"Who parented these people?"

This is the view of an American lady called Mary Beth Hicks.. However having said that I find it a very interesting view about these protesters. As someone who has had to work dam hard all his life to get where I am now and who was brought up by parents who had sod all when they died, I am starting to get sick to death of people who think the world owes them, IT DOESN'T. Oh yes have I mentioned in the past that my parents both worked a lot harder and longer than me and were supporters of the original Labour Party?

Quote:-

Call it an occupational hazard, but I can't look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, "Who parented these people?"

As a culture columnist, I've commented on the social and political ramifications of the "movement" - now known as "OWS" - whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: "Everything for everybody."

Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it's clear there are people with serious designs on "transformational" change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.

Yet it's not my role as a commentator that prompts my parenting question, but rather the fact that I'm the mother of four teens and young adults. There are some crucial life lessons that the protesters' moms clearly have not passed along.

Here, then, are five things the OWS protesters' mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn't, so I will:

Life isn't fair. The concept of justice - that everyone should be treated fairly - is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want."No matter how you try to "level the playing field," some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they're dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.

Nothing is "free." Protesting with signs that seek "free" college degrees and "free" health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don't operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and "slow paths" to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.

While I'm pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.

Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don't require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals.

Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It's a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for - literally.

A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn't evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don't dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don't seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.

There are reasons you haven't found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn't a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you. Unquote

An interesting point of view that I know some on here won't like and will totally reject but I still think it is very well worth posting.

.

I think that says as much about Mary Beth Hicks as it does about the protesters.

A very thought provoking article.

I few points worthy of debate at the begining ruined by snobbery at the end.

I few points worthy of debate at the begining ruined by snobbery at the end.

I wouldn't call it snobbery, it is just strongly worded. It is a fact that the vast majority of professional organisations reject very capable individuals on the basis of appearance/smartness.

Mary Beth Hicks is of course, entitled to her opinion.

Personally, I applaud the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements around the world. Collectively, they're asking the big questions. The author of this article seems to be starting from the position of "it is the way it is".

I'm sorry, but that's not really good enough. Having a pop at students for pointing that out doesn't strengthen her point too much.

As for the notion of smartness, I'll say this. Any employer who knocks back someone because of their appearance, especially if the role isn't client-facing, deserves all the faceless automatons they eventually employ. Personally, I wouldn't give a **** if someone turned up in burlap sack. You need two things from an employee; competence and care. Suits don't come into it.

I wouldn't call it snobbery, it is just strongly worded. It is a fact that the vast majority of professional organisations reject very capable individuals on the basis of appearance/smartness.

But there are plenty of jobs out there e.g. in media or retail that are happy for applicants to look different. I dount that the students she observed with piercings etc either want or expect to be working as corporate lawyers, accountants or city traders so its a pointless statement to make and does sound a bit snobbish.

I wouldn't call it snobbery, it is just strongly worded. It is a fact that the vast majority of professional organisations reject very capable individuals on the basis of appearance/smartness.

The tone (as i read it, which is clearly subjective) read as looking down her nose at the dirty people.

Reading it back I can see that this might not have been her intention but it is the way it came accross.

Mary Beth Hicks is of course, entitled to her opinion.

 

Personally, I applaud the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements around the world. Collectively, they're asking the big questions. The author of this article seems to be starting from the position of "it is the way it is".

 

I'm sorry, but that's not really good enough. Having a pop at students for pointing that out doesn't strengthen her point too much.

 

As for the notion of smartness, I'll say this. Any employer who knocks back someone because of their appearance, especially if the role isn't client-facing, deserves all the faceless automatons they eventually employ. Personally, I wouldn't give a **** if someone turned up in burlap sack. You need two things from an employee; competence and care. Suits don't come into it.

Good post.

As for the notion of smartness, I'll say this. Any employer who knocks back someone because of their appearance, especially if the role isn't client-facing, deserves all the faceless automatons they eventually employ. Personally, I wouldn't give a **** if someone turned up in burlap sack. You need two things from an employee; competence and care. Suits don't come into it.

Completely agree. I've worked in a few different offices, none of which have required me to communicate face to face with customers or suppliers. In some of these we could wear what we want, in others shirt and tie was required. Why? Will I do my job better because I have to sling a silly bit of material round my neck?

As for who parented these people, well maybe they were those who like to bring their children up to question why things are like they rather than just grimly blinking along and accepting.

If anything is described as the parents fault, then the parents actions must therefore be the parents' parents fault. And so on.

Reminds me of all the old people who moan about 'the youth of today'.

Yes, that's the youth that your generation parented and raised. Apportion some of that blame to yourselves please.

An American bashing the idea of free universal health care?! Thats a new one!

Mary Beth Hicks is of course, entitled to her opinion.

 

Personally, I applaud the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements around the world. Collectively, they're asking the big questions. The author of this article seems to be starting from the position of "it is the way it is".

 

I'm sorry, but that's not really good enough. Having a pop at students for pointing that out doesn't strengthen her point too much.

 

As for the notion of smartness, I'll say this. Any employer who knocks back someone because of their appearance, especially if the role isn't client-facing, deserves all the faceless automatons they eventually employ. Personally, I wouldn't give a **** if someone turned up in burlap sack. You need two things from an employee; competence and care. Suits don't come into it.

This assumes that all people who "dare to be different" through their appearance have something more to offer than those who are more conventional in their appearance, or who are "automatons", as you say. My experience is different. I care what my employees look like, because for me it gives an insight into their self respect. I've generally found that those who don't give a toss about their appearance, don't give a toss about their work (although that's not to say that there aren't some smartly dressed workshy layabouts out there too!)

This assumes that all people who "dare to be different" through their appearance have something more to offer than those who are more conventional in their appearance, or who are "automatons", as you say. My experience is different. I care what my employees look like, because for me it gives an insight into their self respect. I've generally found that those who don't give a toss about their appearance, don't give a toss about their work (although that's not to say that there aren't some smartly dressed workshy layabouts out there too!)

It makes no assumption at all, Special K. The point is that by discriminating based on appearance, you're going to miss out on people who can bring more to your business than someone who plays the game, but doesn't actually bring that many moves to the table.

I also don't agree with smartness having anything to do with self-respect. There are people out there who spend hours getting ready, with meticulous attention to detail, but still wouldn't satisfy the credentials of conformity. You can't tell me that goths or punks don't spend any time getting ready, yet you still probably wouldn't give them a job.

Ultimately, all successful businesses share one characteristic. They make more money than they spend. While I appreciate that some roles almost demand a measure of conformity, most don't, and if you're putting your prejudice before your bottom line, you can and will miss out.

It makes no assumption at all, Special K. The point is that by discriminating based on appearance, you're going to miss out on people who can bring more to your business than someone who plays the game, but doesn't actually bring that many moves to the table.

 

I also don't agree with smartness having anything to do with self-respect. There are people out there who spend hours getting ready, with meticulous attention to detail, but still wouldn't satisfy the credentials of conformity. You can't tell me that goths or punks don't spend any time getting ready, yet you still probably wouldn't give them a job.

 

Ultimately, all successful businesses share one characteristic. They make more money than they spend. While I appreciate that some roles almost demand a measure of conformity, most don't, and if you're putting your prejudice before your bottom line, you can and will miss out.

It's not a prejudice Pap, it's an a normal human response. I'll seek out the best i can afford, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Part of that critera is the promotion of the company as well as the self image of the individual. I know you are using extremes in reference to goths and punks, but quite honestly, they go hand in hand with a way of thinking that doesn't necessarily sit well with corporate image.

The ironic thing is this. People who dress as punks or goths are conforming just as much as people who wear 'smarter' uniforms of suits and ties. They are finding their identities in the safety of a group in just the same way. You could say this too about people who wear football shirts to a football match.

It's just a form of identity - nothing more. And nothing wrong with that.

As for who parented these people, well maybe they were those who like to bring their children up to question why things are like they rather than just grimly blinking along and accepting.

I agree, no idea who these people are really, liberals, stoodents, unemployed etc... but if the world just accepts the world for what we have we could all find ourselves in a very bad place... I think it is important that there is an vocal element prepared to make noise and ask the pertinent questions...

governments and markets need to be held to account and as we have seen with our banking system recently, accountability and social responsibility were exchanged for greed and dividends... so I think it is right that people are out there challenging the systems and powerhouses

Reminds me of all the old people who moan about 'the youth of today'.

 

Yes, that's the youth that your generation parented and raised. Apportion some of that blame to yourselves please.

I get the point the old guard try and make, but I guess ultimately it shows how we have developed so much in the west since ''back in my day''

and yes, where did this attitude from the new generations come from eh?!

It's not a prejudice Pap, it's an a normal human response. I'll seek out the best i can afford, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Part of that critera is the promotion of the company as well as the self image of the individual. I know you are using extremes in reference to goths and punks, but quite honestly, they go hand in hand with a way of thinking that doesn't necessarily sit well with corporate image.

Well, I don't know about that. You're pretty much on record saying that you discriminate based on appearance, going further and saying that it gives an insight into their self-respect. Seems like you're exercising a degree of prejudice in making that leap.

Companies like Apple operate a T-shirt policy, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business very much. Are you saying that your enterprise is so fragile that it depends on everyone conforming to your corporate standards?

Is she a relative of Sarah Palin?

Well, I don't know about that. You're pretty much on record saying that you discriminate based on appearance, going further and saying that it gives an insight into their self-respect. Seems like you're exercising a degree of prejudice in making that leap.

 

Companies like Apple operate a T-shirt policy, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business very much. Are you saying that your enterprise is so fragile that it depends on everyone conforming to your corporate standards?

No, we compete very well in the same marketplace as Apple. And how do you come to the conclusion that promoting corporate standards (which is far more than individuals appearance, btw) equals business fragility? Bizarre logic, some previous bad experience maybe? I can only guess. Anyway, time for you to get back to work and earn your Boss a few quid.

No, we compete very well in the same marketplace as Apple. And how do you come to the conclusion that promoting corporate standards (which is far more than individuals appearance, btw) equals business fragility? Bizarre logic, some previous bad experience maybe? I can only guess. Anyway, time for you to get back to work and earn your Boss a few quid.

I didn't come to the conclusion - just asked the question, pointing out that one of the most successful companies in the world eschews the slavish insistence on everyone looking more or less the same. That it doesn't equate appearance with competence.

And since you asked, I have had one bad experience, during an interview, twenty years ago. I was applying for a Saturday job at MaccyDs in Above Bar, and was rocking a long barnet at the time. The manager essentially told me that I'd have to cut my hair to get the job. I didn't take the job. If I'd have had my head screwed on, I could have probably taken some legal action ( after all, they don't insist that their female staff cut their hair ) but I didn't.

After graduation, it just hasn't been a problem - I've been lucky enough to work for people who appreciate what I can do, not what I look like - and any prospective client that would discriminate along those lines isn't worth having, because getting het up about personal preference tells me straight away that they don't really understand the game we're in.

An American bashing the idea of free universal health care?! Thats a new one!

I think her point (although not expressly put) is that it isn't free at all. It is taxpayer funded, which is different.

The issue is that people see these things as "free" rather than funded by taxation.

That said taxpayer funded healthcare is a very good thing.

I didn't come to the conclusion - just asked the question, pointing out that one of the most successful companies in the world eschews the slavish insistence on everyone looking more or less the same. That it doesn't equate appearance with competence.

 

And since you asked, I have had one bad experience, during an interview, twenty years ago. I was applying for a Saturday job at MaccyDs in Above Bar, and was rocking a long barnet at the time. The manager essentially told me that I'd have to cut my hair to get the job. I didn't take the job. If I'd have had my head screwed on, I could have probably taken some legal action ( after all, they don't insist that their female staff cut their hair ) but I didn't.

 

After graduation, it just hasn't been a problem - I've been lucky enough to work for people who appreciate what I can do, not what I look like - and any prospective client that would discriminate along those lines isn't worth having, because getting het up about personal preference tells me straight away that they don't really understand the game we're in.

What is it you do, just out of interest? Do you still have a mullet (assuming it was, 20 years ago)?

What is it you do, just out of interest? Do you still have a mullet (assuming it was, 20 years ago)?

I'm an independent software developer with a multinational as my main client.

What is it you do, just out of interest? Do you still have a mullet (assuming it was, 20 years ago)?

And yeah, you assumed right on the mullet front!

Don't have it now, although I have had some outlandish hairstyles over the years and have worn some strange stuff to work.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that sometimes you have to dress for occasion, but mostly, it's of no consequence.