Disqus - Latest Comments for EmmaHamer

Re: She Yelled And Called Me Names

EmmaHamer — Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:55:36 -0000

Great story. But what the h*ll does God have to do with it? You showed human compassion. You slowed down long enough in your own hectic life, to recognize someone else's despair and anger. And you wanted to do something, to "make it a little bit better" for that person. Good for you. You are a decent human being. Please leave deity out of the equation - an atheist, or agnostic, or humanist, is equally capable of human compassion. You don't need to be a God-believer to do good in the world.

Re: Transgender Women and Teenage Girls: Charlie White's Photography Is Mind-Blowing

EmmaHamer — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:42:34 -0000

"White beautifully captures raw images of teen girls and transgender women and places them side by side. There are shocking similarities between the women and girls, from their facial structure to their apparent personalities and deepest thoughts."

1) these images are hardly "raw" - they are carefully staged, styled, and crafted.
2) "shocking" similarities? That the trans women are taller, have wider shoulders, more prominent jawlines? Now, if it had said "shocking - or even subtle - differences, that would have been closer to the truth.

3) Anyone who claims to be able to discern "apparent personalities and deepest thoughts" from these "portraits" of blank stares and expressionless faces, for both the teenage girls and the adult trans women, is wishing something into these photos that just isn't there. Or projecting their own biased opinion of how "being a teenage girl" is the same as "an adult male transitioning".

Oh, and how wonderful, that the photographer was able to "capture something about womanhood that was missing from each group individually." So glad he knows something about womanhood that mere females can't possibly know.

Re: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

EmmaHamer — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:14:24 -0000

Oh, my. You're sorely mistaken, I'm afraid. One cannot "identify" as female (or male, for that matter) - it is the combination of PHYSICAL sex characteristics that makes a person FEMALE (or MALE - with testes, a penis, a prostate gland). Gender, gender identity, gender expression, however one wants to call it, is the complex of sex stereotypical roles and behavior that our society deems appropriate for persons with a particular set of physical sex characteristics. If that societal role is rejected, in favor of the other sex's societal roles, we speak of 'transgenderism'. If a transgender person then also wishes to change the (outward) appearance of their sex characteristics (genitalia) to 'match' the feeling of not fitting into the societal prescribed sex stereotype role, it's called transsexualism.

Female-to-male transsexuals have their (inside) body parts removed (hysterectomy, removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries) and are therefore sterile. They can no longer become pregnant. The F2M transgender folks, who retain their uteri, ovaries and fallopian tubes are ANATOMICALLY still female. It's irrelevant how they identify.

Re: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

EmmaHamer — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:44:30 -0000

Darleen - you are either being purposely obtuse, or your comprehension of English is shaky at best. "Life" doesn't begin at conception; "Life" begins when the fetus takes its first breath. And when it does that, the cord is often still attached. It's not about how "attached to the mother" the fetus is. The whole discussion was about "When should we consider "life" to have started. And my answer to that question was "When the fetus is born and takes its first breath". Nothing ambiguous about that.

And technically, while the fetus is in the womb, growing, it does so via a parasitic relationship with the host (the female carrying the child). Kind of like a wart, yes.

Re: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

EmmaHamer — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 22:59:07 -0000

No, of course not. And that's wasn't the point I made. Please don't twist my words. The point was: Life begins when the fetus takes its first independent breath. Not before then, while the fetus gets its oxygen through the umbilical cord. After that first breath, however helpless and dependent the new human is, it is alive. It is no longer a fetus. This means, that if a fetus is born at 24 weeks, and can breathe on its own, it should be allowed to do so, and receive medical assistance if necessary, because it is now a live human. But while the point of viability is not easily established, the rule of thumb for an otherwise healthy fetus would be around 28/30 weeks...

Re: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

EmmaHamer — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:47:13 -0000

You may be a doctor, but possibly not a medical doctor? Because "life" begins when the fetus can survive on its own, without the symbiotic relationship with the mother (placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic sac). When the fetus takes its first breath, independent of the mother - that's when "life" is literally breathed into the body. Even the Bible says so. See also: http://joeschwartz.net/life...

Re: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

EmmaHamer — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:40:08 -0000

You're doing "it" again, like so many people: conflating "sex" and "gender". Sex = biology, while "gender" is not; gender is a set of behaviors condoned/enforced by society, ascribed to one or the other "sex". Properly, the attacks on reproductive freedom and on access to safe abortion should be called "WAR on FEMALES". But War on Women alliterates so much more pleasingly...

Gender non-conforming folks, who have working female sex organs (uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, a vulva) can call themselves whatever the hell they want - ze, zir, hir, whatever - but the organs that get them pregnant in the first place, so they may require an abortion, are FEMALE SEX ORGANS.

Don't confuse SEX with GENDER. Sex matters (www.sexnotgender.com)

Re: The White Savior Industrial Complex - Teju Cole - International - The Atlantic

EmmaHamer — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:44:56 -0000

Just to bring some perspective: foreign policy is ALWAYS based on national interests, whether the nation be Estonia or the United States of America. The main reason the USA is seen as the "villain" villain here, is because its economy (and its military might) - what President Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex" - is so big, and so influential. While Estonia may not have a lot of influence in the world, look for instance at the role of Belgium in the Congo (former Belgian colony). Or France's role in Indochina, or North Africa, or the middle-east for that matter (Lebanon? Syria?). Or the UK's role in Africa (Kenya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe...).

It's easy to single out the US, but naive to assume that other nations are not focused on their own best interests, as well. All you have to do is observe a month's worth of reporting on the squabbles in the European Union, to understand that as long as the nation-state is the organizing principle in the world, the nation-state will pursue what it perceives as "it's own national interest".

Having said that, Mr. Cole makes many very good points. Well done.

Re: Don’t Want Management’s Job? That’s Okay, They Don’t Think You’re Right for It

EmmaHamer — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:27:18 -0000

JT: Reading your post reminded me of the 1937 quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." What this means in the workplace, in my opinion, is that you always have a choice as to how you are perceived. You can decide how to respond to negative stereotypes, how to behave when people disrespect you, and how to change the minds of corporate skeptics. This is true for management and employees alike; and doing nothing to correct the wrong impressions is a decision, too.

The often-mentioned "sense of entitlement" is one of the main "beefs" my executive coaching clients bring up when they talk about their staff's attitudes. While this may be in part a generational thing, it is common knowledge that "a sense of entitlement" is the source of a lot of whining in the workplace. "I put in my time, now I should get the promotion" or "How come so-and-so got into that choice project, instead of me? Management screwed up again".

The North American workplace, by and large, is a meritocracy. If you do your job well, exceed expectations, are pleasant to be around, have a positive work ethic, and can be relied upon to help your co-workers, chances are that your efforts will be recognized. You can accelerate that process by conducting a strategic Internal PR campaign, but it starts with your attitude. Nobody "owes" you anything, not even a job. So if you want to keep the job, start thinking about what you're doing to earn it. I wrote a post about this not so long ago, and just recently updated it: http://tinyurl.com/qupxf8

Love your posts, BTW - not a day goes by I don't check them out.

Re: “Don’t Try to Get A Job” – Marketing Pioneer Offers Alternative

EmmaHamer — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:03:36 -0000

For those that are uncomfortable with entrepreneurship, a good and viable alternative is to become an intra-preneur: developing new ideas and products *within* a larger organization. Smaller start-ups and medium-sized companies that have good growth potential are good places to literally "carve out your niche".

A second point I wanted to make is what I say to all of my clients: "The best way to never get a job is to go out and ask for one". What I mean by that is that instead of going around cap-in-hand, asking for an employer to give you something - anything - to do, it's much more productive to go out and *find* stuff that needs to be done, headaches that need to be cured, problems that need to be solved, and then through a series of exploratory conversations (often referred to as "networking interviews") help surface the issue(s) you've identified. After a couple of these "prospecting" conversations, you can then make the case that you are the one person that can solve the problem - take away the headache.

If you can't BE an entrepreneur, at least you can learn to think like one.

Re: Career Truth #1: Brand or Be Branded

EmmaHamer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:53:18 -0000

Dear QuestingElf,

Finding the right job is very much like dating (minus the intimate parts...). Would you contact someone on a dating site that is too (fill in the blank: embarrassed, shy, suspicious) to post a nice photo of themselves? If someone does not have a photo posted on a social media platform, it makes me think they have something to hide. And that they themselves are not comfortable and secure in how they look to the world. Conversely, if I do see a photo - which doesn't have to be a professional head-shot - I know this person won't have any hang-ups about their appearance.

Yes, of course appearance matters; but confidence and poise matter more.

Re: Career Truth #1: Brand or Be Branded

EmmaHamer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:48:30 -0000

I'd go even further: It's not who you know ... it's who knows you ... and who THEY know. Networking is not about asking for a job, it's about asking for help meeting people - lots of different people - who can help you reach your career goals. Ultimately, these people will help you discover interesting opportunities that probably have not been advertised yet. This process results in: less competition + personal recommendation = career success.

Re: 10 Things Recruiters Won’t Tell You (But I Will!)

EmmaHamer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:01:53 -0000

Well, I'm now just going to have to listen to the show... Is it a phone-in show? If so, I may be tempted to call ...

Best of luck, both!

Re: 10 Things Recruiters Won’t Tell You (But I Will!)

EmmaHamer — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:16:03 -0000

Well, "me", we're done here. I think we agree to disagree. I did enjoy the article you linked to - actually, it partly supports my position that recruiters are not necessarily in it to help job-seekers ... Even if the article is a bit tongue-in-cheek, and probably exaggerated, it brought a smile to my lips. Thanks for that!

Re: 10 Things Recruiters Won’t Tell You (But I Will!)

EmmaHamer — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:46:12 -0000

Hey, RecruitingANIMAL (do you have a given name? I find it a mildly awkward to call you Animal...)

Anyway: enough already with the "You have a negative attitude" - I don't. I just have a different perspective. Let's try and discuss the issue, without getting personal, shall we? I'm happy for you that your recruiting business is flourishing. Well, so is my Career Strategies business - and I do work with my clients to a) help them redefine themselves and learn how to articulate their value (you might call that "branding"), and b) help them develop a strategy to change their career direction - incidentally without starting as a junior again - and I coach them through the minefields of professional networking.

As with all generalizations, there are always exceptions to the rule, and you're obviously proof of that. But a less strident tone wouldn't hurt. Disagree with me, by all means, but don't disrespect me. Or anyone else whose opinion you don't share.

Thanks (and apologies to JT for taking up space on a discussion only tangentially related to your original post).

Re: 10 Things Recruiters Won’t Tell You (But I Will!)

EmmaHamer — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:57:40 -0000

Hello Recruiting Animal,

Unfortunately, you didn’t register with Disqus, either, or we could have had this discussion where everyone else can see it, and make up their own mind. Instead, I pasted your comment into my site’s comment box; I hope you don’t mind.

When I wrote about ‘recruiters’ in general, I meant all ‘providers of temporary, contract or permanent staff’. While you may not push candidates ‘on spec’, and I respect that, many recruiters do. My attitude is not negative; it is based on the experiences of my clients - most of whom are in fact career shifters or career changers. I stand by the gist of my post: that recruiters tend to place people that are easily pigeon-holed, and will not go out on a limb to promote an excellent candidate from a not-so-obvious background, and in that sense, recruiters are NOT the job-seekers best friend. The recruiter’s / headhunter’s / placement agent’s first and primary concern is accommodating their client: the company that has posted a vacancy. And, again from my experience, when there is a vacancy, companies generally are even more risk-averse than normal, and terrified of making a hiring mistake; hence the insistence that only candidates that have extensive experience in the exact same job and industry will be considered.

I agree, that if you’re a bookkeeper, and wish to remain in the bookkeeping field, it can’t hurt to send your resume in to a recruiter - but you can do just as well without one, if you are savvy about using your contacts, both professional and personal, to uncover opportunities.

And on another, but related note: recruiters that place you have to make money, as well - which comes out of the hiring company’s budget = less for you. Placement agencies, for instance, have an hourly mark-up of 15 - 20%; that’s their price for doing your marketing for you. If the candidate found the job themselves, they could negotiate 15 - 20% more per hour, and still stay within the hiring company’s budget.

Ditto for recruiters/headhunters; they commonly charge between 10 and 20% of the first year’s salary as their placement fee - also money that, if the candidate found the job themselves, could be added to their package.

What I tell my clients is that recruiters and placement agencies are for LAZY job-seekers, or for job-seekers who are still employed, therefore have no time to network, and just want to change companies.

For everyone else: developing and leveraging your network is the way to go. But thanks for your feedback!

Re: Absorb Yourself In Others: 10 Tips for Effective Face-to-Face Networking

EmmaHamer — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:52:30 -0000

Excellent points. You asked, so here are 5 more:

11. Prepare intelligent questions. Often the questions you ask say more about you than the answers (or unsolicited information) you offer.
12. Connect. Even if its just about a shared passion for 1970s muscle cars. Especially on a first 'date', it's more important to really connect with someone, on an emotional level, than simply to troll for useful information or contacts.
13. Focus on getting a 'second date'. After all, you wouldn't marry someone after just one date; why would anyone refer you for a job after just one meeting?
14. Listen to what is *not* being discussed. Take notes of oblique answers or deflected questions; these may indicate a pain-point that is uncomfortable to discuss; either they don't yet trust you enough, or are not sure whether they can share. Either way, the avoided questions could be rephrased and the issue probed again in a next meeting.
15. Relax. Don't be eager-beaver. You're there to learn, not to get a job or a contract. Your immediate concern is to identify the headache, and be sympathetic.

Re: 10 Things Recruiters Won’t Tell You (But I Will!)

EmmaHamer — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:18:38 -0000

Great points, JT. While I've only been following your blog for a short time, I appreciate the *unvarnished* quality of the truths you speak - and it validates my own approach. Here's a link to a post I wrote just yesterday (proving my "great minds think alike" theory) about why recruiters are not necessarily the job-seekers' friend: Recruiters: Useful? Or Not? http://tinyurl.com/cv364l