if not, we politely move on to the next call.

    And I occasionally end up speaking with a self-involved feminist (I am making no claim that all feminists are self-involved. I am making the claim that the self-involved ones are extremely vocal, and find that it is sad that I have to disclaim claims I am not making just to protect myself from their drama). I hear rants like

    "So why do you need to talk to a man? Why doesn't my opinion count? Are you going to talk to me, or are you going to be a, you know, sexist?

    To which I reply, in my nicest customer service voice,

    It's important that we speak to an equal number of men and women, and while I understand that you want to participate, we have already filled our female quota for this survey.

    Usually, they swear at me after that, since they realize they just sounded really really dumb. And also because I sound patronizing.


  • SockDev

    "self involved" I like this term. My experience of self-confessed feminists tends to be 'man haters'. I'm not saying that the two are equivalent, because they're not. There's two groups - those who want equality, and those who want female superiority and feminism seems to be an overlap of the two.

    If someone is for equal rights, perhaps we should call them equalists to separate them from the feminists.



  • @Captain said:

    "So why do you need to talk to a man? Why doesn't my opinion count? Are you going to talk to me, or are you going to be a, you know, sexist?

    Are you a man? Because I would totally talk to a man.



  • How can you split people into male and female, you insensitive pig! What about those who identify as genderless, otherkin or sentient asparagus?



  • How can you split people into male and female, you insensitive pig! What about those who identify as genderless, otherkin or sentient asparagus?

    I don't know about asparagus, but if a sexual female identifies as a male, we put him down as male. And vice-versa, of course.



  • If a woman picks up, and you're like "I need to speak to a man" then I think confused responses are to be expected, right? So it's not terribly sad that you have to disclaim yourself from what is clearly a strange thing if you don't know the context.

    I imagine most women behave like "??? uhh... okay, whatever, hang on for a moment" and no argument arises.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    sentient asparagus

    You owe me the double vodka and coke I spilt....



  • Indeed, this seems specifically like something that a proper script would present that upfront, or somehow alleviate tension. Instead it seems custom-designed to get the most hostile responses possible, short of calling them "toots" or "dame". This is definitely a management WTF, since they're the ones who would create the scripts and train users on the interactions.



  • @foxyshadis said:

    toots

    That's a great idea. I have to work to bring this back.



  • @Captain said:

    And, typically, we find that women are willing to do surveys in the afternoon. (Not my fault or problem) So we typically have to "pre-screen" for males in the evenings.

    You might be (accidentally) selecting for housewives here. They'd be home in the afternoon. Working women (and men) would still be at work. I don't know if housewives are a representative sample of women.

    @Captain said:

    if a sexual female identifies as a male, we put him down as male. And vice-versa, of course.

    In the interests of data collection, if this happens a lot you should probably keep them separate, so you'd have "male man", "female man", "female woman", and "male woman". You can then do data analysis to see whether people pattern after their identification or after their chromosomes.



  • If a woman picks up, and you're like "I need to speak to a man" then I think confused responses are to be expected, right? So it's not terribly sad that you have to disclaim yourself from what is clearly a strange thing if you don't know the context.

    That's way more brusque than what we say. As I said, we ask to speak to a male registered voter in the household. And if we get a negative response, we politely move on.

    The thing is, 98% of the females who are screen out are either: "Not interested" (like most people who are called), or "Sorry, there's no male here", or just pass it over or make arrangements to call back, rather cheerfully. (Indeed, most people who end up doing a survey are pretty happy about it from the start) I think that most people are mature enough to understand that if I'm doing random sampling, and I ask for an $X$, it's because I need to talk to an $X$ and am not interested in talking to a non-$X$. Complaining about it is just whining.

    Plus, surveying is kind of like sales. You need to have a strong pitch, just to get the person on the other end interested. You basically lose half your sample with every qualifier you put in your pitch.

    "Proper" scripting isn't cost effective when it happens literally one out of fifty (relevant) calls.



  • The Gender-Sex distinction doesn't come up very often. But we, as surveyors, aren't going to get into a discussion about the distinction with a respondent. If they say male, we put down male.

    On the other hand, we sex people by observation. Both at the start of a survey and at the end of one.

    Yes, and we are definitely selecting for housewives in the afternoons. Which makes it harder to select for women at all later in the day, when we prescreen on age.



  • A good way to hurt someone is to say something provocative, then, as soon as they get upset, say "I was only joking", or come up with some other kind of smarmy, patronizing reason why their feelings aren't valid.



  • @Buddy said:

    A good way to hurt someone is to say something provocative, then, as soon as they get upset, say "I was only joking", or come up with some other kind of smarmy, patronizing reason why their feelings aren't valid.sarcasm on the internet.

    STFY



  • @ben_lubar said:

    A good way to hurt someone is to say something provocative, then, as soon as they get upset, say "I was only joking", or come up with some other kind of smarmy, patronizing reason why their feelings aren't valid.sarcasm on the internet.Call them on the phone and tell them you don't want to talk to them.

    STFU2



  • Just for future reference, STFY means "summarized that for you".



  • Oh I guessed it meant ‘simplified that for you’ but the point I was trying to make was that we're not talking about something that takes place on the internet at all, we're talking about a telemarketer whose conclusion after getting a grumpy voice on other end for the first time is that feminism is trwtf.


  • SockDev

    No, we're not. We're talking about someone who gets a grumpy voice and calls him sexist as pointing out that feminism-that's-really-female-supremacy is TRWTF.



  • I'm sorry I've already spoken to enough males today, is there a female in the forum I can speak with?


  • SockDev

    gargle spit HOW DARE YOU, AM I NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO SPEAK TO? YOU SEXIST... PERSON YOU!

    Filed under: proof by reverse psychology is not a logical fallacy, psychology is not logical.



  • I like to mess around with phone spammers from time to time. I'll string you along as long as I can just to waste your time. Yeah sure, I'm totally interested in a free cruise...
    If I saw an opportunity to exploit your white (er, male) guilt and make you have a bad day, oh you'd better believe I'd take it.

    tl;dr: get a real job and stop bothering people.



  • You don't sound like a very nice person.

    People pay for the surveys we collect. I do a real job. It is unpleasant, because bothering people is never fun. But I'll tell you what: I say and hear "have a nice day" about 100 times as often as I hear "get lost" or have people try to waste my time.

    I have nothing to feel guilty about.


  • Banned

    Still, I hope you can find a better job soon.


  • BINNED

    @Captain said:

    People pay for the surveys we collect. I do a real job. It is unpleasant, because bothering people is never fun. But I'll tell you what: I say and hear "have a nice day" about 100 times as often as I hear "get lost" or have people try to waste my time.

    I work with PBX software and meet people like you daily. And while I roll my eyes every time I get a call from a telemarketer, I always try to be polite when telling them I'm not interested because 99% of all the telemarketing people I meet are genuinely nice IRL. They just have to do a crappy job.

    Also, I usually take part in surveys if I have the time, it's only when they try sell me stuff that I'm instantly annoyed.



  • I'd phrase it a little differently.

    "We're taking a political survey, and I need to speak to someone whose opinion will still matter when we repeal the 19th Amendment."



  • @Onyx said:

    I work with PBX software

    As long as its not predictive diallers – I still remember when I went to wikipedia to find out what they were and I read “Dialing one number at a time, only when an agent is available, typically keeps agents utilized for 40 minutes per hour (33% idle time). Predictive dialing can increase utilization to 57 minutes per hour (5% idle time).[1]” which just made me so sad because a) these are human beings that they're talking about ‘utilizing’ and b) god forbid an ‘agent’ ever gets a moment to catch their breath between calls.

    Anyway, Captain, I'd like you to bear in mind that “can I speak to the man of the house” is a social phenomenon with a problematic history, and that a woman is well within her rights to get upset by it.
    Especially since, by your own admission, you have been taking an unrepresentative sample of women, in which the opinions of women who work during the day are in fact unfairly discounted.


  • BINNED

    @Buddy said:

    As long as its not predictive diallers

    Nope, not as of yet at least. There were some talks about it, and since I would be the one implementing the code, I'm seriously conflicted about it and hope I won't have to implement it, ever.

    Our application (among other bells and whistles) has click-to-dial and we offer CRM integration, so as it stands all it does is save people some effort of fiddling with keypads and dialling wrong numbers (since most people around here seem to prefer actual hardware as opposed to softphones). There are analytical tools that could help a manager being an ass, but you can't really stop that, so my conscience is not bugging me atm.



  • Would it be worth the extra time to mention the quota before asking if there's a male around?



  • It's a relief to know that having your opinion ignored in the name of equality isn't the exclusive domain of men. And that women when initially confronted with the situation tend to act in much the same way men do.



  • I also tend to be somewhat nicer to telemarketers.

    I have, in my sinful past, telemarketed for: Fingerhut, the RNC :elephant: , the DNC , and an A/R corporate collections firm (equal opportunity whoring at it's best :)).

    I've also found that, provided you start nice, most of your callees respond nicely (that's not to say you'll get a sale [sic]). So, I'll start nice and give the caller exactly two chances to be nice, after that the gloves come off :facepunch:.



  • @Captain said:

    As part of my job, I call people and ask them to do surveys.

    You are TRWTF.



  • @drurowin said:

    We're taking a political survey, and I need to speak to someone whose opinion will still matter when we repeal the 19th Amendment.

    If I were a By Any Means Necessary sort of person, like most leftists, I'd advocate repeal, because on balance, women have terrible voting preferences. But I'm not, so I don't.



  • @emurphy said:

    Would it be worth the extra time to mention the quota before asking if there's a male around?

    Probably not. People who want to be angry at you are more creative than you are and will find a way around your prescriptive measures.



  • If I were a By Any Means Necessary sort of person, like most leftists,
    I'd advocate repeal, because on balance, women have terrible voting preferences. But I'm not, so I don't.

    Say what? I don't know any "leftists" who think like that.



  • Sure, they do that sort of thing all the time.

    • The Constitution is a living document. It should move with the times.
    • That case is Super Duper precedent.
    • Propaganda is cool if I agree with it but evil if I don't (a sentiment actually expressed on this site by a noted lefty).

    There's even an organization named By Any Means Necessary. It's all about the Who, Whom.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Sure, they do that sort of thing all the time.

    The Constitution is a living document. It should move with the times.
    That case is Super Duper precedent.
    Propaganda is cool if I agree with it but evil if I don't (a sentiment actually expressed on this site by a noted lefty).

    There's even an organization named By Any Means Necessary. It's all about the Who, Whom.

    You forgot to mention (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter if Congress won't do it, I have a pen and a phone"



  • A great example. We could go on all day like this.



  • @codinghorror said:

    Still, I hope you can find a better job soon.

    What, are you jobs-ist or something?



  • @boomzilla said:

    There's even an organization named By Any Means Necessary. It's all about the Who, Whom.

    Apparently that's a terrorist group.


  • SockDev

    If you're defining terrorism is 'an act or acts whose purpose is to incite fear in line with promoting a goal, be that financial, religious, ideological or some other goal'... some of the more vocal proponents of feminism (i.e. the ones that push a strongly pro female supremacist view) could be argued to be terrorists of a sort. I know I always feel fear when dealing with such people because they're discriminating against me for being the lesser gender and all that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    And some of the people who are very keen on suppression of women's rights are also in that category too. Which doesn't excuse a thing from anyone at all.

    Assholes are assholes, whatever their particular inclination to assholery.


    Filed under: two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do



  • @ben_lubar said:

    Apparently that's a terrorist group.

    Well, what else would you expect from a bunch of racists?





  • Too bad they wrote 'effing' though, it ruins the effect. If you don't dare to say 'fuck', don't write it at all. Even just leaving it out works better. 'You lying racist homophobic racist scumbag! Racist.'

    <!-- I am editing something substantial into this post. -->

  • SockDev

    Is there an -ist term related to swearing? As in discrimination based on whether one swears or not?



  • Not that I know of. Maybe there's one for hurting feelings in general?

    Then again, even in six years of university I've never met the kind of crazies these threads are about, so I've probably missed it.



  • @Arantor said:

    Is there an -ist term related to swearing?

    Polemist.



  • @dhromed said:

    Polemist

    Does that mean that @Nagesh is a Poll'em-ist?



  • Feature request: In addition to "Like" and "Dislike" buttons, we need a "Groan" button and/or :groan: emoji for funny but lame puns.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    Feature request: In addition to "Like" and "Dislike" buttons, we need a "Groan" button and/or :groan: emoji for funny but lame puns.

    The punny bunny. :rabbit:


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.