1. In one episode, the expectant parents with the Medical Drama of the Week happen to be a black couple. It's mentioned in passing that they're from another country, and their accent suggests somewhere in the Caribbean (I'm not familiar enough with Caribbean accents or history to narrow it to a specific country, and further details were not given on-screen.) The husband is a bus driver, and they live in one of the nicer flats portrayed in the series (clean, well-lit, decorated, not overly cramped). As I watched this, I appreciated that they managed to portray the real-life diversity of London in a matter-of-fact sort of way that wasn't limited to discrimination plotlines.
In the next episode, there was an Irish family that was living in squalor and destitution because people wouldn't hire them or rent housing to them on the grounds that they were Irish. My first thought was surprise that after people would even consider holding such petty prejudices so soon after WWII. But then I was even more surprised that in a time and place where English people would discriminate against Irish people for employment and housing, black people could successfully get employment and housing! It seems like black people would seem more Other to the white English majority.
They did show a black patient facing prejudice in a previous episode (I can't remember if they've shown Irish people not facing prejudice) and before the Irish episode I was able to handwave the fact that this more recent black couple wasn't facing prejudice with the intellectual understanding that showing diversity outside of discrimination plotlines is a good thing, but after the Irish episode, I had more trouble getting past it, feeling like we needed an explanation of why they didn't face discrimination.
2. In one episode, a young man was discovered to be gay when he fell into a police sting operation, where the police had an undercover officer hanging out in a public washroom trying to instigate a tryst. I'm well aware that homophobia was far more rampant in that era, but I'm surprised they'd consider that a good use of police resources!
3. In the same episode, the neighbourhood had their Rose Queen festival, where tradition dictates that the new Rose Queen is crowned by last year's Rose Queen. As it happens, last year's Rose Queen is the wife of the young man who was discovered to be gay. As a result, there was vocal outcry about her participating in the Rose Queen ceremony.
I kind of surprised that the woman who unwittingly married a gay man wasn't seen as a victim. I kind of surprised that the fact that she was pregnant didn't count in her/their favour. But more than anything, even given the ignorance and homophobia of the era, I was surprised that someone would get from "Her husband is gay" to "So, naturally, we can't possibly have her fulfill the duties of the outgoing Rose Queen!" It's so inconsequential, and so irrelevant to her husband, and so ephemeral, I was amazed that the people of Poplar had time in their busy, hardship-filled lives to think about it.
4. After Patsy attends a particularly emotionally devastating birth, she goes to visit Delia for comfort. She lets herself into the nurses' home where Delia lives, goes to Delia's room, and sits on her bed crying while Delia consoles her. After the first wave of sobbing is over, Patsy reassures Delia that she'll be out of there very early in the morning, so "no one will ever know I was here".
It surprises me that anyone in that era and setting would even conclude "Patsy is in Delia's room crying" = "Clearly, they're lesbians!" Patsy used to work in that hospital (and, presumably, used to live in that nurses' home) and, since Delia is her best friend, they've probably spent a lot of time hanging out in each other's rooms, much like the secular midwives at Nonnatus. And, since they're both young nurses, this probably isn't the first time one of them has had an emotionally devastating nursing experience. If anyone wonders what's going on, they'd simply have to tell them the truth: Patsy just came from a delivery of undiagnosed twins, the first one stillborn and the second still alive, and after struggling to keep a brave face throughout the ordeal for the sake of the patient. So now she's talking through it with her best friend and fellow nurse, just as they always did about emotionally-difficult cases when they worked together, in a place where they would have frequently hung out when working together. Given that same-sex relationships weren't seen as "normal" or common in those days, I'm surprised that they think people would arrive at "They must be lesbians!" rather than "Poor Patsy, she had a rough day!"
5. But just a few episodes later, Patsy and Delia decide to get a flat together. And they don't seem too worried about people finding out about their relationship. "Lot of girls share flats," they say, "Not even a nun would bat an eyelid." Again, I found this hard to reconcile with their previous fear of being caught talking in Delia's room together. If you can't even be seen hanging out in your best friend's room in a way that's been established as perfectly normal among nurses who work together, aren't people going to raise an eyebrow when you start living together in your own flat?
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The folly of condemning a boycott
There was recently a story tweeted into my feed about proposed "zero tolerance" for boycotting Israel.
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
Monday, May 11, 2015
Stressing about stress
As you've noticed if you've been reading me these past few months, I've been getting stressed about various things that I think are too petty to be getting stressed about.
And, I realized, the very fact that I was getting stressed about these things was stressing me out. In addition to dealing with or coping with the stressers, I was stressing about the fact that I was dealing with or coping with the stressers less perfectly than I thought I should be.
Because of that, this blog post was originally going to be about the balance of self-care vs. self-improvement. On one hand, maybe I should just take an "it is what it is" approach during high-stress times - deal with what's actionable, care for myself the best I'm able to, get through it, and regroup when life stabilizes. On the other hand, I'm not going to become a competent and adequate human being if I baby myself instead of treating the areas where I'm not a competent and adequate human being like problems!
Then two things happened:
First, one day, about six weeks after my I got my computer back from the depot drama, I got out of the shower to find my apartment flooded with golden morning sunlight. I put on my bathrobe, made a cup of coffee, and sat in the sunshine with my hot coffee and my wet hair, being warmed up inside and out. It was peaceful and delightful in a way I hadn't experienced in quite a while.
Despite the fact that I have my morning coffee in the sunshine every sunny morning.
During one of my computer-less days during the depot drama several weeks previous, I'd been sprawled on the living-room floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper, and yearning for idle aimless internetting. I thought back to when I was a teen, and sprawling on the floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper was one of my favourite ways to spend a weekend afternoon. So I started worrying about what happened? Why wasn't this good enough for me?
But in that contented morning sunshine several weeks later, I realized that the stress of the computer drama (and the stress over the fact that I was stressed by the computer drama) was actually making it impossible for me to enjoy the simple things in life like my morning coffee. It's like when your Sim's "Tense" moodlet is too strong - you could be drinking coffee and sitting in a beautiful room and listening to music, and none of those things are going to outweigh the tense. So I hadn't lost my ability to enjoy simple pleasures, I was just at a stress level that was beyond what simple pleasures could achieve.
The second thing that happened was my little breast lump adventure. Even in the shock of getting a telephone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when I didn't know that was a thing that could happen at that point in the diagnostic protocol), I wasn't nearly as stressed as I was with my computer out for repair and no fanfiction to tide me over. Why on earth was this?? WTF is wrong with my priorities???
After some thought, I came to the realization that I wasn't as stressed during the breast lump incident because I felt like I was allowed to be stressed about it, so I wasn't stressing about being stressed. I'm allowed to be stressed! I have to get a mammogram at the age of 34 FFS! So I just flipped the world the metaphorical bird, had comfort food and wine (for which I got carded - if there hadn't be a dudebro behind me in line, I would have actually called the cashier out on that), and got myself through that night and off to the clinic the next day. I'm not sure if anything else got done that day, but it didn't matter. I went from thinking my first mammogram would be in 15 years to learning my first mammogram would in fact be in 15 hours, and I had to assimilate that information and deal with the mammogram process and all the attendant what-ifs. I just got through it, regrouped on the other side, and life proceeded with as little stress as humanly possible under the circumstances.
Reflecting upon this, I realized a similar thing happened after my grandmother passed away. My employer gave me a certain amount of bereavement leave, so I made the decision to use this time to process the experience however I needed to. Apart from any duty to my family, I decreed to myself that I wasn't required to do anything specific during those days. A day spent doing nothing but gaming, drinking, and eating cheese was totally allowed. A day spent in bed watching Eddie Izzard videos was totally allowed. If I felt the need to do something completely uncharacteristic like take a long walk in the woods, that was totally allowed. There was no wrong way to use my time. And because I wasn't worrying about my day-to-day (I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, and if I found myself at a loss the system was still there), I didn't stress, just processed my bereavement as much as one can in six days and then returned to work on Monday.
So from all this, perhaps I can conclude that if I give myself permission to be stressed by the things that are stressing me, they won't stress me as much.
But, on the other hand, I'm very good at justifying self-indulgence. And I don't think you get to be good enough by telling yourself it's okay to not be good enough.
And, I realized, the very fact that I was getting stressed about these things was stressing me out. In addition to dealing with or coping with the stressers, I was stressing about the fact that I was dealing with or coping with the stressers less perfectly than I thought I should be.
Because of that, this blog post was originally going to be about the balance of self-care vs. self-improvement. On one hand, maybe I should just take an "it is what it is" approach during high-stress times - deal with what's actionable, care for myself the best I'm able to, get through it, and regroup when life stabilizes. On the other hand, I'm not going to become a competent and adequate human being if I baby myself instead of treating the areas where I'm not a competent and adequate human being like problems!
Then two things happened:
First, one day, about six weeks after my I got my computer back from the depot drama, I got out of the shower to find my apartment flooded with golden morning sunlight. I put on my bathrobe, made a cup of coffee, and sat in the sunshine with my hot coffee and my wet hair, being warmed up inside and out. It was peaceful and delightful in a way I hadn't experienced in quite a while.
Despite the fact that I have my morning coffee in the sunshine every sunny morning.
During one of my computer-less days during the depot drama several weeks previous, I'd been sprawled on the living-room floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper, and yearning for idle aimless internetting. I thought back to when I was a teen, and sprawling on the floor in the sunshine reading the newspaper was one of my favourite ways to spend a weekend afternoon. So I started worrying about what happened? Why wasn't this good enough for me?
But in that contented morning sunshine several weeks later, I realized that the stress of the computer drama (and the stress over the fact that I was stressed by the computer drama) was actually making it impossible for me to enjoy the simple things in life like my morning coffee. It's like when your Sim's "Tense" moodlet is too strong - you could be drinking coffee and sitting in a beautiful room and listening to music, and none of those things are going to outweigh the tense. So I hadn't lost my ability to enjoy simple pleasures, I was just at a stress level that was beyond what simple pleasures could achieve.
The second thing that happened was my little breast lump adventure. Even in the shock of getting a telephone call telling me I needed a mammogram (when I didn't know that was a thing that could happen at that point in the diagnostic protocol), I wasn't nearly as stressed as I was with my computer out for repair and no fanfiction to tide me over. Why on earth was this?? WTF is wrong with my priorities???
After some thought, I came to the realization that I wasn't as stressed during the breast lump incident because I felt like I was allowed to be stressed about it, so I wasn't stressing about being stressed. I'm allowed to be stressed! I have to get a mammogram at the age of 34 FFS! So I just flipped the world the metaphorical bird, had comfort food and wine (for which I got carded - if there hadn't be a dudebro behind me in line, I would have actually called the cashier out on that), and got myself through that night and off to the clinic the next day. I'm not sure if anything else got done that day, but it didn't matter. I went from thinking my first mammogram would be in 15 years to learning my first mammogram would in fact be in 15 hours, and I had to assimilate that information and deal with the mammogram process and all the attendant what-ifs. I just got through it, regrouped on the other side, and life proceeded with as little stress as humanly possible under the circumstances.
Reflecting upon this, I realized a similar thing happened after my grandmother passed away. My employer gave me a certain amount of bereavement leave, so I made the decision to use this time to process the experience however I needed to. Apart from any duty to my family, I decreed to myself that I wasn't required to do anything specific during those days. A day spent doing nothing but gaming, drinking, and eating cheese was totally allowed. A day spent in bed watching Eddie Izzard videos was totally allowed. If I felt the need to do something completely uncharacteristic like take a long walk in the woods, that was totally allowed. There was no wrong way to use my time. And because I wasn't worrying about my day-to-day (I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, and if I found myself at a loss the system was still there), I didn't stress, just processed my bereavement as much as one can in six days and then returned to work on Monday.
So from all this, perhaps I can conclude that if I give myself permission to be stressed by the things that are stressing me, they won't stress me as much.
But, on the other hand, I'm very good at justifying self-indulgence. And I don't think you get to be good enough by telling yourself it's okay to not be good enough.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Another reason why early sex ed will lead to less early sex
This post was inspired by, but is not directly related to, this quiz testing how much you know about the new Ontario sex ed curriculum. (I got 9/10.)
Some critics of sex ed criticize teaching students about various sex acts at an age that is generally perceived to be too young to be engaging in those sex acts.
But it occurs to me that if your goal is to prevent young people from having sex, introducing the concepts early would probably help achieve that goal.
I was informed, via age-appropriate educational books, about the existence of various sex acts years before I was ready for them (which was a good thing, since I reached menarche years before I had the slightest even theoretical interest in sex), and every single time my visceral reaction was "Ewww, gross!!!!" As I evolved in the direction of developing interest in sex, I had to overcome the "Ewww, gross!!!!" before I could develop positive interest.
I also learned of various other sex acts, via the internet, when I was older and ready to have sex. In these situations, my reaction was either "Hmm, interesting..." or "Meh, not for me." Even for the sex acts I find more distasteful (which are objectively more distasteful than any of the sex acts I learned about before I was ready for sex) I never reached the same level of visceral revulsion as I did before I was ready to have sex.
So if you want young people to not have sex, telling them about sex when they're young enough to think that it's gross will introduce an additional emotional barrier that will stand between them and their desire to have sex for a certain period of time.
Some critics of sex ed criticize teaching students about various sex acts at an age that is generally perceived to be too young to be engaging in those sex acts.
But it occurs to me that if your goal is to prevent young people from having sex, introducing the concepts early would probably help achieve that goal.
I was informed, via age-appropriate educational books, about the existence of various sex acts years before I was ready for them (which was a good thing, since I reached menarche years before I had the slightest even theoretical interest in sex), and every single time my visceral reaction was "Ewww, gross!!!!" As I evolved in the direction of developing interest in sex, I had to overcome the "Ewww, gross!!!!" before I could develop positive interest.
I also learned of various other sex acts, via the internet, when I was older and ready to have sex. In these situations, my reaction was either "Hmm, interesting..." or "Meh, not for me." Even for the sex acts I find more distasteful (which are objectively more distasteful than any of the sex acts I learned about before I was ready for sex) I never reached the same level of visceral revulsion as I did before I was ready to have sex.
So if you want young people to not have sex, telling them about sex when they're young enough to think that it's gross will introduce an additional emotional barrier that will stand between them and their desire to have sex for a certain period of time.
Sunday, May 03, 2015
Things They Should Study: does the societal move away from print newspapers affect how informed kids grow up to be?
I've blogged before about how a lot of my basic understanding of medical and political concepts comes from my lifelong habit of reading newspapers, and how my lifelong habit of reading newspapers comes from having them around the house when I was growing up.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Emotions are weird
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)