When I was a little girl, my grandmother took us to see Sharon, Lois & Bram whenever they were in town. Eventually, we outgrew their concerts, as one does, and we never went again.
Last year, they named a playground in my neighbourhood after Sharon, Lois & Bram, and the trio showed up at the dedication and sang a few songs.
When I heard that Lois died, one of the first feelings to come to me was "OMG, that time I saw them at the park was the last time I'd ever see them perform live in my whole entire life!!!"
Except of course it was.
I'm a grown adult who's childfree by choice. There's no reason to think I'd ever go to a Sharon, Lois & Bram concert again.
I didn't regret not having gone to more when I was an older kid. I had outgrown them and, in addition to not enjoying them as intended, would have felt awkward and out of place. I only went to the one in the park last summer because it was in a park - I could just walk by on a public sidewalk, stop and listen if I felt moved to do so, and casually drift away if I got bored or felt out of place.
And, just to make things weirder, if I hadn't had the opportunity to see them in the park last summer, I would never have felt "OMG the last time I saw them was the last time ever!" I wouldn't even have had a specific memory of the last time I saw them, just like how I don't have a specific memory of the last time I watched Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers (both of which I do occasionally watch as an adult).
But for some reason, because I had the opportunity to wander age-appropriately into this little mini-concert last year, I felt this pang of...whatever the hell you'd call the emotion of "OMG that was the last time ever!", which I never would have felt otherwise.
Emotions are weird.
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
The first camper
I was recently thinking about the notion of the first tourist, i.e. the first person in human history to travel for recreational purposes.
It further occurred to me that someone in human history must have been the first person to go camping recreationally.
People did, of course, live in the woods and in crude shelters for much of early human history, and then for much more of human history used tents etc. when travelling or on military campaigns or as temporary shelters for various reasons, probably including in the course of travelling from Point A to Point B.
But someone was the first person to come up with the idea of travelling away from their home and whatever degree of shelter and civilization was baseline for them to a wilder, less developed place with less civilization, and spending some time there in a temporary shelter that provides less shelter and fewer amenities than usual, all for solely recreational purposes.
In the modern world, people who are into camping think spending time in nature is in some respect better than spending time in civilization. Some simply think it's pretty and relaxing, others go so far as to consider it very nearly virtuous. Someone in human history must also have been the first person to have this attitude! For so much of human history, people were just trying to survive - and, in fact, built up whatever level of civilization they had at the time for the purpose of surviving - that it would never occur to them that less civilization and more nature would be better. I'm sure if you put a prehistoric person in a modern-day shelter, they'd be so thrilled that temperature and wind and precipitation and darkness are rendered completely irrelevant and that they are absolutely certainly not going to get eaten by a wild animal that it wouldn't even occur to them to bemoan the fact that you can see things other than trees or that not all the stars are visible.
And then, someone was the first person to have the luxury of thinking that less shelter may have been better than more shelter.
It further occurred to me that someone in human history must have been the first person to go camping recreationally.
People did, of course, live in the woods and in crude shelters for much of early human history, and then for much more of human history used tents etc. when travelling or on military campaigns or as temporary shelters for various reasons, probably including in the course of travelling from Point A to Point B.
But someone was the first person to come up with the idea of travelling away from their home and whatever degree of shelter and civilization was baseline for them to a wilder, less developed place with less civilization, and spending some time there in a temporary shelter that provides less shelter and fewer amenities than usual, all for solely recreational purposes.
In the modern world, people who are into camping think spending time in nature is in some respect better than spending time in civilization. Some simply think it's pretty and relaxing, others go so far as to consider it very nearly virtuous. Someone in human history must also have been the first person to have this attitude! For so much of human history, people were just trying to survive - and, in fact, built up whatever level of civilization they had at the time for the purpose of surviving - that it would never occur to them that less civilization and more nature would be better. I'm sure if you put a prehistoric person in a modern-day shelter, they'd be so thrilled that temperature and wind and precipitation and darkness are rendered completely irrelevant and that they are absolutely certainly not going to get eaten by a wild animal that it wouldn't even occur to them to bemoan the fact that you can see things other than trees or that not all the stars are visible.
And then, someone was the first person to have the luxury of thinking that less shelter may have been better than more shelter.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Legally-mandated helicopter parenting vs. children's literature
When I was a kid, I always felt vaguely humiliated that my life didn't work like the lives of the protagonists of my books. They got to have their own independent adventures. They got to go to the park or walk in the woods or go to a friend's house or be home alone, all without adult supervision. Sometimes they even bought things at stores or went to the library or went to the doctor without an adult. And I wasn't allowed to do anything! What was wrong with me? Why wasn't I worthy of this basic human independence that all my protagonists got to enjoy??
Reading a recent article where "free range" children got picked up by the police, I find myself wondering how 21st-century kids feel about this.
I was feeling humiliated because my parents wouldn't allow me the freedom of the protagonists in my books, but today it's even worse - it's not just that your parents say no, it's that the police will come and arrest you! (Yes, the police didn't technically arrest the kids, but I'm sure it feels to the kids like they did.)
But then it occurred to me that maybe this very serious sense of "You can't go to the park alone or the police will come and arrest you" might actually make it feel less bad for the kids. It's not that you aren't allowed because you aren't good enough, it's that no one is allowed because it's against the law. But, on the other hand, that might just cause confusion. Peter and Jane did it, so why can't I? If it's against the law, why didn't the policeman arrest Peter and Jane when he was talking to them?
Another possibility that I hadn't considered is that children's books may have caught up with reality. Perhaps the protagonists of today's children's books are supervised at all times? That would certainly make it more difficult to come up with a workable story, but so do cellphones and they appear in fiction. (Or maybe that's why so many of my early children's books were populated by anthropomorphic animals living in the quaint, non-specific past?)
This all made me realize that children's books are in fact the original media that influences impressionable children! People always talk about TV and movies and video games, but far, far more of my idea of How The World Is or Should Be were formed by the books I read at a very young age. I think I was far more influenced by the idea that I should be able to ride a zebra because that's what a character in a book was doing than by anything I saw on TV.
Reading a recent article where "free range" children got picked up by the police, I find myself wondering how 21st-century kids feel about this.
I was feeling humiliated because my parents wouldn't allow me the freedom of the protagonists in my books, but today it's even worse - it's not just that your parents say no, it's that the police will come and arrest you! (Yes, the police didn't technically arrest the kids, but I'm sure it feels to the kids like they did.)
But then it occurred to me that maybe this very serious sense of "You can't go to the park alone or the police will come and arrest you" might actually make it feel less bad for the kids. It's not that you aren't allowed because you aren't good enough, it's that no one is allowed because it's against the law. But, on the other hand, that might just cause confusion. Peter and Jane did it, so why can't I? If it's against the law, why didn't the policeman arrest Peter and Jane when he was talking to them?
Another possibility that I hadn't considered is that children's books may have caught up with reality. Perhaps the protagonists of today's children's books are supervised at all times? That would certainly make it more difficult to come up with a workable story, but so do cellphones and they appear in fiction. (Or maybe that's why so many of my early children's books were populated by anthropomorphic animals living in the quaint, non-specific past?)
This all made me realize that children's books are in fact the original media that influences impressionable children! People always talk about TV and movies and video games, but far, far more of my idea of How The World Is or Should Be were formed by the books I read at a very young age. I think I was far more influenced by the idea that I should be able to ride a zebra because that's what a character in a book was doing than by anything I saw on TV.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The first tourist
In the shower this morning, it occurred to me that some one person in human history must have been the very first tourist, by which I mean the first person to travel recreationally.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
"But I made it just for you!"
I'm sure by now you've seen Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess's post called "Consent: Not Actually That Complicated".
But what struck me when I first read this is that I've seen people actually, in real life, take similar offence to similar mundane everyday things. This often (but not always) happens with parents and their kids, and often (but not always) involves food. The offerer (often the parent) does something (often making food) that the offeree (often the kid) doesn't want and/or didn't ask for, then complains that the offeree doesn't want/take/eat/love it. Especially in a parent-kid scenario, the offerer has been known to scold the offeree for not wanting/taking/eating/loving it, or force/coerce the offeree into going through the motions of taking/eating/using the thing. And, especially in a food-related scenario, there seems to be a rather loud school of thought that etiquette requires putting on a show of taking/eating/using the thing, and that quietly abstaining is actively rude.
Now of course as adults, dealing with peers, sometimes we may find it's strategic to make the deliberate choice of putting on a show of appreciation in service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term, and then just quietly go home and make our own damn cup of tea just the way we like it. (Just like, as adults, sometimes we may choose to consent to an act of intimacy that we aren't quite dripping with enthusiasm about in the service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term.)
But, as adults, we understand that this is an option that one may choose to exercise, not a broadly-applicable expectation or a baseline requirement of social behaviour. Kids are still working out, mostly from example, what constitutes broadly-applicable expectations and baseline requirements of social behaviour.
And when you're dealing with kids who are still developing their framework for what constitutes normal human behaviour and what constitutes reasonable expectations for people to have of each other, it could be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're Being Bad if you say no to something you didn't want in the first place. And it could also be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're entitled to a positive response to your unwanted and unsolicited solely on the grounds that you presumptuously took the initiative.
If parents want to raise kids who respect other people's "no", and if parents want to raise who understand that if someone disrespects their "no" it isn't an act of love, maybe they should start by keeping an eye on the tone with which they offer their kids a cup of tea.
If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.The blogger is clearly setting up the mundane analogy with a cup of tea to quite effectively demonstrate how ridiculous it is not to respect someone's "no".
You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.
If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.
If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?
They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.
[...]
If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK”, or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT”.
But what struck me when I first read this is that I've seen people actually, in real life, take similar offence to similar mundane everyday things. This often (but not always) happens with parents and their kids, and often (but not always) involves food. The offerer (often the parent) does something (often making food) that the offeree (often the kid) doesn't want and/or didn't ask for, then complains that the offeree doesn't want/take/eat/love it. Especially in a parent-kid scenario, the offerer has been known to scold the offeree for not wanting/taking/eating/loving it, or force/coerce the offeree into going through the motions of taking/eating/using the thing. And, especially in a food-related scenario, there seems to be a rather loud school of thought that etiquette requires putting on a show of taking/eating/using the thing, and that quietly abstaining is actively rude.
Now of course as adults, dealing with peers, sometimes we may find it's strategic to make the deliberate choice of putting on a show of appreciation in service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term, and then just quietly go home and make our own damn cup of tea just the way we like it. (Just like, as adults, sometimes we may choose to consent to an act of intimacy that we aren't quite dripping with enthusiasm about in the service of fostering the interpersonal relationship in the long term.)
But, as adults, we understand that this is an option that one may choose to exercise, not a broadly-applicable expectation or a baseline requirement of social behaviour. Kids are still working out, mostly from example, what constitutes broadly-applicable expectations and baseline requirements of social behaviour.
And when you're dealing with kids who are still developing their framework for what constitutes normal human behaviour and what constitutes reasonable expectations for people to have of each other, it could be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're Being Bad if you say no to something you didn't want in the first place. And it could also be detrimental to normalize the idea that you're entitled to a positive response to your unwanted and unsolicited solely on the grounds that you presumptuously took the initiative.
If parents want to raise kids who respect other people's "no", and if parents want to raise who understand that if someone disrespects their "no" it isn't an act of love, maybe they should start by keeping an eye on the tone with which they offer their kids a cup of tea.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Signs I'm getting old
Baby Cousin 1.0 and Baby Cousin 3.0 are brothers, just a year and a half apart in age. I've noticed that sometimes when I mention one or the other of them in conversation, I use the wrong name - I call Baby Cousin 1.0 by Baby Cousin 3.0's name or vice versa.
In the past year, I've noticed this happening quite a few times. I'll be talking about one person, and refer to them by the name of another person with similar characteristics. For example, I found a picture of Fairy Goddaughter when she was 9 months old and said aloud to myself "Aww, look at [Baby Cousin 2.0]", (Baby Cousin 2.0 being a 9-month-old girl). Or when mentioning an uncle, I'll use the name of another uncle (who is the first uncle's brother).
When I was a kid, older adults (especially my grandparents' age) would mix up names like this from time to time. I thought they were actually getting the people mixed up or forgetting the people's names, and their response when their errors came to light didn't disabuse me of this notion.
However, when I do this myself, I'm not forgetting names or mixing people up. I know with absolute certainty which baby cousin was born first and which was born second, and I can even tell you their dates of birth and distinguishing characteristics and recent accomplishments. This isn't like when I first started my job and got the names of the two petite francophone ladies of a certain age confused and didn't realize I had the names wrong until one lady retired. There's no confusion or uncertainty whatever in this case. It's just that sometimes the wrong word comes out of my mouth.
In the past year, I've noticed this happening quite a few times. I'll be talking about one person, and refer to them by the name of another person with similar characteristics. For example, I found a picture of Fairy Goddaughter when she was 9 months old and said aloud to myself "Aww, look at [Baby Cousin 2.0]", (Baby Cousin 2.0 being a 9-month-old girl). Or when mentioning an uncle, I'll use the name of another uncle (who is the first uncle's brother).
When I was a kid, older adults (especially my grandparents' age) would mix up names like this from time to time. I thought they were actually getting the people mixed up or forgetting the people's names, and their response when their errors came to light didn't disabuse me of this notion.
However, when I do this myself, I'm not forgetting names or mixing people up. I know with absolute certainty which baby cousin was born first and which was born second, and I can even tell you their dates of birth and distinguishing characteristics and recent accomplishments. This isn't like when I first started my job and got the names of the two petite francophone ladies of a certain age confused and didn't realize I had the names wrong until one lady retired. There's no confusion or uncertainty whatever in this case. It's just that sometimes the wrong word comes out of my mouth.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Idea for a new economic indicator
This post was inspired by, but is not directly related to, this article.
When talking about whether the population as a whole is making economic gains or losses, people often talk about middle class vs. low income vs. high income, or they look at average or median incomes for the population as a whole and for various demographics. Less often, but sometimes, they talk about the ratio of income to tuition to housing prices. (The Globe and Mail has a useful comparison tool.)
It occurs to me that another useful indicator would be to look at changes in income over time with people who bring various levels of education, skills and experience to the table. For example, how has the income level of a person with an undergraduate degree and 10 years of work experienced evolved over the years? What about a newly-minted Ph.D.? What about a student working their way through college? What about people who have been freelancing for 5 years?
It might be useful to get somewhat specific (Is the person with an undergrad degree and 10 years of work experience a translator or a teacher or a computer program?), but the data would cease to be comparable if you got too specific (I don't know how informative it would be to track the income of social media specialists or FORTRAN programmers over decades).
If the data is available, it would also be interesting to track negative factors. How has the income of people who were laid off one year ago evolved? (i.e. were they more or less likely to get new jobs within a year in previous decades?) What's the situation of people who started a business within the past two years? What about people who are involuntary entrepreneurs (i.e. they didn't want to start a business, but couldn't get hired)?
I think this would fill in some blanks, and it has the potential to draw attention to certain problems that may be hidden by the other, more commonly used indicators.
When talking about whether the population as a whole is making economic gains or losses, people often talk about middle class vs. low income vs. high income, or they look at average or median incomes for the population as a whole and for various demographics. Less often, but sometimes, they talk about the ratio of income to tuition to housing prices. (The Globe and Mail has a useful comparison tool.)
It occurs to me that another useful indicator would be to look at changes in income over time with people who bring various levels of education, skills and experience to the table. For example, how has the income level of a person with an undergraduate degree and 10 years of work experienced evolved over the years? What about a newly-minted Ph.D.? What about a student working their way through college? What about people who have been freelancing for 5 years?
It might be useful to get somewhat specific (Is the person with an undergrad degree and 10 years of work experience a translator or a teacher or a computer program?), but the data would cease to be comparable if you got too specific (I don't know how informative it would be to track the income of social media specialists or FORTRAN programmers over decades).
If the data is available, it would also be interesting to track negative factors. How has the income of people who were laid off one year ago evolved? (i.e. were they more or less likely to get new jobs within a year in previous decades?) What's the situation of people who started a business within the past two years? What about people who are involuntary entrepreneurs (i.e. they didn't want to start a business, but couldn't get hired)?
I think this would fill in some blanks, and it has the potential to draw attention to certain problems that may be hidden by the other, more commonly used indicators.
Monday, March 09, 2015
Evidence
There is a cigarette pack on my balcony.
This is noteworthy because I don't smoke, and no one has ever smoked on my balcony in the entire history of this building.
This has actually happened a few times over the years - random cigarette packs or cigarette butts ending up on my balcony - and it turns out the wind blew them there. They always show up on a significantly windy day, and sometimes even disappear overnight. (I'm sure as hell not going out on my high balcony on a cold, windy winter day to pick up someone else's dirty cigarette litter, so sometimes they're there for a few days.)
But this makes me wonder about criminal evidence. If detectives were investigating me, they could logically conclude that someone has smoked on my balcony. They could also reasonably conclude that the person whose DNA is on the cigarette has been on my balcony. If the person who smoked the cigarette ended up dead or something, I could turn out to be a person of interest just because of the vagaries of the wind.
From time to time, a hair falls out of my head. I often find them on the floor of my apartment, but surely they sometimes fall out when I'm outdoors too. And if a cigarette pack can be picked up by the wind and blown onto my balcony, a loose hair can certainly also be picked up by the wind and blown somewhere, maybe even further away. It could also stick to someone's coat or shoes and be carried into their home or something. So if I was abducted or murdered and the police were looking for evidence, they might find one of my hairs somewhere I've never been.
In detective fiction, they often find the bad guy based on one tiny bit of physical evidence - a cigarette butt or stray hair DNA showing that a person was in a specific place, and that's what cracks open the case. In real life, I wonder if they take into account that stuff is sometimes blown around by the wind?
This is noteworthy because I don't smoke, and no one has ever smoked on my balcony in the entire history of this building.
This has actually happened a few times over the years - random cigarette packs or cigarette butts ending up on my balcony - and it turns out the wind blew them there. They always show up on a significantly windy day, and sometimes even disappear overnight. (I'm sure as hell not going out on my high balcony on a cold, windy winter day to pick up someone else's dirty cigarette litter, so sometimes they're there for a few days.)
But this makes me wonder about criminal evidence. If detectives were investigating me, they could logically conclude that someone has smoked on my balcony. They could also reasonably conclude that the person whose DNA is on the cigarette has been on my balcony. If the person who smoked the cigarette ended up dead or something, I could turn out to be a person of interest just because of the vagaries of the wind.
From time to time, a hair falls out of my head. I often find them on the floor of my apartment, but surely they sometimes fall out when I'm outdoors too. And if a cigarette pack can be picked up by the wind and blown onto my balcony, a loose hair can certainly also be picked up by the wind and blown somewhere, maybe even further away. It could also stick to someone's coat or shoes and be carried into their home or something. So if I was abducted or murdered and the police were looking for evidence, they might find one of my hairs somewhere I've never been.
In detective fiction, they often find the bad guy based on one tiny bit of physical evidence - a cigarette butt or stray hair DNA showing that a person was in a specific place, and that's what cracks open the case. In real life, I wonder if they take into account that stuff is sometimes blown around by the wind?
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Contemplating the ethics of donating food to the Salvation Army food bank
I do not donate money to the Salvation Army because their history of anti-gay action.
However, the easiest way for me to donate food to a food bank is to put it in the food bank bin outside my local supermarket. This is the only place I know of in my immediate neighbourhood where you drop off a food bank donation. And this bin happens to be for the Salvation Army food bank.
I don't normally buy food for food banks, choosing instead to give them money so they can buy what they need and take advantage of bulk discounts and wholesale pricing, but from time to time I find myself with unwanted food or household products (I buy something that ended up not being right for me, I get a free sample box that includes stuff I'm never going to use, etc.), and I feel that the food bank is the best place for these things.
So I'm wondering where food bank donations fall ethically.
On one hand, they can't use food donations for anti-gay actions like they can with money donations, and having a busy food bank to run might take their attention away from other things.
But, on the other hand, would donating food to the food bank free up money that would otherwise be spent on the food bank for harmful political action?
Also, what would happen if their food bank failed because they didn't receive any food donations? Would people who need food suffer, or just be redirected to another food bank? Would the Salvation Army suffer, or just have more time and attention for activities that are less helpful than a food bank?
In short, could the Salvation Army do harm with donations of food like they've been known to do with donations of money? Or is the only possible outcome that the food goes to hungry people?
However, the easiest way for me to donate food to a food bank is to put it in the food bank bin outside my local supermarket. This is the only place I know of in my immediate neighbourhood where you drop off a food bank donation. And this bin happens to be for the Salvation Army food bank.
I don't normally buy food for food banks, choosing instead to give them money so they can buy what they need and take advantage of bulk discounts and wholesale pricing, but from time to time I find myself with unwanted food or household products (I buy something that ended up not being right for me, I get a free sample box that includes stuff I'm never going to use, etc.), and I feel that the food bank is the best place for these things.
So I'm wondering where food bank donations fall ethically.
On one hand, they can't use food donations for anti-gay actions like they can with money donations, and having a busy food bank to run might take their attention away from other things.
But, on the other hand, would donating food to the food bank free up money that would otherwise be spent on the food bank for harmful political action?
Also, what would happen if their food bank failed because they didn't receive any food donations? Would people who need food suffer, or just be redirected to another food bank? Would the Salvation Army suffer, or just have more time and attention for activities that are less helpful than a food bank?
In short, could the Salvation Army do harm with donations of food like they've been known to do with donations of money? Or is the only possible outcome that the food goes to hungry people?
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Downton needs to explain why Tom thinks they'll have a better life in America
This post contains spoilers up to and including Season 5, Episode 7 of Downton Abbey (the one that includes a cute scene of Tom and little Sybbie dropping sticks off a bridge into the creek below). Please do not include spoilers beyond that point.
In last week's Downton, Tom mentions to little Sybbie that he thinks they might be able to have a better life in America.
The show really needs to elaborate on why he thinks it would be better.
At Downton, Sybbie enjoys a much higher baseline level of security than she would living with Tom alone. Even if we take luxury out of the equation and don't consider it a contributor to quality of life, the fact remains that at Downton she will have a roof over her head and food in her belly. She will have new shoes whenever she needs them and a warm winter coat and a fire in her fireplace.
In America, Tom would need to find work and remain steadily employed to provide these things, but Downton has enough resources to provide these things regardless of what happens, and Sybbie will always be able to benefit from this security because everyone from Lord and Lady Grantham to Thomas the Evil Underbutler loves her.
Also, since Tom is a single parent, he would need to find childcare in America, whereas at Downton there's already childcare fit for a future earl.
Looking forward a few years, at Downton, education will be available to young Sybbie. If Tom wants her to go to school rather than being taught at home by a governess, I'm sure that could be made to happen without compromising her place within the security of Downton. If, when she gets older, she wants to go to some posh school or go on to university, her doting grandparents will make that available. She will be constrained by nothing but her gender (given the era), and I'm sure she'd be similarly constrained by her gender in the US as well.
What would Tom do to earn a living in America? Be a chauffeur or a taxi driver? That's not necessarily going to provide his child with security. Run a business? If he feels that he has the business savvy to build a stable life for his child, he can already make use of it in his current role as estate manager at Downton, in support of the estate that provides his daughter with a secure life.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Tom would necessarily fail in America. He could probably eke out a perfectly reasonable working class cum middle class living. We all know people who've done it - in fact, we probably all know people who've done it despite being a bit of an idiot!
But I just don't see why he's confident it would be better, especially from the point of view of building a future for a child. Normally this 20th century Europe to North American immigration arc involves people who are oppressed or otherwise have limited opportunities in their homeland, and Sybbie isn't and never will be in either situation.
Little Sybbie Branson the daughter of a widowed Irish chauffeur would probably have a better life - or at least more opportunities - in America, but you can't assume that Miss Sybil the granddaughter of an English earl necessarily would. Some insight into Tom's logic here would be helpful to the viewer.
In last week's Downton, Tom mentions to little Sybbie that he thinks they might be able to have a better life in America.
The show really needs to elaborate on why he thinks it would be better.
At Downton, Sybbie enjoys a much higher baseline level of security than she would living with Tom alone. Even if we take luxury out of the equation and don't consider it a contributor to quality of life, the fact remains that at Downton she will have a roof over her head and food in her belly. She will have new shoes whenever she needs them and a warm winter coat and a fire in her fireplace.
In America, Tom would need to find work and remain steadily employed to provide these things, but Downton has enough resources to provide these things regardless of what happens, and Sybbie will always be able to benefit from this security because everyone from Lord and Lady Grantham to Thomas the Evil Underbutler loves her.
Also, since Tom is a single parent, he would need to find childcare in America, whereas at Downton there's already childcare fit for a future earl.
Looking forward a few years, at Downton, education will be available to young Sybbie. If Tom wants her to go to school rather than being taught at home by a governess, I'm sure that could be made to happen without compromising her place within the security of Downton. If, when she gets older, she wants to go to some posh school or go on to university, her doting grandparents will make that available. She will be constrained by nothing but her gender (given the era), and I'm sure she'd be similarly constrained by her gender in the US as well.
What would Tom do to earn a living in America? Be a chauffeur or a taxi driver? That's not necessarily going to provide his child with security. Run a business? If he feels that he has the business savvy to build a stable life for his child, he can already make use of it in his current role as estate manager at Downton, in support of the estate that provides his daughter with a secure life.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Tom would necessarily fail in America. He could probably eke out a perfectly reasonable working class cum middle class living. We all know people who've done it - in fact, we probably all know people who've done it despite being a bit of an idiot!
But I just don't see why he's confident it would be better, especially from the point of view of building a future for a child. Normally this 20th century Europe to North American immigration arc involves people who are oppressed or otherwise have limited opportunities in their homeland, and Sybbie isn't and never will be in either situation.
Little Sybbie Branson the daughter of a widowed Irish chauffeur would probably have a better life - or at least more opportunities - in America, but you can't assume that Miss Sybil the granddaughter of an English earl necessarily would. Some insight into Tom's logic here would be helpful to the viewer.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
The opportunity to experience life's simple pleasures
I blogged before about how if I'd lived in a different time and place, I'd never have had the opportunity to be good at anything.
Today in the shower, it occurred to me that if I'd lived in a different time and place, I may never have experience any of the things that destress me or make me happy.
The first of which is the shower! It relaxes me, makes me feel human, makes me look civilized, and is where I get all my best ideas. And it wouldn't have been available even 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago in poorer areas where housing hasn't been upgraded to include modern conveniences. Or even in the present in some parts of the world.
As I blogged about in my resilience braindump, the things that destress me are very externally dependent, and many of them are very 21st century. Fandom is a huge destresser, and it's entirely dependent on the constant creation of new stories involving beloved characters. For nearly all of human history, this simply wasn't possible. There was no media, and new stories were few and far between. And, apart from fandom, most of my pleasures and destressers are on my computer, which is why sending it out to be repaired is so upsetting to me. But personal computers didn't exist before my lifetime, and the internet as we know it didn't exist even during the first half of my lifetime!
Even my other simple pleasures and necessary destressers - comfort food, privacy, curling up safe in my cozy bed as a storm rages outside - would have been impossible for all but the very wealthiest for the vast majority of human history, and still aren't available to the general population in many parts of the world.
So in another time or place, would I have found pleasure and destressing in other things in life? Or would I simply live my whole life on edge, never completely at peace?
However, it also occurs to me that if I'd been born in a different time and place, I wouldn't be alive anyway. Even if I'd survived being born, I probably wouldn't have survived my annual bouts of strep throat (which, the internet tells me, is the same infection as scarlet fever), and even if I'd survived that, I probably would have died on a fainting couch from my reflux incident where I just couldn't swallow food.
Things They Should Study: how does people's likelihood of having survived in more difficult times and places correlate with their likelihood of thriving in those times and places? Would a disproportionate number of the people who are fragile and sensitive like me have died at birth anyway?
Today in the shower, it occurred to me that if I'd lived in a different time and place, I may never have experience any of the things that destress me or make me happy.
The first of which is the shower! It relaxes me, makes me feel human, makes me look civilized, and is where I get all my best ideas. And it wouldn't have been available even 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago in poorer areas where housing hasn't been upgraded to include modern conveniences. Or even in the present in some parts of the world.
As I blogged about in my resilience braindump, the things that destress me are very externally dependent, and many of them are very 21st century. Fandom is a huge destresser, and it's entirely dependent on the constant creation of new stories involving beloved characters. For nearly all of human history, this simply wasn't possible. There was no media, and new stories were few and far between. And, apart from fandom, most of my pleasures and destressers are on my computer, which is why sending it out to be repaired is so upsetting to me. But personal computers didn't exist before my lifetime, and the internet as we know it didn't exist even during the first half of my lifetime!
Even my other simple pleasures and necessary destressers - comfort food, privacy, curling up safe in my cozy bed as a storm rages outside - would have been impossible for all but the very wealthiest for the vast majority of human history, and still aren't available to the general population in many parts of the world.
So in another time or place, would I have found pleasure and destressing in other things in life? Or would I simply live my whole life on edge, never completely at peace?
However, it also occurs to me that if I'd been born in a different time and place, I wouldn't be alive anyway. Even if I'd survived being born, I probably wouldn't have survived my annual bouts of strep throat (which, the internet tells me, is the same infection as scarlet fever), and even if I'd survived that, I probably would have died on a fainting couch from my reflux incident where I just couldn't swallow food.
Things They Should Study: how does people's likelihood of having survived in more difficult times and places correlate with their likelihood of thriving in those times and places? Would a disproportionate number of the people who are fragile and sensitive like me have died at birth anyway?
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Hats
In the world of Downton Abbey, etiquette dictates that ladies don't remove their hats indoors. They don't wear hats in their own home (or in the evening), but if they go to a shop or a restaurant or someone else's home they don't remove their hat, even if they do remove their coat.
It occurred to me that this could make wardrobe planning difficult. Do you choose a hat that goes with your dress or a hat that goes with your coat? Or do you have to make your coat match your dress too so the whole ensemble works?
Obviously, not everyone has the budget for multiple hats and coats to go with every dress, and they actually show this on screen. When a working-class character is visiting someone's home, she's shown wearing a hat that doesn't really complement or enhance her outfit. And this is because it's her only hat, the best she could do to go with her only coat, which was the best she could do for as sensible a coat as possible.
You can't have a red hat, because then you won't be able to dress properly for a funeral. You can't have a dainty floral summer hat, because then you won't be able to dress properly for the cold and the rain. You can't have a delicate hat, because it has to last you several years.
But still, you have to wear a hat every time you're indoors but not at home during the daytime. No matter how carefully you dress and groom, you still have to wear this piece of pure pragmatism quite prominently, next to your face, so it's the first thing that people see.
In the 21st century, people talk about unrealistic standards of beauty projected by Hollywood, with fashion being set by celebrities who have access to all the beauty treatments in the world and plastic surgery and hair extensions and stylists and custom-tailored clothing.
I wonder if, in the olden days, people talked about unrealistic standards of beauty being set by the upper classes, who had access to a flattering, custom-made hat to go with every outfit?
It occurred to me that this could make wardrobe planning difficult. Do you choose a hat that goes with your dress or a hat that goes with your coat? Or do you have to make your coat match your dress too so the whole ensemble works?
Obviously, not everyone has the budget for multiple hats and coats to go with every dress, and they actually show this on screen. When a working-class character is visiting someone's home, she's shown wearing a hat that doesn't really complement or enhance her outfit. And this is because it's her only hat, the best she could do to go with her only coat, which was the best she could do for as sensible a coat as possible.
You can't have a red hat, because then you won't be able to dress properly for a funeral. You can't have a dainty floral summer hat, because then you won't be able to dress properly for the cold and the rain. You can't have a delicate hat, because it has to last you several years.
But still, you have to wear a hat every time you're indoors but not at home during the daytime. No matter how carefully you dress and groom, you still have to wear this piece of pure pragmatism quite prominently, next to your face, so it's the first thing that people see.
In the 21st century, people talk about unrealistic standards of beauty projected by Hollywood, with fashion being set by celebrities who have access to all the beauty treatments in the world and plastic surgery and hair extensions and stylists and custom-tailored clothing.
I wonder if, in the olden days, people talked about unrealistic standards of beauty being set by the upper classes, who had access to a flattering, custom-made hat to go with every outfit?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The condolence script
This bereavement has given me some insight into the condolence script.
During my last bereavement (which was 15 years ago!!) I hadn't yet read up on etiquette theory, so I didn't know what people were supposed to say or how the bereaved is supposed to respond. (It didn't really come up IRL though, because I was in university and the funeral was on a day when I had no classes, so I just went about life without telling many people.)
I used to think that you had to say something awesome to the bereaved person, that would make them feel better. And I used to think that, as the bereaved person, you have to give a mitigative response, because condolences are such an intense and one-sided thing to receive that you have to sort of balance out the conversation (like how if someone compliments a specific aspect of your outfit, you might look at a specific aspect of their outfit to compliment. Or if someone thanks you extra-profusely for something, you might feel like saying "Please, it's no big deal.")
When I started reading Miss Manners, she said that a simple expression of condolences or sympathies is sufficient ("I'm so sorry" or "My sympathies" or "My condolences"), and that "thank you" is a sufficient response. These seemed woefully inadequate to me, but Miss Manners said they suffice and I certainly couldn't come up with anything that was as awesome as I thought it needed to be, so I began using them.
With this bereavement, I've come to the realization that there's no such thing as a series of words that can achieve the level of awesomeness that I thought was necessary in an expression of condolences. Words uttered just exist on a completely different plane and scale than bereavement, even simple bereavement. It's like trying to knit a sweater that will refute a political argument. It's just not a tool that can be used to achieve that goal, no matter how awesomely you do it.
So why bother? Because the expression of condolences acknowledges the elephant in the room. Death is huge, and it can seem weird and wrong and assholic to avoid the topic if you're talking to someone who's recently bereaved. So "I'm so sorry" or "my condolences" is the standardized code for "I acknowledge that you were bereaved", and "thank you" is standardized code for "I acknowledge that you acknowledged it." Then you can proceed with the business at hand without anyone having to worry about being rude about the elephant.
The existence of a standardized script helps because it's so difficult to say something right. It's like saying "please" or "thank you" or "you're welcome". Imagine trying to express those concepts if we didn't have standard words for them! And, of course, bereavement is a far more sensitive and emotionally fraught situation than asking someone to pass the salt! So the standard, etiquette-approved script allows us to acknowledge the situation and then move forward. No more, no less.
During my last bereavement (which was 15 years ago!!) I hadn't yet read up on etiquette theory, so I didn't know what people were supposed to say or how the bereaved is supposed to respond. (It didn't really come up IRL though, because I was in university and the funeral was on a day when I had no classes, so I just went about life without telling many people.)
I used to think that you had to say something awesome to the bereaved person, that would make them feel better. And I used to think that, as the bereaved person, you have to give a mitigative response, because condolences are such an intense and one-sided thing to receive that you have to sort of balance out the conversation (like how if someone compliments a specific aspect of your outfit, you might look at a specific aspect of their outfit to compliment. Or if someone thanks you extra-profusely for something, you might feel like saying "Please, it's no big deal.")
When I started reading Miss Manners, she said that a simple expression of condolences or sympathies is sufficient ("I'm so sorry" or "My sympathies" or "My condolences"), and that "thank you" is a sufficient response. These seemed woefully inadequate to me, but Miss Manners said they suffice and I certainly couldn't come up with anything that was as awesome as I thought it needed to be, so I began using them.
With this bereavement, I've come to the realization that there's no such thing as a series of words that can achieve the level of awesomeness that I thought was necessary in an expression of condolences. Words uttered just exist on a completely different plane and scale than bereavement, even simple bereavement. It's like trying to knit a sweater that will refute a political argument. It's just not a tool that can be used to achieve that goal, no matter how awesomely you do it.
So why bother? Because the expression of condolences acknowledges the elephant in the room. Death is huge, and it can seem weird and wrong and assholic to avoid the topic if you're talking to someone who's recently bereaved. So "I'm so sorry" or "my condolences" is the standardized code for "I acknowledge that you were bereaved", and "thank you" is standardized code for "I acknowledge that you acknowledged it." Then you can proceed with the business at hand without anyone having to worry about being rude about the elephant.
The existence of a standardized script helps because it's so difficult to say something right. It's like saying "please" or "thank you" or "you're welcome". Imagine trying to express those concepts if we didn't have standard words for them! And, of course, bereavement is a far more sensitive and emotionally fraught situation than asking someone to pass the salt! So the standard, etiquette-approved script allows us to acknowledge the situation and then move forward. No more, no less.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Stress and resilience: an inconclusive braindump
As you've probably noticed, these past couple of months I've been finding myself disproportionately stressed about things that don't actually constitute real problems, like having to choose condo finishes and computer problems and a shortage of fanfiction.
This is a clear demonstration of the fact that I'm too easily stressed and not resilient enough to live in the real world. But what do I do about this? Braindump on my blog, of course!
***
By chance, I was recently required to take a (useless and unnecessary) training session on "change management". It included a component on resilience, which I was looking forward to, but unfortunately it turned out to be useless.
According to the training, one of the things you're supposed to do to make yourself more resilient is self-care. But the problem is that in my experience, resilience only becomes necessary in situations where your usual self-care is unavailable. I need to be resilient in the face of the loss of my fanfic happy place, and my fanfic happy place is a key part of my self-care. I need to be resilient during 2 weeks without my computer, and my computer is a key part of my self-care. I need to be resilient when dealing with condo drama that, if not properly addressed, will result in suboptimal housing, and optimal housing is a key part of my self-care. If these things that threaten my self-care didn't exist, I wouldn't need to be resilient.
Another thing you're supposed to do to make yourself more resilient is live your values. We were told to list the traits we hate in others, then identify the opposite of those traits. Those opposites are our values. This exercise led me to identify my values as socialism and Wheaton's Law, which sounds about right. But the problem is that I don't see how being socialist and not being a dick would equip me to deal with the unprecedented (to me) challenge of choosing condo finishes or the stress of eventually moving, or even the lesser stresses of a fanfic drought or two weeks without a computer - to say nothing of real problems that will likely happen to me someday, like unemployment or bereavement. My values aren't even relevant to the situations that require resilience. It's like advising someone going through a divorce to adopt a vegetarian diet - it just has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
I don't know if my emotions work differently than other people's or if the training was just spouting platitudes, but the ideas they presented weren't even on the same plane as resilience. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with that.
***
One issue that has become apparent to me in recent months is that my destressers are very externally dependent, which isn't very resilient. Fanfic works beautifully, but I'm dependent on people writing new fanfic. Other fandom also works beautifully, but I'm also dependent on new creations from my fandoms - there's a diminishing return on the destressing benefits rereading/rewatching. Gaming works fantastically, but I'm dependent upon having a gaming-capable computer. A good night's sleep and a long hot shower help, but that's dependent on quality living conditions. Food and alcohol work, but that's dependent on my usual resources being available, and also comes with physical limitations. (As much as I'd enjoy it, I can't be tipsy and cramming cheese in my mouth every minute of every day.) There is nothing that destresses me that isn't dependent on other people and/or circumstances.
***
Anti-materialistic people often say that the problem is seeking happiness in the things that money can buy, and that instead you should get happiness from your interpersonal relationships. But interpersonal relationships are also entirely dependent on other people. They can abandon you of their own free will. They may be unable or unwilling to give you what you need. They may not be available when you need them. Interpersonal relationships can, of course, be rewarding, add to your happiness and improve your resilience, but they are just as dependent on people and/or circumstances as materialistic destressers.
***
At this point, people usually suggest exercise and/or nature. But those don't destress me. Exercise makes me angry; nature is best case neutral, worst case a panic attack trigger, while taking me away from the things that actually do destress me, most of which occur in my home.
***
Which is the problem with finding a new destresser. Obviously, if I wanted to proactively seek something to replace my missing fanfiction, the way to do it would be to make a concerted effort to try out random things until something gets the desired results. But the problem with doing that is it would take time away from the tried and true, so it has to be approached carefully and measuredly.
Analogy: Cheese isn't available to put on my salad, but salad is still good. But if I just went around throwing other things on my salad willy-nilly in a desperate attempt to find a replacement for cheese, I could ruin a lot of salads. When I've had a difficult, stressful day and I'm desperately craving a yummy salad, it would probably be a bad idea to experiment and risk not getting my craving filled - and, in fact, risk becoming even crankier because something that I thought would fill my craving didn't. And, of course, the flaw in this analogy is that it's easy to eat around a non-yummy ingredient in a salad, whereas the impact of stressers and failed destressers on stress levels and energy flow can't be quite so easily circumvented.
***
Historically, my destressers have always come to me organically, through my reading and other media consumption. And my reading already follows a system that provides a good balance between known enjoyments and discovering new things, so I don't know if it can be further forced to provide me with the very specific form of new things I need to replace my lost fanfiction.
All of which is to say I don't have any answers, and I'd probably completely shatter if any real problems came along.
This is a clear demonstration of the fact that I'm too easily stressed and not resilient enough to live in the real world. But what do I do about this? Braindump on my blog, of course!
***
By chance, I was recently required to take a (useless and unnecessary) training session on "change management". It included a component on resilience, which I was looking forward to, but unfortunately it turned out to be useless.
According to the training, one of the things you're supposed to do to make yourself more resilient is self-care. But the problem is that in my experience, resilience only becomes necessary in situations where your usual self-care is unavailable. I need to be resilient in the face of the loss of my fanfic happy place, and my fanfic happy place is a key part of my self-care. I need to be resilient during 2 weeks without my computer, and my computer is a key part of my self-care. I need to be resilient when dealing with condo drama that, if not properly addressed, will result in suboptimal housing, and optimal housing is a key part of my self-care. If these things that threaten my self-care didn't exist, I wouldn't need to be resilient.
Another thing you're supposed to do to make yourself more resilient is live your values. We were told to list the traits we hate in others, then identify the opposite of those traits. Those opposites are our values. This exercise led me to identify my values as socialism and Wheaton's Law, which sounds about right. But the problem is that I don't see how being socialist and not being a dick would equip me to deal with the unprecedented (to me) challenge of choosing condo finishes or the stress of eventually moving, or even the lesser stresses of a fanfic drought or two weeks without a computer - to say nothing of real problems that will likely happen to me someday, like unemployment or bereavement. My values aren't even relevant to the situations that require resilience. It's like advising someone going through a divorce to adopt a vegetarian diet - it just has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
I don't know if my emotions work differently than other people's or if the training was just spouting platitudes, but the ideas they presented weren't even on the same plane as resilience. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with that.
***
One issue that has become apparent to me in recent months is that my destressers are very externally dependent, which isn't very resilient. Fanfic works beautifully, but I'm dependent on people writing new fanfic. Other fandom also works beautifully, but I'm also dependent on new creations from my fandoms - there's a diminishing return on the destressing benefits rereading/rewatching. Gaming works fantastically, but I'm dependent upon having a gaming-capable computer. A good night's sleep and a long hot shower help, but that's dependent on quality living conditions. Food and alcohol work, but that's dependent on my usual resources being available, and also comes with physical limitations. (As much as I'd enjoy it, I can't be tipsy and cramming cheese in my mouth every minute of every day.) There is nothing that destresses me that isn't dependent on other people and/or circumstances.
***
Anti-materialistic people often say that the problem is seeking happiness in the things that money can buy, and that instead you should get happiness from your interpersonal relationships. But interpersonal relationships are also entirely dependent on other people. They can abandon you of their own free will. They may be unable or unwilling to give you what you need. They may not be available when you need them. Interpersonal relationships can, of course, be rewarding, add to your happiness and improve your resilience, but they are just as dependent on people and/or circumstances as materialistic destressers.
***
At this point, people usually suggest exercise and/or nature. But those don't destress me. Exercise makes me angry; nature is best case neutral, worst case a panic attack trigger, while taking me away from the things that actually do destress me, most of which occur in my home.
***
Which is the problem with finding a new destresser. Obviously, if I wanted to proactively seek something to replace my missing fanfiction, the way to do it would be to make a concerted effort to try out random things until something gets the desired results. But the problem with doing that is it would take time away from the tried and true, so it has to be approached carefully and measuredly.
Analogy: Cheese isn't available to put on my salad, but salad is still good. But if I just went around throwing other things on my salad willy-nilly in a desperate attempt to find a replacement for cheese, I could ruin a lot of salads. When I've had a difficult, stressful day and I'm desperately craving a yummy salad, it would probably be a bad idea to experiment and risk not getting my craving filled - and, in fact, risk becoming even crankier because something that I thought would fill my craving didn't. And, of course, the flaw in this analogy is that it's easy to eat around a non-yummy ingredient in a salad, whereas the impact of stressers and failed destressers on stress levels and energy flow can't be quite so easily circumvented.
***
Historically, my destressers have always come to me organically, through my reading and other media consumption. And my reading already follows a system that provides a good balance between known enjoyments and discovering new things, so I don't know if it can be further forced to provide me with the very specific form of new things I need to replace my lost fanfiction.
All of which is to say I don't have any answers, and I'd probably completely shatter if any real problems came along.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Contemplating my next computer
All of my computers have been Dells, always because I got at least five years out of the computer and was extremely happy with their warranty support.
With my current computer, I've had a number of experiences (not all of which I've blogged) that have led me to question my loyalty to Dell. These aren't so much technical problems, but customer service problems - not getting call-backs when I'm supposed to, people on the phone who aren't empowered to keep promises made to me by the Dell website or personalized mailings I received, repeatedly getting my call dropped when getting transferred to the person who can allegedly solve my problem, etc.
Because of this, I'm not automatically going to Dell for my next computer. I haven't done comprehensive research yet, but the internet suggests that other brands like Asus/Acer (I don't remember which it was - obviously I'll have to research more) may have better components, so I'm considering looking for higher quality elsewhere.
But, at the same time, my current problems make me realize how much I value warranty support. I'm aware of the economic argument against extended warranties, but, for hardware problems especially, I like having the option of making it someone else's problem. But I haven't been able to find any other companies that have warranties as long or comprehensive as Dell's.
The internet has also suggested the possibility of buying from Dell's "small business" store rather than their "home" store, on the grounds that the "small business" end of things apparently has better user support. I haven't looked into that extensively, but it's on the table.
At this point, someone usually suggests that I build my own. I'm reluctant to do so because I'm clumsy. After observing technicians dismantle and reassemble my current computer, I'm afraid that if I tried to build one myself, I'd use too much force or something trying to snap components together and break some circuit board or plastic bit, rendering the whole thing useless. Paying money for components and putting time and effort into assembling them with the end result being a computer is one thing, but paying money for components and putting time and effort into assembling them only to destroy something and create an expensive paperweight is another thing. My computer is too important to me to put it at the mercy of my fine motor skills.
And, at this point, someone usually suggests that I get a Mac. But I'm reluctant to do so based on my experience with other Apple products. I don't particularly want to pay a premium for something that's soon going to be treated by the manufacturer as obsolete and non-maintainable, at least as compared with my current technology usage patterns.
But another option might be to start treating my computers as disposable, i.e. spend only a few hundred dollars for something that I don't expect to last longer than a year rather than a couple thousand in an attempt to get five years out of it. Doing this may eliminate any bad feelings of regret at spending big money on something that doesn't end up working beautifully for many years, and might even introduce an element of happiness when it comes time to upgrade - "YAY, I get a better computer!" as opposed to the current "WAAH! I have to shop for a computer!" But I don't really feel very good about the idea of deliberately buying lesser quality with the expectation of throwing it out. In general, it seems more ethical and, frankly, classier to buy quality and longevity whenever possible.
Thoughts welcome. I'd particularly be interested in firsthand experience with warranty support from retailers or manufacturers other than Dell.
With my current computer, I've had a number of experiences (not all of which I've blogged) that have led me to question my loyalty to Dell. These aren't so much technical problems, but customer service problems - not getting call-backs when I'm supposed to, people on the phone who aren't empowered to keep promises made to me by the Dell website or personalized mailings I received, repeatedly getting my call dropped when getting transferred to the person who can allegedly solve my problem, etc.
Because of this, I'm not automatically going to Dell for my next computer. I haven't done comprehensive research yet, but the internet suggests that other brands like Asus/Acer (I don't remember which it was - obviously I'll have to research more) may have better components, so I'm considering looking for higher quality elsewhere.
But, at the same time, my current problems make me realize how much I value warranty support. I'm aware of the economic argument against extended warranties, but, for hardware problems especially, I like having the option of making it someone else's problem. But I haven't been able to find any other companies that have warranties as long or comprehensive as Dell's.
The internet has also suggested the possibility of buying from Dell's "small business" store rather than their "home" store, on the grounds that the "small business" end of things apparently has better user support. I haven't looked into that extensively, but it's on the table.
At this point, someone usually suggests that I build my own. I'm reluctant to do so because I'm clumsy. After observing technicians dismantle and reassemble my current computer, I'm afraid that if I tried to build one myself, I'd use too much force or something trying to snap components together and break some circuit board or plastic bit, rendering the whole thing useless. Paying money for components and putting time and effort into assembling them with the end result being a computer is one thing, but paying money for components and putting time and effort into assembling them only to destroy something and create an expensive paperweight is another thing. My computer is too important to me to put it at the mercy of my fine motor skills.
And, at this point, someone usually suggests that I get a Mac. But I'm reluctant to do so based on my experience with other Apple products. I don't particularly want to pay a premium for something that's soon going to be treated by the manufacturer as obsolete and non-maintainable, at least as compared with my current technology usage patterns.
But another option might be to start treating my computers as disposable, i.e. spend only a few hundred dollars for something that I don't expect to last longer than a year rather than a couple thousand in an attempt to get five years out of it. Doing this may eliminate any bad feelings of regret at spending big money on something that doesn't end up working beautifully for many years, and might even introduce an element of happiness when it comes time to upgrade - "YAY, I get a better computer!" as opposed to the current "WAAH! I have to shop for a computer!" But I don't really feel very good about the idea of deliberately buying lesser quality with the expectation of throwing it out. In general, it seems more ethical and, frankly, classier to buy quality and longevity whenever possible.
Thoughts welcome. I'd particularly be interested in firsthand experience with warranty support from retailers or manufacturers other than Dell.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Extended public celebration of Christmas is unkind to children
My fairy goddaughter, who just turned 3, is getting impatient about waiting for Christmas. Some days, the fact that Santa isn't coming tonight reduces her to tears! Yes, it's just a couple of weeks away, but think about that in terms of proportions: she's 3 and I'm 33, so 2 weeks for her is like 22 weeks for me. That's nearly half a year!
Stores and TV channels and media in general have been in xmas mode since the beginning of November, for a total of nearly 2 months of christmassing. But, for my fairy goddaughter, that's like 22 months, or nearly 2 years! Imagine hearing "Santa is coming soon!" for 2 years! And imagine this in a context where Santa coming is The Most Exciting Thing You Can Imagine, and where you haven't yet developed the cynicism to say "Meh, that's what they always say"!
I think it's extremely unkind to get my fairy goddaughter's hopes up for such a painfully long time. If Christmas is supposed to be for the children, it should be scaled down to something the poor kids can manage!
Stores and TV channels and media in general have been in xmas mode since the beginning of November, for a total of nearly 2 months of christmassing. But, for my fairy goddaughter, that's like 22 months, or nearly 2 years! Imagine hearing "Santa is coming soon!" for 2 years! And imagine this in a context where Santa coming is The Most Exciting Thing You Can Imagine, and where you haven't yet developed the cynicism to say "Meh, that's what they always say"!
I think it's extremely unkind to get my fairy goddaughter's hopes up for such a painfully long time. If Christmas is supposed to be for the children, it should be scaled down to something the poor kids can manage!
Saturday, November 29, 2014
The opportunity to be good at something
I recently realized that, based on the various jobs I've had, the "better" my job is (in the sense of more specialized, socially seen to be of higher calibre, requiring more education and training and experience, better paid), the easier it is for me. And I don't mean easy in the sense that I get to sit in a comfy chair and wear whatever I want and not have to talk to anyone instead of being on my feet dealing with customers all day (although that's true as well). I mean easy in the sense that if I do my best and use my own best judgment, I'm very likely to land on the results that make my clients and employer happy. When I worked in fast food, somehow my best work and best judgment just didn't align with customer and/or employer expectations.
I've been reading a lot of novels with historical settings lately, where the characters are uneducated or undereducated and have to do a lot of unskilled or physical labour. If I'd lived in that era (assuming I'd managed to survive birth, childhood, etc.), I simply wouldn't have been much good at my work. With practice I would have fought my way up to competent, but I just don't have the potential to become exceptional - or even above average - at things that are physical and tangible, or at people work.
My whole life I've heard that I'm lucky to live here and now because I get to have an education and live independently. But what's more interesting to think about is that living in this situation gives me the opportunity to excel - like, to excel at something, anything. I'm good with academic and professional things, and I never would have discovered that if I lived in an era where I didn't get the chance to do academic and professional things. I'm bad at people work and physical work, and that's probably the majority of what I would have been doing if I'd been born in an earlier age. I've always been labelled as smart because I glommed onto literacy and numeracy quickly and easily, but in an earlier age I would have been the village idiot because I'd be a mediocre housemaid or weaver or subsistence farmer or something, with no appreciable skills in any area. I'd never even have been exposed to things I'd be good at doing.
I wonder how many people are currently in that situation - the things they're good at haven't been invented yet or are far out of reach of the non-elite?
I've been reading a lot of novels with historical settings lately, where the characters are uneducated or undereducated and have to do a lot of unskilled or physical labour. If I'd lived in that era (assuming I'd managed to survive birth, childhood, etc.), I simply wouldn't have been much good at my work. With practice I would have fought my way up to competent, but I just don't have the potential to become exceptional - or even above average - at things that are physical and tangible, or at people work.
My whole life I've heard that I'm lucky to live here and now because I get to have an education and live independently. But what's more interesting to think about is that living in this situation gives me the opportunity to excel - like, to excel at something, anything. I'm good with academic and professional things, and I never would have discovered that if I lived in an era where I didn't get the chance to do academic and professional things. I'm bad at people work and physical work, and that's probably the majority of what I would have been doing if I'd been born in an earlier age. I've always been labelled as smart because I glommed onto literacy and numeracy quickly and easily, but in an earlier age I would have been the village idiot because I'd be a mediocre housemaid or weaver or subsistence farmer or something, with no appreciable skills in any area. I'd never even have been exposed to things I'd be good at doing.
I wonder how many people are currently in that situation - the things they're good at haven't been invented yet or are far out of reach of the non-elite?
Sunday, November 23, 2014
What if suicide prevention were removed from the mandate of mental health care?
When Robin Williams committed suicide, many people responded with the "Genie, you're free" scene from Aladdin. This response received a lot of criticism, some of which argued that suicide isn't freedom.
It occurred to me that the problem with this statement is it's clearly unknowable. The author has no way of knowing with the amount of certainty they claim that you don't find freedom or peace after death.
And, because of this, their anti-suicide message has no credibility in the eyes of those considering suicide. They're quite clearly just saying stuff to perpetuate the message of Suicide Is Bad. So a person considering suicide isn't going to listen to them, because they're obviously just going to unquestioningly say Suicide Is Bad regardless of the truth of the matter. (And if suicide is in fact Bad, you'd think they could come up with something substantiated to support that position.)
Then it occurred to me that this might be the symptom of a broader problem in mental health care and emergency response.
If I were suicidal, I would never even consider seeking medical attention, because I feel like they'd just want to stop me from committing suicide. They'd restrain me in a mental ward somewhere and declare the job done, or monitor me for the rest of my life and never leave me a moment's peace. Sounds like hell!
But what if health care as a whole recognized a person's right to end their life? Your body, your choice! They don't prevent, persuade, coerce or manipulate you into not committing suicide. It's considered a perfectly valid choice.
However, since it is also a drastic - and irreversible - choice, they strongly urge you to try less drastic approaches first. Take a pill, talk to a doctor - the mental health equivalent of rebooting your computer and maybe reinstalling the OS rather than going straight to throwing it out the window. If it hurts, the doctor will give you something to try to stop it from hurting. If you're feeling nothing, the doctor will give you something to try to make you feel again. If your fish are dead, the doctor will try to resuscitate them. If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you were before and you can always kill yourself later!
Some people will argue "But when I was suicidal, I didn't actually want to kill myself. I wanted to stop wanting to kill myself." That's fine, a person could still go to the doctor and say "I have suicidal feelings and I don't like them! Can you help me make them stop?" But if the patient feels their suicidal feelings are valid, the doctor won't force them to do anything about it.
Analogy: if you've never gotten pregnant and you want to have children, you can go to the doctor and request assistance with conceiving. But if you've never been pregnant and you're okay with that, they don't force fertility treatment on you.
And some people will argue "When I wanted to kill myself, it was just the depression talking. Once I received help, I came to realize that I didn't want to kill myself." If that's the case, this approach will still achieve the same results. The hurting/sadness/feeling nothing/dead fish will be treated, the patient will come to the realization they didn't actually want to kill themselves, and life would proceed as usual.
But if you want something right this moment and someone tells you "I'm going to take you to a doctor who will make you not want the thing you want," that would feel like they're going to brainwash you. And if the doctor's mandate is to do everything in their power to prevent you from achieving what you want, you'd probably actively avoid them, perhaps even going as far as to deceive people about your condition and situation so they don't brainwash/restrain/monitor you in a way that would make it impossible to achieve your goal.
Building on the fertility treatment analogy above: suppose you tell a loved one that you want to have children, and they respond by taking you to a doctor who will make you not want children. Or, based on the information you have absorbed from media/culture/society, you believe that a doctor would respond by taking all measures to prevent you from having children, up to and including forcibly sterilizing you.
Or the inverse: suppose you don't want to have children, and a loved one responds by taking you to a doctor who will make you want to have children. And the information you have received throughout your life leads you to believe that the doctor would go as far as forcibly impregnating you.
Would this make you feel safe seeking medical treatment? Or would it make you want to avoid it at all costs?
***
Removing the suicide prevention mandate might also help reduce the criminalization of mental health patients.
There was recently a series in the Toronto Star about how people are failing police checks they need for employment because they are known to police (even though they were never found guilty and in some cases never arrested or charged). And some of them are known to police because police attended a mental health call. The police were called because the person was considered a threat to themselves, and in the messed up system of disclosure for background checks there's no differentiation between being a threat to oneself and a threat to others.
If health care professionals were not mandated to prevent suicide, there'd be no such thing as involving the police because someone is a threat to themselves. Killing yourself would be considered your own decision to make, even if it's ill-advised, so there'd be no reason to forcibly stop you.
Analogy: if someone wants risky ill-advised elective surgery and they're proactively trying to get this surgery, this isn't considered a reason for police intervention. Even if getting the surgery would harm them, that's between them and their doctors.
Since there's no police involvement, people won't have police records dogging them just because they were once suicidal, so they'd have the full range of employment and travel options still available to them. Surely this would make for a better recovery than being shut out of jobs where they can do good just because they were once suicidal!
Yes, this aspect could also be addressed by police only disclosing appropriate and pertinent information in background checks, but I feel like the medical profession could be more easily persuaded to make helpful decisions than the police.
It occurred to me that the problem with this statement is it's clearly unknowable. The author has no way of knowing with the amount of certainty they claim that you don't find freedom or peace after death.
And, because of this, their anti-suicide message has no credibility in the eyes of those considering suicide. They're quite clearly just saying stuff to perpetuate the message of Suicide Is Bad. So a person considering suicide isn't going to listen to them, because they're obviously just going to unquestioningly say Suicide Is Bad regardless of the truth of the matter. (And if suicide is in fact Bad, you'd think they could come up with something substantiated to support that position.)
Then it occurred to me that this might be the symptom of a broader problem in mental health care and emergency response.
If I were suicidal, I would never even consider seeking medical attention, because I feel like they'd just want to stop me from committing suicide. They'd restrain me in a mental ward somewhere and declare the job done, or monitor me for the rest of my life and never leave me a moment's peace. Sounds like hell!
But what if health care as a whole recognized a person's right to end their life? Your body, your choice! They don't prevent, persuade, coerce or manipulate you into not committing suicide. It's considered a perfectly valid choice.
However, since it is also a drastic - and irreversible - choice, they strongly urge you to try less drastic approaches first. Take a pill, talk to a doctor - the mental health equivalent of rebooting your computer and maybe reinstalling the OS rather than going straight to throwing it out the window. If it hurts, the doctor will give you something to try to stop it from hurting. If you're feeling nothing, the doctor will give you something to try to make you feel again. If your fish are dead, the doctor will try to resuscitate them. If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you were before and you can always kill yourself later!
Some people will argue "But when I was suicidal, I didn't actually want to kill myself. I wanted to stop wanting to kill myself." That's fine, a person could still go to the doctor and say "I have suicidal feelings and I don't like them! Can you help me make them stop?" But if the patient feels their suicidal feelings are valid, the doctor won't force them to do anything about it.
Analogy: if you've never gotten pregnant and you want to have children, you can go to the doctor and request assistance with conceiving. But if you've never been pregnant and you're okay with that, they don't force fertility treatment on you.
And some people will argue "When I wanted to kill myself, it was just the depression talking. Once I received help, I came to realize that I didn't want to kill myself." If that's the case, this approach will still achieve the same results. The hurting/sadness/feeling nothing/dead fish will be treated, the patient will come to the realization they didn't actually want to kill themselves, and life would proceed as usual.
But if you want something right this moment and someone tells you "I'm going to take you to a doctor who will make you not want the thing you want," that would feel like they're going to brainwash you. And if the doctor's mandate is to do everything in their power to prevent you from achieving what you want, you'd probably actively avoid them, perhaps even going as far as to deceive people about your condition and situation so they don't brainwash/restrain/monitor you in a way that would make it impossible to achieve your goal.
Building on the fertility treatment analogy above: suppose you tell a loved one that you want to have children, and they respond by taking you to a doctor who will make you not want children. Or, based on the information you have absorbed from media/culture/society, you believe that a doctor would respond by taking all measures to prevent you from having children, up to and including forcibly sterilizing you.
Or the inverse: suppose you don't want to have children, and a loved one responds by taking you to a doctor who will make you want to have children. And the information you have received throughout your life leads you to believe that the doctor would go as far as forcibly impregnating you.
Would this make you feel safe seeking medical treatment? Or would it make you want to avoid it at all costs?
***
Removing the suicide prevention mandate might also help reduce the criminalization of mental health patients.
There was recently a series in the Toronto Star about how people are failing police checks they need for employment because they are known to police (even though they were never found guilty and in some cases never arrested or charged). And some of them are known to police because police attended a mental health call. The police were called because the person was considered a threat to themselves, and in the messed up system of disclosure for background checks there's no differentiation between being a threat to oneself and a threat to others.
If health care professionals were not mandated to prevent suicide, there'd be no such thing as involving the police because someone is a threat to themselves. Killing yourself would be considered your own decision to make, even if it's ill-advised, so there'd be no reason to forcibly stop you.
Analogy: if someone wants risky ill-advised elective surgery and they're proactively trying to get this surgery, this isn't considered a reason for police intervention. Even if getting the surgery would harm them, that's between them and their doctors.
Since there's no police involvement, people won't have police records dogging them just because they were once suicidal, so they'd have the full range of employment and travel options still available to them. Surely this would make for a better recovery than being shut out of jobs where they can do good just because they were once suicidal!
Yes, this aspect could also be addressed by police only disclosing appropriate and pertinent information in background checks, but I feel like the medical profession could be more easily persuaded to make helpful decisions than the police.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
57 channels and nothing on
This whole blog post is obsolete, in that it applies to the world before streaming and on-demand. However, it just occurred to me now, so I'm blogging it now.
People complain that there's hardly ever anything good on TV, that there are so many channels but only a few show anything you want to watch, and even then there's only one or two things a day you're interested in out of the whole day's programming.
It just occurred to me that this is good. We don't want every single TV channel to show us stuff we enthusiastically want to watch every minute of every day, because we could never get to it all. We want a maximum of one thing worth watching on at any given moment. And, for the vast majority of the day, we don't even want that. We need to sleep, we need to go to work, we need to shower, we need to do errands and chores - all kinds of things that are incompatible with watching TV. Really all we want is a maximum of maybe 2 hours of programming that we're enthusiastic about in any given day - maybe more on a rainy Saturday, maybe less on a day when there's soccer practice. I myself find that about four shows a week meets my needs quite nicely.
But quality programming 24/7 on every single channel would just be a recipe for frustration.
People complain that there's hardly ever anything good on TV, that there are so many channels but only a few show anything you want to watch, and even then there's only one or two things a day you're interested in out of the whole day's programming.
It just occurred to me that this is good. We don't want every single TV channel to show us stuff we enthusiastically want to watch every minute of every day, because we could never get to it all. We want a maximum of one thing worth watching on at any given moment. And, for the vast majority of the day, we don't even want that. We need to sleep, we need to go to work, we need to shower, we need to do errands and chores - all kinds of things that are incompatible with watching TV. Really all we want is a maximum of maybe 2 hours of programming that we're enthusiastic about in any given day - maybe more on a rainy Saturday, maybe less on a day when there's soccer practice. I myself find that about four shows a week meets my needs quite nicely.
But quality programming 24/7 on every single channel would just be a recipe for frustration.
The negatives of having a system
As I've blogged about before, I have a system and I find it beneficial. But there are two consequences of this that sometimes seem a bit negative.
1. I don't feel like I have spare time.
If you were to ask me what I do in my spare time, my first answer would be that I don't have spare time. I don't feel like any time spent doing something I'm "supposed to" be doing is spare, or any time that is scheduled is spare. I've been surprised to hear other people say that they do yoga in their spare time, because to me it's a chore. Time spent on things that are objectively recreational but my system requires me to do, like reading books and newspapers, doesn't feel like spare time either, because I'm just doing what I'm supposed to be doing at that moment. Even something that's pure fun like going to see Eddie Izzard or going out to dinner doesn't feel like spare time, because it's an appointment - I have to be in a specific place at a specific time, so the time isn't spare. (For this reason, appointment television doesn't feel like spare time either, and I haven't idly channel-surfed since I transitioned to idly internetting.)
2. Tasks that aren't part of the system are disruptive
When something unexpected comes up, it disrupts the system. Having to go to a place and do a thing gets in the way of completing the day's system. Even if it's seeing Eddie Izzard - something welcome, enjoyable, anticipated, unquestionably worth doing - it still interferes with the day's system. I can't do all the things I'm "supposed" to do because I have to do the exceptional thing. I haven't yet figured out how to make the system flexible enough to seamlessly incorporate exceptional circumstances. I have a few measures I do take, but I'm not there yet.
Despite these problems, I still think having a system has enormous value in the long term. It lets me get shit done without even trying. And it gives me a point where I can rightfully stop doing stuff (even if I don't reach that point many days), so I don't get overwhelmed by everything I ever have to accomplish in my entire life and feel guilty for not having paid off the mortgage and finished saving for retirement.
I also think it will be useful to have the system as an ingrained habit when I reach my declining years. When I look at my grandparents in long-term care, it seems like the difference between peace and despair is a sense of "this is what I'm going to do today" rather than sitting around waiting for something interesting to happen. If I can automate the system well enough that it survives the loss of my faculties, hopefully my elderly self will just keep going through her daily routine by rote. Wake up, go to the bathroom, collect the newspapers (maybe not print newspapers any more when I'm elderly), boot up the computer (maybe not a computer any more when I'm elderly), open the blinds, sun salutation, etc. etc. Keep moving forward, no room for despair. (Which is why I invented the system during a period of unemployment in the first place!)
And if I need a break from it, hey, spare time!
1. I don't feel like I have spare time.
If you were to ask me what I do in my spare time, my first answer would be that I don't have spare time. I don't feel like any time spent doing something I'm "supposed to" be doing is spare, or any time that is scheduled is spare. I've been surprised to hear other people say that they do yoga in their spare time, because to me it's a chore. Time spent on things that are objectively recreational but my system requires me to do, like reading books and newspapers, doesn't feel like spare time either, because I'm just doing what I'm supposed to be doing at that moment. Even something that's pure fun like going to see Eddie Izzard or going out to dinner doesn't feel like spare time, because it's an appointment - I have to be in a specific place at a specific time, so the time isn't spare. (For this reason, appointment television doesn't feel like spare time either, and I haven't idly channel-surfed since I transitioned to idly internetting.)
2. Tasks that aren't part of the system are disruptive
When something unexpected comes up, it disrupts the system. Having to go to a place and do a thing gets in the way of completing the day's system. Even if it's seeing Eddie Izzard - something welcome, enjoyable, anticipated, unquestionably worth doing - it still interferes with the day's system. I can't do all the things I'm "supposed" to do because I have to do the exceptional thing. I haven't yet figured out how to make the system flexible enough to seamlessly incorporate exceptional circumstances. I have a few measures I do take, but I'm not there yet.
Despite these problems, I still think having a system has enormous value in the long term. It lets me get shit done without even trying. And it gives me a point where I can rightfully stop doing stuff (even if I don't reach that point many days), so I don't get overwhelmed by everything I ever have to accomplish in my entire life and feel guilty for not having paid off the mortgage and finished saving for retirement.
I also think it will be useful to have the system as an ingrained habit when I reach my declining years. When I look at my grandparents in long-term care, it seems like the difference between peace and despair is a sense of "this is what I'm going to do today" rather than sitting around waiting for something interesting to happen. If I can automate the system well enough that it survives the loss of my faculties, hopefully my elderly self will just keep going through her daily routine by rote. Wake up, go to the bathroom, collect the newspapers (maybe not print newspapers any more when I'm elderly), boot up the computer (maybe not a computer any more when I'm elderly), open the blinds, sun salutation, etc. etc. Keep moving forward, no room for despair. (Which is why I invented the system during a period of unemployment in the first place!)
And if I need a break from it, hey, spare time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)