I haven't changed much since 1988.

I thought I threw this charming memo away, but I was delighted to find it recently. I am deleting the name of the author and the newspapers I worked for not because I want to protect him, but because I do not want him to find it and be proud of himself for writing something that I have kept for 25 years.

This was written by the owner who listed himself on the masthead as "Editor and Publisher." I think he made some fair points about my journalism style, but I couldn't really hear the criticism over all the capital letters. At the time, this hurt me deeply. Now, I can laugh and I'm a little bit proud that I annoyed the shit out of that motherfucker. Honestly, thank God my mother and father never taught me to say "Yes ma'am" and "No Sir."

You can read the whole memo, or you can slip right down to the end to read...the *rest* of the story.

To: All employees
The Timey Tattler
The Rhymey Rattler

From: Editor and Publisher 11/14/1988

Two Things:

1-- This note is handwritten because my last desire was to sit at a computer all day Sunday while most of you were enjoying a day off.

2-- READ the MEMO DO NOT CAST it aside as many of them have been. It will be to your benefit. Your employment may depend on it. Consider them personal.

Most of you will have an individual note attached to the general memo. If you do not, simply consider yourself lucky.

For the past several weeks there have been many things continuing to go wrong. We are at a loss as to why. Attitude? Resolve? Personal Problems? On-the-job Problems?

It is undefined.

With the staff size and support help we have, the newspapers we publish on a weekly basis should be done without breaking a sweat.

Possibly, some of you do not break a sweat, for your effort stops when you consider your part done, you simply quit, stand around, talk, or whatever.

Now, we'll talk about some basic facts--these aren't really for discussion, but statements of fact.

All three publications are everyone's responsibility. The Rhymey Rattler, The Rhymey Rattler Plus, The Timey Tattler should concern everyone. The success of those publications ultimately serve as a basis for your success. Each must be successful for you to continue to grow, professionally.

Whatever is required to complete a publication--just do it. Don't evaluate--just complete the task.

Consider each publication as your personal challenge.

BITCHING & WHINING

I have reached my limit of listening--or not listening--to bitching and whining.

As a practical manner--if you do not like your job then come to my office now and resign. No hard feelings. This is not something to take lightly.

As much complaining, whining, and general dissatisfaction which is evident in the plants something must be seriously wrong.

The petty exchanges, the griping, all of this you can do at home. I don't want to hear it, no should you have time to spend exchanging this type of information.

The rule of thumb I have always worked by is simple:

Take Job --> Do Job --> Go Home

Nowhere in this formula is a bunch of time for sitting or standing--and talking about everything else, EXCEPT WORK.

Here is an explanation of why.

The average wage in the group is $.4.61 per hour.

This is a base pay AVERAGE, NO COMMISSION, NO overtimne.

That is a per minute average pay rate of .077 per minute

If every employee wastes 10 minutes per day
That is .768 x 12 employees = $9.22

$9.22 per day x 5 days = $46.10 per week

$46.10 x 52 weeks = $2397.20/year.

That's if there is only 10 minutes wasted per person.

It isn't hard to calculate this small business cannot afford that kind of time loss; now or ever, nor could any of you afford to lose this much money. We certainly cannot--and obviously will not.

In light of the importance of this memo I suggest you consider each point very closely.

Make certain you understand what we're trying to accomplish. We cannot survive if we merely accept jamming a bunch of pages into a box three times a week. --It's not that simple.

Every publication should be accurate, complete and well prepared.

We cannot lose revenue to inattention -- or have errors filling our pages requiring corrections.

If we are going to run a large staff--then we MUST produce large, quality publications.

We do not need lazy employees, nor employees who make an effort to appear busy, which avoiding the task at hand. Know what the priorities are--IF YOU DO NOT KNOW--Ask.

I do not like threats--nor working with them--I also do not like to worry, and it has all become a worry, because I feel like the publications cannot get done unless we tug and pull each one.

AGAIN--should you feel you cannot do what is necessary exercise your options, otherwise adhere to what is contained in this memo.

Please give attention to any additional sheets. This is the end of the general memo.

Ms. Pheifer:

As the general memo obviously reflects there are some problems. Some are yours--some for others.

First and foremost ERRORS. It is impossible to pretend by the many spelling errors I have have that is not something I should work on. You have problems as well.

Accordingly--your style is very shoddy. You know the normal, however. You must review things such as number usage--percentages, signs, etc. You leads continue to be lacking--a poor lead really ruins your stories, no matter how strong they may be inside.

While you may refine your style to be consistant--ERRORS are something else. You have had two or three clarifications in a row--This means by & large you are either not obtaining the information correctly--recording it incorrectly--or not writing it correctly. Whatever--it is obviously something you should give attention to.

Your attitude is something I guess I will never understand. I suggest you give strong consideration to a personal evaluation.

Take a look at your personal goals. Your personal interpersonal skills. You may not have had to exercise any personal respect for anyone before coming to work here, however, it is something common practice should address. If you cannot say yes or no mam or sir in the office then your practices outside are undefined. There is no way of knowing how you relate to other than you will express your opinion--whatever & whenever.

We have discussed far too many times some of the following. However, since this is a general sir-out for the entire staff you can have this opportunity. If you are not happy and want to leave, now is the time. We will do what is best. However, if you want to stay make ready to accomplish the following:

--Clean the darkroom--keep in order. Negatives are all over.

--Have your stories written within 4 hours of notes.

--Darkroom work should not be clustered but done as film is available. This way there is an option.

--Post a picture runsheet--what we have--what's printed, what's extra, what's on hold.

--Post a primary and secondary story list. Get some stuff built up. Don't wait for paper to paper push. Too much error.

--Get an organizational plan together. Get facts straight--plan interviews and pictures.

--Act--don't react. There's enough news on a weekly basis to react to--get your self in order

--Be prepared to produce--design and layout all 3 papers. Everything from putting wax in the waxer to rolling down the finished pages. This must be done with accuracy--efficiency--preparation not reaction and complain.

In regard to the seminar; if you viewed it as too long then I certainly won't waste my money again and most certainly won't bust my ass to put out papers, etc. to allow you time off.

It's time to get it together and pay your dues. Being respectible--responsible--and consistancy in action are what it will take to be successful. Your attitude adjustment must take place now--be swift--or complete.

Without this you cannot be happy--I cannot be--and you will not be successful.

You have demonstrated ability but not strong judgement.

Take advantage of your intelligence.

__________________________________________________________________________

I started my new job 24 days later. I later discovered that the newspaper I had jumped to was the same newspaper where my former editor and publisher had been fired for embezzling. It is also my understanding that he was forced to sell the Tattler and the Rattler sometime in the early '90s to avoid bankruptcy.

And, my big finish--after this memo was given to me, I went to see my college advisor David Dick. (http://www.kentucky.com/2010/07/17/1351911/david-dick-former-cbs-newsman.html) At that time, David was a dean at the college of journalism and owned his own weekly paper in Paris, Kentucky. He graciously met with my teary-eyed self. He reviewed the memo and said not one word specifically about the content. His only comment that I recall is: "Your editor is a big man. And, someday, he's going to fall and when he does, he's going to fall hard."

Here are jpegs of the memo for you to enjoy:

I Thought Things Had Changed

This event happened at least 25 years ago: The Swatch was new and I had a great big, totally cool yellow one. I was in college, working at WaxWorks in Owensboro, Ky. A record label rep came in and was shootin’ the shit with my manager and me and noticed my watch. The two of them—in their late 30s, I would say—started a riff about plastic Swiss watches. I responded that it made my life easier—I said I never took it off even to shower because it was plastic.

“Oh, she never takes it off, Harold. I wonder what else she leaves it on for?” the rep said. He may have even nudged Harold and winked. To his credit, Harold, who had daughters, looked at the rep as if he’d taken a shit on the street.*

I remember my mortification. I think they continued to talk and I drifted away, which was the intended effect, wasn’t it? Shutting the little girl down who had dared to enter into the grown-up’s conversation. The men’s conversation?

I’d like to think I gave as good as I got and said, “No, not then either.” but I have a feeling that’s the 46-year-old me stepping in for the 18-year-old me.

I have never forgotten this minor incident because it was the first time that a grown man had talked to me that way. Of course, teenage boys talked that way, but, you know, teenage boys. Until then, I thought that adults dealt with each other, male and female, with due respect. Ha.

Fast-forward over 25 years of similar incidents that I laughed off and/or smolderingly resented for sexualizing a conversation or moment that was completely not sexual. The time I was interviewing the jailer in Boone County and who put me in a holding cell and said, “Now I’ve gotcha where I wantcha.” The city councilman who dispensed with flirting and as I talked to him after a meeting simply asked me over to his place to “watch TV.” (He had a son my age.)

To be fair, these are the more egregious events. I have flushed the lesser events because, hey, that’s what it was like to be a woman back then. Back. Then.

These events came back to me today because I was shocked to read in Jezebel.com that a Connecticut lawmaker had said he had a snake under his desk for a 17-year-old girl testifying about what she learned from working with animals she had previously feared. (http://jezebel.com/5987922/connecticut-lawmaker-makes-dick-joke-to-teenage-girl-during-a-hearing) Previously, she feared snakes and critters. Now, she may fear immature men, but how to pick those out? To think after all these years of pointing out that behavior like his is unacceptable he still felt that it was perfectly acceptable! IN PUBLIC!

So, when the label rep or the state rep sexualized what the young women were saying, what were they doing? I think they expected to shut the “girls” down. In their heads, I think they said to themselves and the fourth wall that we're all performing for, “Girls are *girls,* amirite? What of value do they have to say? They’re just the people we have sex with. They don’t have brains, they don’t think about anything except shoes, right people? And by people I mean other men.”

And, in my opinion, shutting “girls” down is exactly what Jack Nicholson was doing to Jennifer Lawrence on Oscar night. While others see charm (and some see as creepiness), I see dominance. I see an old man putting a young woman in her place.

The light is now shining on her and the light is fading on Nicholson, so what better way to put her in her place than to remind her that she is nothing more than a pretty girl? Nothing more than someone a man wants to have sex with—his “new girlfriend,” as he said. To his credit, the first time he crashed her limelight he said, “I don’t want to crash your interview.” And, “I loved ya in the movie.” Had he left it at that, I would have felt that he was paying homage to a new bright star.

Apparently, ABC/Disney also felt that this opening salvo was charming so they have shut down the full interview and have only made the edited the interview available. That’s a nice way to protect a creepy old man who can still make money for them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJmhsJ5T5L0)

But, in reality Jack came back to the table twice more. To what purpose? In my opinion, to pull the attention away from Jennifer Lawrence. To remind her that she was just a girl. To flatter her? No, I don’t think so. Initially she was thrilled, but after the third interruption, she finally said, “Now get outta here.” ‘Cos “girls” aren’t like they used to be. I hope their mothers are teaching them that they don’t have to be nice to mashers.

No man or woman would have said or done any of these things to a young man. Shirley Bassey performed at the Oscars that night. She was born in 1937, the same year as Jack Nicholson. Dev Patel was there, too, as part of the cast of “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.” He was born in 1990, the same year as Jennifer Lawrence. Can you *imagine* Shirley Bassey approaching Dev Patel the same way? What if Shirley Bassey had said, “I’ll be waiting!” over Patel’s shoulder?

Would an older female Connecticut lawmaker say, “I got a hole for you under this desk!”?

No one, male or female, calls any male over age 10 a boy. But girls are girls. Even girls call women "girls" which makes my eyes bulge out of my head when I hear it. Yes, that includes the new show “Girls.” I nearly lost a job in the ‘90s for saying to my publisher, when he called a 50-year-old receptionist a girl, “I’m pretty sure she’s reached puberty.” And the 50 year old receptionist helpfully giggled, “He can call me a girl whenever he wants!” I didn’t smack her face, or his face, but I sure as shit got my ass out of Kentucky. (After I got called into my editor’s office and told not to talk that way to my boss’s boss. ‘Cos “girls” then were not allowed to talk that way to men.)

So, what’s my point? My point is why are men still talking to women this way? My point is if you have boys, make sure they know not to talk to girls or women this way. If you have girls, tell them not to put up with this bullshit and that they can be rude if they have to be. That man or boy has been rude to you so you do not have to be nice about calling him out on it.

And, Jack, behavior that was charming in 1973 is totally not charming now.

*this metaphor is totally stolen from Bill Bryson

Not even going to go into changing diapers

Hi there, it's been a while, hasn't it? I've been occupied. And I haven't really had a lot to say that couldn't be summed up in one or two sentences on Facebook.

But, someone on CNN has pulled me out of my lethargy. Also, I just had a good cuppa joe.

Leon Panetta announced the end of the ground combat exclusion rule for women. If women can meet the qualifications, they can serve in front-line combat positions. This announcement has all sorts of meanings, as the mainstream media has shown this week, but, to me, the main meaning is that, in the military, jobs will be open to women based on their qualifications and not closed to them because they are women. Before, women certainly had battle experience, but it didn't count toward their promotions and pay.

Now, despite the visibility of two Iraq-war veterans now serving in the House of Representatives, despite 150 women who have died in combat and 800 women who have been wounded in combat, Iraq-war veteran Ryan Smith had this to say on CNN this week:

"So, if you had to go to the restroom, if you had to pee in a bottle inches from your...the comrade next to you, if you had to go to the, uh, if you develop dysentery, you had to poot in a bag, in an MRE bag, inches from your comrade's face. Now introducing women into that environment, uh, can be really traumatic and humiliating and combat's already difficult enough, you don't need to add this other layer."

It appears to me that he is conflating his real or imagined discomfort with pooping in front of woman with all women's supposed discomfort.

This part is the comedy part of the discussion: I would like to point out to Mr. Smith that women pee every day, many times a day. Often while another person is talking to us. Often while another person and/or animal is looking at us. I have peed and pooped with three pairs of eyes on me. No, it wasn't comfortable, but it had to be done. Women have and will poop in bathrooms that make MRE bags look desirable. Even prissy little old me has pooped in the woods with just a shovel and toilet paper. And not just regular poop, but yes, diarrhea.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to play this card, but women deal with messiness every month, for decades. Blood and gore, boys. Some women push 6- to 12-pound humans out of their vaginas. I was too delicate for this duty, so I had a C-section, praise the Lord. And praise that little breach baby of mine.

And I'm way too squeamish and Southern-Belle-ish to delve too deeply into this subject, but sex is not the most, shall we say, sanitary exercise in the world. Well, as Woody Allen would say, not if you're doing it right.

There's also "women's work" like cooking. If we can debone chickens, we can serve in combat. If we can make meatballs, we can serve in combat. When I make my super-delish meatball recipe, as I squish the ingredients (add nutmeg!) together, I am not unaware that I am touching the skinned, desanguinated flesh of another animal that lived and had thoughts and may have even loved. And then I put that thought out of my mind and make my meatballs. Just as I imagine a soldier puts similar thoughts out of his *or her* mind and does his or her job.

So, Mr. Smith, don't you dare say that women are too prissy for combat. 'Cos I'm thinking that's on you.

This part is the meat of the discussion: He seems to be unaware that women who will be in combat will have volunteered to be there and so, presumably, have thought about exactly what that means. A woman like me, who can't even think about the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan," will not volunteer to be in combat. A man like me wouldn't volunteer to be in combat, either.

Now we've dealt with Mr. Smith, let's talk about Tucker Carlson, who tweeted, "Feminism's latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations."

Women already have had their limbs blown off in combat. Let me introduce you to Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who, as she said this week, didn't lose her legs in a bar fight. To think that Tucker Carlson has daughters. To think that he thinks so little of them.

Mr. Carlson also tweeted, "The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act."

Ahem, that would be two different things. Combat is not violence against women. Or, perhaps it is. It's violence against human kind. And that's a whole 'nother liberal blog, isn't it?

If he's making a point about equality with that tweet, I'll give him that. I guess it should be the Domestic Violence Act. Because apparently even men as manly as Levi Johnston can be victims of domestic violence. (http://www.showbizspy.com/article/256459/levi-johnston-beaten-by-wife-sunny-oglesby.html)

So, yes, I'll give Mr. Carlson that point, even though I doubt that was the point he was making. I think what he's saying is that women try to have it both ways--we want to serve in combat and have special status. Or perhaps he's saying that Democrats don't really care about women because they'll let them go in front of a gun. Hello, they will also be behind a gun.

If either of those points is what he's trying to say, let me point out again: the women who volunteer to be in combat have done so so that they can have the same promotions and rank and pay as men who volunteer to be in combat.

Tucker Carlson's ignorance brings up my last point--whether women should be required to sign up for the draft when they reach the age of 18. Well, duh. Yes. We're equal.