Suppose you have underage nieces/nephews. Due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, their parents (i.e. your siblings) are unable to provide them with some necessity - food, shoes, education, dental work, something that children should reasonably be able to expect their guardians to provide. You are able to provide this necessity to these kids, and the amount of sacrifice required to do so is well within acceptable parameters. So you totally do it, unhesitatingly. There is no question.
Now suppose, instead of being due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, the inability to provide is a direct result of your siblings' actions. They've been total dickheads, done stuff that you think is not only idiotic but morally wrong and reflects poorly on all of you, completely fucked up so badly their reputation will never recover, and they've brought their kids into it and gotten them thinking these reprehensible actions are not only normal but laudable. And as a result of these actions, their children are lacking this necessity.
You still totally have to help the children. There's no question. Yeah, you might get a bit cranky about having to spend your hard-earned money just because your asshat sibling fucked up. Yeah, it's frustrating when the kids start spouting their parents' propoganda. But you have to at least give it a try, maybe use your influence to introduce the kids to other points of view and ways of life. You can always cut them off later if they prove as incorrigible as their parents. You certainly don't just ignore the fact that they're doing without school supplies just because you don't like their parents.
Similarly, we shouldn't be refusing to help Omar Khadr just because we don't like his parents or because he was in a situation that he was forced into by his parents.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Why people aren't writing about the economy as a feminist issue
Broadsheet asks why no one is writing about the economy as a feminist issue.
The answer is simple: it's more effective not to. People who are into feminism will read articles that aren't specifically about feminism, but people who aren't into feminism will skip over or dis the credibility of articles that are about feminism. Positioning it as a feminist issue sets up a giant Someone Else's Problem field around the article.
An article with a title like "How the economic crisis is affecting women" would get skipped over by male readers and anti-feminist readers, and women who aren't affected in the way described in the article would leave partway through. (Think about how you skip the Women's Issues section of your local politician's website when all their articles are about childcare and you don't have young children.) However, an article with a title like "How the economic crisis is affecting people in fields that aren't receiving stimulus dollars" would attract readers from everywhere but the stimulus fields. The vast majority of people work in non-stimulus fields and the vast majority of people are at least a little bit worried about their jobs, so it would get their attention. And if every single person interviewed in the article happened to be female, I doubt the readers would even notice.
The answer is simple: it's more effective not to. People who are into feminism will read articles that aren't specifically about feminism, but people who aren't into feminism will skip over or dis the credibility of articles that are about feminism. Positioning it as a feminist issue sets up a giant Someone Else's Problem field around the article.
An article with a title like "How the economic crisis is affecting women" would get skipped over by male readers and anti-feminist readers, and women who aren't affected in the way described in the article would leave partway through. (Think about how you skip the Women's Issues section of your local politician's website when all their articles are about childcare and you don't have young children.) However, an article with a title like "How the economic crisis is affecting people in fields that aren't receiving stimulus dollars" would attract readers from everywhere but the stimulus fields. The vast majority of people work in non-stimulus fields and the vast majority of people are at least a little bit worried about their jobs, so it would get their attention. And if every single person interviewed in the article happened to be female, I doubt the readers would even notice.
Album meme
The rules:
1. Go to Wikipedia. Hit “random” or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random. The first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.
2. Go to Random quotations or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3. The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.
3. Go to Flickr and click on “explore the last seven days” or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days. Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.
4. Use photoshop or similar to put it all together.
5. Post it.
I'm far too lazy to do a proper photoshopping job, so I spent a whole 30 seconds using Paint. It very nearly works.
1. Go to Wikipedia. Hit “random” or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random. The first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.
2. Go to Random quotations or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3. The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album.
3. Go to Flickr and click on “explore the last seven days” or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days. Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.
4. Use photoshop or similar to put it all together.
5. Post it.
I'm far too lazy to do a proper photoshopping job, so I spent a whole 30 seconds using Paint. It very nearly works.
How are you supposed to know what is and is not obvious to people who are smarter than you?
While googling for phraseology, I landed on an article about the issues doctors have with treating teenage patients.
They make this sound like a flaw in people skills that is the result of adolescent immaturity. The thing is, I've always had this problem my whole life, and still do. When something is completely obvious to me, it doesn't occur to me that it might not be completely obvious to someone who's supposed to be smarter than me. The patient with the stomach pain doesn't mention that she fears pregnancy because it's completely obvious to her that that's what she's worried about - just like if I had missed a period and was experiencing nausea, I might not think to explicitly mention to the doctor that I'm worried about pregnancy because it's completely obvious to me that that's where the symptoms are pointing.
If I know more about the issue at hand than my interlocutor, I can manage the interaction just fine. For example, as a result of years of working to make documents that were originally written in French sound like they were written in English, I can tell if a person speaking is thinking in French or English, regardless of which of those languages they're speaking. If my interlocutor is another translator, I won't even point this out because it's so obvious. If my interlocutor is unilingual, I'll tell them outright from my position as the authority on the subject, maybe pointing out the specific word choices that give it away. If my interlocutor is a non-translator langling, I'll probe a bit to see what is and isn't obvious to them and adapt accordingly.
However, when I know less than my interlocutor, I'm unable to assess and adapt to their knowledge. For example, my gaydar doesn't ping nearly as often as it should. It pinged for Scott Thompson and Stephen Fry, but not Graham Chapman or Rick Mercer. So if it's obvious to me that someone is gay, it would never occur to me to tell my interlocutor that that person is gay any more than it would occur to me to mention that they have brown hair, because when it's obvious to me it's usually obvious to everyone else. If it isn't obvious to my interlocutor, I have no way of knowing that because empirical evidence suggests that when it's obvious to me it's obvious to anyone with better people-reading skills than me (which is like 90% of the population).
So how am I, from my position as the more ignorant person in the conversation, supposed to know that what I think are obvious pregnancy symptoms don't look that way to a doctor? How am I supposed to know that the most obvious of gayness isn't evident to someone who is much better at reading people than I am? When it's glaringly obvious to me that the property tax model is injust or it's morally wrong to buy pets from pet stores when there are pets in shelters or eliminating plastic shopping bags is not going to affect the number of plastic bags that we throw in the landfill, how am I supposed to know that it isn't glaringly obvious to my much-smarter interlocutor? How do you develop this skill?
Then comes recognizing that the early teen years are when kids move from concrete thinking to more abstract thought – they begin to connect the dots, Biro explains. They may assume the doctor connected the dots the same way, meaning a girl who complains of stomach pain may not volunteer that she fears pregnancy.
"It's not that they're withholding information. They figure they've just told you everything you need to know because the rest of it you should be able to figure out," Biro says. "I prove to them I am indeed about as smart as mud and I have to ask them more probing questions."
They make this sound like a flaw in people skills that is the result of adolescent immaturity. The thing is, I've always had this problem my whole life, and still do. When something is completely obvious to me, it doesn't occur to me that it might not be completely obvious to someone who's supposed to be smarter than me. The patient with the stomach pain doesn't mention that she fears pregnancy because it's completely obvious to her that that's what she's worried about - just like if I had missed a period and was experiencing nausea, I might not think to explicitly mention to the doctor that I'm worried about pregnancy because it's completely obvious to me that that's where the symptoms are pointing.
If I know more about the issue at hand than my interlocutor, I can manage the interaction just fine. For example, as a result of years of working to make documents that were originally written in French sound like they were written in English, I can tell if a person speaking is thinking in French or English, regardless of which of those languages they're speaking. If my interlocutor is another translator, I won't even point this out because it's so obvious. If my interlocutor is unilingual, I'll tell them outright from my position as the authority on the subject, maybe pointing out the specific word choices that give it away. If my interlocutor is a non-translator langling, I'll probe a bit to see what is and isn't obvious to them and adapt accordingly.
However, when I know less than my interlocutor, I'm unable to assess and adapt to their knowledge. For example, my gaydar doesn't ping nearly as often as it should. It pinged for Scott Thompson and Stephen Fry, but not Graham Chapman or Rick Mercer. So if it's obvious to me that someone is gay, it would never occur to me to tell my interlocutor that that person is gay any more than it would occur to me to mention that they have brown hair, because when it's obvious to me it's usually obvious to everyone else. If it isn't obvious to my interlocutor, I have no way of knowing that because empirical evidence suggests that when it's obvious to me it's obvious to anyone with better people-reading skills than me (which is like 90% of the population).
So how am I, from my position as the more ignorant person in the conversation, supposed to know that what I think are obvious pregnancy symptoms don't look that way to a doctor? How am I supposed to know that the most obvious of gayness isn't evident to someone who is much better at reading people than I am? When it's glaringly obvious to me that the property tax model is injust or it's morally wrong to buy pets from pet stores when there are pets in shelters or eliminating plastic shopping bags is not going to affect the number of plastic bags that we throw in the landfill, how am I supposed to know that it isn't glaringly obvious to my much-smarter interlocutor? How do you develop this skill?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Dana Fuchs has miracle hair
Check this out:
She has long wild sexy awesome hair, probably three times as much as I do, with no clips or anything in it. She's on stage, under lights, singing, tossing her head around, arguing with her boyfriend, and only ONCE does a piece of hair fall in front of her eyes. I look down at my keyboard and a piece of hair falls in front of my eyes.
She has long wild sexy awesome hair, probably three times as much as I do, with no clips or anything in it. She's on stage, under lights, singing, tossing her head around, arguing with her boyfriend, and only ONCE does a piece of hair fall in front of her eyes. I look down at my keyboard and a piece of hair falls in front of my eyes.
How to create a Canadian political legacy in a single session of Parliament
Today I discovered that there is an Amnesty International report on Canada. That surprised me, I wasn't expecting it.
However, upon reading it, I noticed that it would be relatively simple to address these issues. Most of them could be legislated away. The Aboriginal issues are more complex and would require some serious work, but the rest could be addressed by passing suitable legislation, signing onto UN conventions, and making the policy changes Amnesty International was kind enough to outline right in their report.
A savvy prime minister could do all this in a single session of Parliament. If they're getting resistance to the necessary legislation, all they'd have to do is publicly announce that their goal is clear our Amnesty International rap sheet and make us the world leader in human rights. That will get enough popular support to pass anything and guarantee a legacy that will go down in the history books for centuries.
There are people/media who like to gloat because Canada is the only G7 country that hasn't had any bank failures. Imagine the bragging rights if we were also the only G7 country with a clean Amnesty International report!
However, upon reading it, I noticed that it would be relatively simple to address these issues. Most of them could be legislated away. The Aboriginal issues are more complex and would require some serious work, but the rest could be addressed by passing suitable legislation, signing onto UN conventions, and making the policy changes Amnesty International was kind enough to outline right in their report.
A savvy prime minister could do all this in a single session of Parliament. If they're getting resistance to the necessary legislation, all they'd have to do is publicly announce that their goal is clear our Amnesty International rap sheet and make us the world leader in human rights. That will get enough popular support to pass anything and guarantee a legacy that will go down in the history books for centuries.
There are people/media who like to gloat because Canada is the only G7 country that hasn't had any bank failures. Imagine the bragging rights if we were also the only G7 country with a clean Amnesty International report!
Things I Don't Understand
1. People who automatically assume other people's motives are different from what their own would be in the same situation. Fake but representative example:
"OMG, that bitch has her office door closed! She's totally snubbing me!"
"Does this mean you're snubbing us when you close your door?"
"No, of course not, I just close my door when I need to make private phone calls. But she's totally snubbing me!"
I don't understand how people can do that. And I'm not saying this in a lamenting-humanity's-lack-of-empathy way, I'm saying that my brain simply does not do that and I totally don't grok how people can. My brain always defaults to assuming others' motives are the same as my own, and it's actual work to move away from that and land on something else. But some people seem to do that rather often. I'd love to dissect their brains.
2. People who are surprised that Kids Today are familiar with music that isn't from their era. Nearly all the music we consume is recorded! Of course people are familiar with things that aren't of this very moment. I am certain that you personally, anyone at all who is reading this, have at least passing familiarity with some music by Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, The Rolling Stones, and Beyonce, even though most of those are probably not of your era. And I'm sure you don't think it's any big deal at all. It's just walking around and living in the world. But a surprising number of times I've encountered adults who are surprised and impressed when a teenager has a passing familiarith with The Beatles.
"OMG, that bitch has her office door closed! She's totally snubbing me!"
"Does this mean you're snubbing us when you close your door?"
"No, of course not, I just close my door when I need to make private phone calls. But she's totally snubbing me!"
I don't understand how people can do that. And I'm not saying this in a lamenting-humanity's-lack-of-empathy way, I'm saying that my brain simply does not do that and I totally don't grok how people can. My brain always defaults to assuming others' motives are the same as my own, and it's actual work to move away from that and land on something else. But some people seem to do that rather often. I'd love to dissect their brains.
2. People who are surprised that Kids Today are familiar with music that isn't from their era. Nearly all the music we consume is recorded! Of course people are familiar with things that aren't of this very moment. I am certain that you personally, anyone at all who is reading this, have at least passing familiarity with some music by Beethoven, Louis Armstrong, The Rolling Stones, and Beyonce, even though most of those are probably not of your era. And I'm sure you don't think it's any big deal at all. It's just walking around and living in the world. But a surprising number of times I've encountered adults who are surprised and impressed when a teenager has a passing familiarith with The Beatles.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Why every organization should hire language geeks
Someone like me could have saved the Irish police a lot of trouble.
Dear CBC, you're embarassing us
Dear CBC:
Yes, it is news that Barack Obama is visiting Ottawa. However, devoting literally 50% of your top-of-the-hour world news spot to that fact is kind of excessively fangirl. Be cool and do your job instead of going all asquee.
Sincerely,
Someone who learned that lesson in high school
Yes, it is news that Barack Obama is visiting Ottawa. However, devoting literally 50% of your top-of-the-hour world news spot to that fact is kind of excessively fangirl. Be cool and do your job instead of going all asquee.
Sincerely,
Someone who learned that lesson in high school
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Why are there railings in elevators?
An elevator I was in made a weird jolt, so I grabbed the railing. Then I laughed at myself because holding the railing is not going to help at all if the elevator goes plummeting.
So what are the railings there for anyway?
So what are the railings there for anyway?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Things They Should Invent: relative karmameter
I recently came up with the idea of a karmameter that tallies up all your virtues and vices and tells you how well you're doing in general. The idea behind this is that constantly trying to improve in every aspect of life is untenable, so I want to know when I'm doing okay in order to concentrate my stress and worrying in the areas where it is needed most.
There was an article in the Star last week about how they can get people to improve their environmental behaviour by telling them how they're doing in comparison to others.
This would totally work for the karmameter, and it would be way easier to make than an absolute karmameter. It would totally achieve the intended results too. For example, I know from statistics that my environmental footprint is significantly lower than the average person's, so I don't stress too much about environmental stuff. If we karmametered every aspect of life, I could then find areas where I'm not doing nearly as well as the average person and work on those areas without stressing about things that I don't need to stress about.
There was an article in the Star last week about how they can get people to improve their environmental behaviour by telling them how they're doing in comparison to others.
This would totally work for the karmameter, and it would be way easier to make than an absolute karmameter. It would totally achieve the intended results too. For example, I know from statistics that my environmental footprint is significantly lower than the average person's, so I don't stress too much about environmental stuff. If we karmametered every aspect of life, I could then find areas where I'm not doing nearly as well as the average person and work on those areas without stressing about things that I don't need to stress about.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Open Letter to all journalists writing about pay equity
Apparently there are parts of the recent federal budget that would be detrimental to pay equity for federal employees.
Problem: we don't know how pay equity for federal employees currently works.
I know one thing that a lot of commenters don't seem to know: it isn't individual, it's by profession. So it isn't that Jane catches a glimpse of John's paystub and sees that he's earning more than her even though they both went through the same university program and graduated at the same time and were hired at the same time. It's that female-dominated professions are not being paid the same as male-dominated professions who do work of equal value and difficulty that requires equal expertise. Apparently (this was told to me several years ago by someone who is in a position to know, so any inaccuracies are the fault of my misremembering or misunderstanding) what they do is they reduce the difficulty and skill and education and stress required to do every job in the federal public service down to a mathematical formula to quantify the value of the work, and then compare the female-dominated jobs with male-dominated jobs of equal value. If the female-dominated profession isn't being paid the same as the male-dominated profession, they increase the pay for everyone in the public service (male and female) that's doing that profession.
However, I don't understand what the current changes would do, because I don't know what's going on currently. I see media saying that the proposed changes would be detrimental, but I don't know why they're detrimental because I don't know what the current system is.
I don't like to just blindly take people's word for things, I want to understand them properly. If you give me all the information I'll probably be on your side, but if you don't give me all the information I can't form a proper opinion, and therefore am going to take no action and express no opinion because I'm insufficiently informed. Help me out here, okay?
Problem: we don't know how pay equity for federal employees currently works.
I know one thing that a lot of commenters don't seem to know: it isn't individual, it's by profession. So it isn't that Jane catches a glimpse of John's paystub and sees that he's earning more than her even though they both went through the same university program and graduated at the same time and were hired at the same time. It's that female-dominated professions are not being paid the same as male-dominated professions who do work of equal value and difficulty that requires equal expertise. Apparently (this was told to me several years ago by someone who is in a position to know, so any inaccuracies are the fault of my misremembering or misunderstanding) what they do is they reduce the difficulty and skill and education and stress required to do every job in the federal public service down to a mathematical formula to quantify the value of the work, and then compare the female-dominated jobs with male-dominated jobs of equal value. If the female-dominated profession isn't being paid the same as the male-dominated profession, they increase the pay for everyone in the public service (male and female) that's doing that profession.
However, I don't understand what the current changes would do, because I don't know what's going on currently. I see media saying that the proposed changes would be detrimental, but I don't know why they're detrimental because I don't know what the current system is.
I don't like to just blindly take people's word for things, I want to understand them properly. If you give me all the information I'll probably be on your side, but if you don't give me all the information I can't form a proper opinion, and therefore am going to take no action and express no opinion because I'm insufficiently informed. Help me out here, okay?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Sometimes I hate my inner child
When I got to the elevators, there was a gaggle of teenage girls waiting. They were quite obviously The Cool Girls in the hierarchy of their little adolescent world.
I'm twice their age. I was on my way home to my very own apartment in a very nice building in a very nice neighbourhood. I had just spent my day doing difficult and fascinating work that would make you go "OMG that is SO COOL!" if I told you what it was. I am by objective standards hotter and better dressed than they are. The staff at that mall store that they're complaining watches them like they're going to steal something are actively polite to me, helping me find sizes and figure out which necklace works best, but also happily leaving me alone if I'm just browsing. And I could go into Holt Renfrew or a real estate agent or a car dealership and get treated with equal consideration, at least to my face.
But, because they're The Cool Girls and I've never been, some instinct from half a lifetime ago kicked in, and I lowered my eyes and tried to become invisible.
I hate it when that happens.
I'm twice their age. I was on my way home to my very own apartment in a very nice building in a very nice neighbourhood. I had just spent my day doing difficult and fascinating work that would make you go "OMG that is SO COOL!" if I told you what it was. I am by objective standards hotter and better dressed than they are. The staff at that mall store that they're complaining watches them like they're going to steal something are actively polite to me, helping me find sizes and figure out which necklace works best, but also happily leaving me alone if I'm just browsing. And I could go into Holt Renfrew or a real estate agent or a car dealership and get treated with equal consideration, at least to my face.
But, because they're The Cool Girls and I've never been, some instinct from half a lifetime ago kicked in, and I lowered my eyes and tried to become invisible.
I hate it when that happens.
Things They Should Invent: redistributive cosmetics
I use powder to make my forehead less shiny and gloss to make my lips more shiny. I use concealer to make the skin under my eyes lighter and shadow to make the skin over my eyes darker. I spend a lot of money and effort on growing more hair on my head and less hair elsewhere on my body.
There must be a better way! Can't they invent something to just relocate stuff from one area to another?
There must be a better way! Can't they invent something to just relocate stuff from one area to another?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gorgeous sled dogs!
Clicky! (No, I don't know why the Toronto Star randomly has pictures of sled dogs.)
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
We need to refine our use of the word "rights"
You do not have the right to have a cup of coffee in the morning.
"WTF?" you're thinking, "I totally do."
No, you don't.
You're totally allowed. It's perfectly legal. It's your own coffee purchased with your own hard-earned money. No one is going to stop you. Most people will even offer you coffee if you haven't had any yet.
But it isn't a right. It isn't codified in the Charter or anywhere else.
This is a problem with our current usage. We tend to use the word "rights" to refer to stuff that you're allowed to do, not your actual codified legal rights. Even though we understand intellectually the meaning of capital R Rights, if someone tells us we don't have the right to something, we hear that we aren't allowed to do it.
I don't know if it's because of this or just related, but there's a lot of other sloppy usage. I've heard people say "Voting is a privilege, not a right!" Except it's totally a right. You sometimes hear people complain that people are so worried about their rights but not thinking about their responsibilities, as though they're opposites or prerequisites or something.
Let's watch our usage. It's an important word for an important concept. It won't help to weaken it.
"WTF?" you're thinking, "I totally do."
No, you don't.
You're totally allowed. It's perfectly legal. It's your own coffee purchased with your own hard-earned money. No one is going to stop you. Most people will even offer you coffee if you haven't had any yet.
But it isn't a right. It isn't codified in the Charter or anywhere else.
This is a problem with our current usage. We tend to use the word "rights" to refer to stuff that you're allowed to do, not your actual codified legal rights. Even though we understand intellectually the meaning of capital R Rights, if someone tells us we don't have the right to something, we hear that we aren't allowed to do it.
I don't know if it's because of this or just related, but there's a lot of other sloppy usage. I've heard people say "Voting is a privilege, not a right!" Except it's totally a right. You sometimes hear people complain that people are so worried about their rights but not thinking about their responsibilities, as though they're opposites or prerequisites or something.
Let's watch our usage. It's an important word for an important concept. It won't help to weaken it.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)