Know what's fun? A gigantic urgent project that will take an extra five person-days per team member due for Friday sans faute, and this in a week that started out with the entire team having only two hours free collectively.
So blogging will be light to non-existent for the better part of this week.
On tap:
- Do Slavic languages' treatment of verbs of motion affect urban planning in those countries?
- What George Smitherman and his supporters need to do to win my vote.
- The argument for steadfastly clinging to your most ridiculous standards for romantic partners.
- O Canada: a translational analysis and a conspiracy theory
Meanwhile, enjoy Eddie (au masculin today) torturing his translators as he demonstrates his thesis that Rome fell because Latin is hard:
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
How they could have made Own The Podium a success with simple rebranding
The problem with Own The Podium, (apart from its arrogance and inhospitality) is that it took perfectly satisfactory potential outcomes and redefined them as failure. Every Canadian athlete sets a personal best? FAILURE! It's universally acknowledged as the Best Olympics Ever? FAILURE! A world record is set in every event? FAILURE! We win a number of medals proportionate with our population? FAILURE! We top our own Olympic medal count record? FAILURE!
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
However, if we do own the podium and win the most medals of any country, we've merely met our stated goal. There's no remaining awesome in that achievement.
This could all have been avoided with a more benign branding choice. Instead of Own The Podium, they could have called the program something like Olympic Dreams, with the stated goal of giving Canadian athletes the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give the performance of a lifetime on home ice. The thing where they let Canadian athletes get more practice time in the Olympic facilities? "We have built state-of-the-art sporting facilities using the very latest technology, and our very own athletes have volunteered to test them extensively to make sure that every possible problem has been anticipated and solved once the torch is lit." (Of course, that would have been hella embarrassing once Nodar Kumaritashvili died, but as a branding choice without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's pretty good.) All the investment that went into technological advances in sporting equipment? "We're using this golden opportunity to foster the Canadian sporting industry and showcase its innovation and expertise on the world stage."
Then they could have proceeded with exactly what they did anyway, the program would have been a success by any definition (Joannie! Tessa&Scott! Alexandre Bilodeau! The hockey teams!), and our record gold medal count would have been the icing on the cake rather than a half-assed attempt to move the goalposts after the fact.
Analogy for today's Anthony Wolf column
Anthony Wolf writes a column about why it's not fair for a custodial parent to remarry against their kid's will.
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
I agree with his thesis, but I think it could be explained better, so I made an analogy:
Imagine your daughter is a few years older and has gone off to university. She lives in apartment-style student housing, sharing a two-bedroom suite with another girl. Partway through the year, the other girl decides to move her boyfriend into the suite. Your daughter objects, saying she hardly knows this guy and doesn't want to share her home with a guy she hardly knows. She doesn't want a third person on the shower schedule. She doesn't want a strange man she didn't even choose herself into what has so far been female-only space. She doesn't feel comfortable with him seeing her bras hanging up to dry or her used pads in the bathroom garbage can. She doesn't want to bump into him when she gets up to pee in the middle of the night, or lose the ability to sit in the living room in her jammies and watch movies.
But her roommate insists. "You don't get to control my life," she says, "Aren't I entitled to some happiness?" So she moves in the boyfriend. There's now a man your daughter didn't choose living in her home against her will. That's not fair to your daughter, now is it?
It's equally unfair for you to move in your man against her will. "But I love him!" Yes, and your daughter's roommate loves her man. That still doesn't make it fair to your daughter.
At this point, many parents will say "But I'm the adult, I'm supporting her, I'm paying for the house." Yes, and that makes it even more unfair, because your daughter can't move out of your home. She's completely trapped. Plus, because your man is an adult and your daughter is a minor, he technically has parental authority over her. So think back to the roommate situation, and imagine your daughter's roommate is also her landlord, and when the boyfriend moves in he'll become her landlord too, and she has signed a lease that they won't allow her to break. That's not fair at all, is it? If that were an actual landlord/tenant situation, she might actually be able to take them to court!
So if a member of the household objects to bringing a new member into the household (especially when the current household member is a 14-year-old girl in a female-only household, and the prospective new member is a strange man), do them the decency of waiting until they're in a position to leave if they choose. Four years isn't too long to wait.
(As an aside: Personally, I can't imagine four years being too long to wait to get married in a case like this where you have an extremely good reason to wait. You still have the person in your life, they're still there for you, you just can't share a household quite yet. You've found the love of your life! A four-year wait is small potatoes, especially when you can still see them and talk to them every day.
Time goes faster when you get older. While I'm technically old enough to be the mother of a 14-year-old, given social norms the lady in the column is probably somewhat older than me, so four years would seem like even less time to her. I seriously cannot put myself in that mental place of not being willing to wait.)
Things They Should Study: is ESL harder when both parties are ESL?
I overheard a conversation today between two people, from two different countries, both of whom spoke English as a second language, speaking to each other in English because it's the lingua franca here in Toronto. They seemed to be having some difficulty, and I wondered if it's because both of them spoke English imperfectly in different ways, and they weren't accustomed to each other's imperfections. I didn't hear enough of the conversation to tell if this was the case, or if they would have had as much trouble with a native speaker of English.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
However, it also occurred to me that it might be easier when both parties are ESL, because both their vocabularies evolved the same way, from textbook English. I was once told (by an expert in my field) that the typical speaker of English as a Second Language in their professional life has an English vocabulary numbering in the thousands of words, whereas a native speaker of English has an English vocabulary numbering in the hundreds of thousands of words. Most of the time we don't notice this. If someone speaking ESL knows words like "good", "great", "excellent", "fantastic", "wonderful", native speakers probably aren't going to notice that they don't know "groovy", "copacetic", "the bees knees", "gnarly", etc. But native speakers can sometimes come up with words like that and confuse ESL speakers, whereas other ESL speakers most likely wouldn't.
When I was in Germany, there were exchange students from all around Europe there, and how well I managed to converse with them varied based on the quality of their German (and, I'm sure, the quality of my German.) I can't identify any general trends. (My other languages were basically canceled out by the German immersion. After two weeks there, I couldn't even speak French, even though I could still understand it perfectly. When I reached for a French word, it came out in German.)
It would be really interesting to do research on this.
Things They Should UNinvent: public opinion polls in lieu of factual information
"Canadians say rising health costs unsustainable."
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
So? Are they actually unsustainable, or do people just think they are? Did the people polled conduct economic projections, or did they just state their opinion?
They often have this kind of question as the daily poll on newspaper sites. "Do you think the housing market will slow down by the end of the year?" "Do you think the worst of the recession is over?"
It doesn't matter what peoplel think! Give us facts and information!
Sunday, March 07, 2010
How to teach writing: make the content obvious
My high school English classes focused on two things: writing skills and literary analysis. The problem was that they tried to teach us writing skills by having us write literary analysis essays. For me, this meant that I had trouble focusing on my writing skills because I was struggling to come up with decent literary analysis. (I neither particularly care about nor am very good at literary analysis.) This was compounded by the fact that some teachers would give you better marks for coming up with a creative and unique interpretation and fully justifying and supporting it with the text, while others would give you worse marks for not coming up with the standard interpretation. I never reached the point of giving a moment's thought to "Is the structure of my argument optimal? What questions would the reader be asking at this point?" because I was too busy trying to come up with a thousand words about symbolism.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
They did try to teach us stuff about business correspondence and such as well, but the problem here was they taught us all about the structure without any thought as to the content. In Grade 9, they "taught" us how to write a resume by saying..."Your assignment is to write your resume." Problem: I'm in Grade 9. I've never had a job. What do I actually put on my resume? Yeah, they gave us all kinds of inapplicable advice, like "List achievements, such as "increased sales by 30%," but that doesn't help a teenager get their first job. So I put my education and extracurriculars all the right format, and got a decent mark for it because I got the format right. But I still had no idea what I could actually put on my resume to get a job.
I didn't actually learn how to do that properly until well into university, in the English and French writing courses that were part of my tiny and obscure translation program. The way they taught us there was "Find an ad for a job you're qualified for and could totally do. Then prepare a resume and cover letter to apply for that specific job." They did give us some examples of how you might tailor hypothetical resumes to hypothetical situations, but the most valuable thing was working with my own actual personal history and actual real-life ads for jobs that I am in fact qualified to do. I knew all my information and I knew why I met the requirements of the job, I just had to work on presenting it. I didn't have to worry about "What do I write?", so I could focus my energy on "How do I write it?"
One of the humanities courses I took had a similar approach to essay-writing. The prof had clearly found that his students weren't always on even ground in terms of understanding and being able to meet the expectations of university-level essays, so for our first assignment he gave us something that was intended to simply teach us how to meet these expectations. We spent some time in class talking about Goffman's definition of a total institution until we all seemed to more or less grok it. Then we got the assignment: pick something - anything in the world - and write an essay explaining why it meets Goffman's definition of a total institution. We had the definition all set out in our textbook, we had discussed it extensively in class, we all knew the arguments for a few of the standard examples of total institutions (but were free to pick anything else in the world), and since were were all picking our own example of an institution we all believed the argument made in our essay to be true. Since the content was obvious, we could focus solely on structuring our argument. So we did that assignment, got it back, and had a very clear idea of the prof's expectations and how to meet them, which served us well in conducting more in-depth critical analysis later in the course.
I think all English classes should take this approach. Create situations in which the "What do I say?" is obvious, so students can learn to express it well. Then once they've mastered that, you can spend time on literary analysis.
Things They Should Invent: coffee makers that automatically turn off when the carafe is empty
Having an empty carafe on the hot plate of a coffee maker is bad. It might damage the carafe, and there's no situation in which any good can come of this.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Solution: put some kind of weight detector under the hot plate. If the carafe is empty and the coffee is not in the process of brewing, it switches off the hot plate.
Since the weight detector is there, it could also be used to stop the coffee from brewing at all if there's no carafe on the hot plate.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Bilingualism as an expense
You sometimes here people talking about language training or bilingualism in terms of cost.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Second language training (most often French) is an academic subject. Bilingualism is a skill.
Can you think of any other academic subject or skill that people think of in terms of expense? "You want to teach our children calculus? But what will that cost?" "I don't know why all these special interest groups insist that public servants have to be computer literate. That's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars."
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against non-bilingualism - it's what keeps me in a job! (My motto: Je parle français so you don't have to!) I just find it really odd that it's thought of in terms of expense, when I can't think of anything other academic subject or skill that's thought of that way.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
In all of us command
When I was in Grade 3, a substitute teacher told us that the words to O Canada had been changed. The line "in all thy sons command" was now "in all of us command". That seemed eminently sensible to me, so I started using it and never looked back.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
That's why it surprised me to hear in the Speech from the Throne that they're considering changing O Canada to make it gender-neutral. I thought they did that 20 years ago.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
This is so cool!
Sesame Street from 1977. Buffy Sainte Marie explains breastfeeding to Big Bird, while actually feeding her real-life baby! I love how it's so simple and age-appropriate, and yet answers every possible question without any drama
Dog show dress codes
A while back, I discovered that dog shows have dress codes for humans.
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
This video takes this phenomenon to its natural conclusion:
Monday, March 01, 2010
Things They Should Invent: bathroom electrical outlets that are nowhere near the sink
Everywhere I've ever lived has had the electrical outlet just to the left of the sink. This means that for practically everything I might use them for, the cord has to go over/next to/through the sink, especially since I'm left-handed.
Surely there's a better way!
Surely there's a better way!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Things They Should Study: does athletic success correlate with religious faith?
Watching Joannie Rochette's short program, I found myself coveting whatever sports psychology she does. I wish I had that mental resilience and focus!
Coincidentally, the next day Rosie DiManno wrote a column about sports psychology, and I realized it would never work on me. I know some people who swear by visualization or mantras or positive thinking, but it doesn't work on me because I know that it's just visualization. I'm not actually doing anything, I'm just picturing stuff in my head.
Within my own mind, in terms of the thoughts and feelings I experience, my inability to do visualization come from the same place as my inability to have religious faith. I know that it is powered solely by believing in it, and because of that I'm unable to believe in it.
Elite athletes are obvious able to believe in it. I wonder if this also means that they're more likely to be capable of religious faith?
Coincidentally, the next day Rosie DiManno wrote a column about sports psychology, and I realized it would never work on me. I know some people who swear by visualization or mantras or positive thinking, but it doesn't work on me because I know that it's just visualization. I'm not actually doing anything, I'm just picturing stuff in my head.
Within my own mind, in terms of the thoughts and feelings I experience, my inability to do visualization come from the same place as my inability to have religious faith. I know that it is powered solely by believing in it, and because of that I'm unable to believe in it.
Elite athletes are obvious able to believe in it. I wonder if this also means that they're more likely to be capable of religious faith?
Pink
Six months ago, I resolved to add pink to my wardrobe.
My first step was to enter this contest, but didn't win. (Which isn't surprising - I seriously doubt they actually have samples sitting around in an 11.)
Then I tried on a number of different things as I encountered them, but kept finding problems - the fabric was unpleasant or the cut was wrong or something. I considered painting my toenails pink, but it's too classic for toes - I want something interesting, like shimmery turquoise.
But now I've completed my mission with the acquisition of a sweater in a deep raspberry. It's soft and beautiful and well-cut, and works fantastically with the fine pieces of engineering available at Secrets From Your Sister. Plus I got it for 50% off!
Now we'll see how this works. Will I end up buying more pink stuff in the future?
My first step was to enter this contest, but didn't win. (Which isn't surprising - I seriously doubt they actually have samples sitting around in an 11.)
Then I tried on a number of different things as I encountered them, but kept finding problems - the fabric was unpleasant or the cut was wrong or something. I considered painting my toenails pink, but it's too classic for toes - I want something interesting, like shimmery turquoise.
But now I've completed my mission with the acquisition of a sweater in a deep raspberry. It's soft and beautiful and well-cut, and works fantastically with the fine pieces of engineering available at Secrets From Your Sister. Plus I got it for 50% off!
Now we'll see how this works. Will I end up buying more pink stuff in the future?
Things They Should Invent: translation problems wiki
I don't really like going to translation workshops and seminars because more often than I'd like, they aren't telling me anything new. More than once I've been stuck in a room playing "Let's brainstorm possible ways to translate intervenant", with no one coming up with anything I couldn't have done myself. Been there and done that in first year university.
However, I know there are translators out there who need this. More than once I've gotten a text from an outside contractor where intéressant was systematically and automatically translated as "interesting". (For the googlers: it can also mean something in the range of beneficial/advantageous/profitable/useful/helpful/worthwhile. Start with the Collins-Robert or TransSearch, then hit the thesaurus until you land on le mot juste.)
What we need: a wiki of possible translations for these tricky words. One wiki for each language combination and direction, one entry for each tricky word. Everyone adds every idea they have, with examples and context. If you come up with a solution that isn't already in the wiki, you add it to the wiki.
This is different from the translation community forums in that we aren't trying to solve a specific translation problem we're facing in our current text, we're trying to brainstorm all the ways to solve a recurring problem for the benefit of future translators.
This would improve the overall quality of translations in general because everyone would be able to access everyone else's ideas, and it would also improve the quality of translation training because there would be no more need to brainstorm on intervenant, at least not outside of a first-year undergrad class. There'd be a cascade effect and we'd all get smarter and better.
I probably have the skills to set this up and admin it, but I don't have the network to get a critical mass of people to use it. If you have the network and want my help to make this happen, contact me privately or through one of the professional networks.
However, I know there are translators out there who need this. More than once I've gotten a text from an outside contractor where intéressant was systematically and automatically translated as "interesting". (For the googlers: it can also mean something in the range of beneficial/advantageous/profitable/useful/helpful/worthwhile. Start with the Collins-Robert or TransSearch, then hit the thesaurus until you land on le mot juste.)
What we need: a wiki of possible translations for these tricky words. One wiki for each language combination and direction, one entry for each tricky word. Everyone adds every idea they have, with examples and context. If you come up with a solution that isn't already in the wiki, you add it to the wiki.
This is different from the translation community forums in that we aren't trying to solve a specific translation problem we're facing in our current text, we're trying to brainstorm all the ways to solve a recurring problem for the benefit of future translators.
This would improve the overall quality of translations in general because everyone would be able to access everyone else's ideas, and it would also improve the quality of translation training because there would be no more need to brainstorm on intervenant, at least not outside of a first-year undergrad class. There'd be a cascade effect and we'd all get smarter and better.
I probably have the skills to set this up and admin it, but I don't have the network to get a critical mass of people to use it. If you have the network and want my help to make this happen, contact me privately or through one of the professional networks.
Things They Should Invent: non-informative condom sizing
Apparently there are problems getting people to buy the right condom size, both because of a disinclination to buy condoms labeled anything that connotes smallness, and because of efforts made by manufacturers to counter this disinclination.
Solution: instead of sizes, give them meaningless qualitative descriptors. You know how beauty products (especially body washes, etc.) sometimes have names like "revitalize" and "rejuvenate" with vague descriptions that don't exactly mean anything, so you find yourself standing in the drugstore wondering whether you want a revitalizing cream scrub or a soothing clarifying exfoliator.
They should do the same thing with condom sizes. Give them qualitative names, all of which are equally manly-sounding, with no informative or linear characteristics. Have maybe eight or twelve different varieties, and make it known that they don't just vary by length, but also by girth and proportion and perhaps some other factors if they can think of some good ones. Therefore, it's not a matter of simply big or small, it's a matter of finding the right fit. You know how sometimes, IRL, a particular brand or style of condom just...doesn't fit right? Like the "elastic" isn't comfortable to the wearer or the reservoir is wonky or something? Leverage that and start advertising the importance of having the just right fit.
Now you're thinking "But then you'd have to buy all kinds of ill-fitting condoms to find the right one!" Solution (apart from the ubiquitous free samples): all places that sell condoms should sell condoms individually as well as in packages. (I'm honestly not sure whether they already do this or not - I've never been in the market for just one condom.) They could also have fitting instructions on their website, similar to the more advance bra-fitting instructions you sometimes see. For example, "If the elastic of the James Bond condom rides up, try the Chuck Norris condom."
Solution: instead of sizes, give them meaningless qualitative descriptors. You know how beauty products (especially body washes, etc.) sometimes have names like "revitalize" and "rejuvenate" with vague descriptions that don't exactly mean anything, so you find yourself standing in the drugstore wondering whether you want a revitalizing cream scrub or a soothing clarifying exfoliator.
They should do the same thing with condom sizes. Give them qualitative names, all of which are equally manly-sounding, with no informative or linear characteristics. Have maybe eight or twelve different varieties, and make it known that they don't just vary by length, but also by girth and proportion and perhaps some other factors if they can think of some good ones. Therefore, it's not a matter of simply big or small, it's a matter of finding the right fit. You know how sometimes, IRL, a particular brand or style of condom just...doesn't fit right? Like the "elastic" isn't comfortable to the wearer or the reservoir is wonky or something? Leverage that and start advertising the importance of having the just right fit.
Now you're thinking "But then you'd have to buy all kinds of ill-fitting condoms to find the right one!" Solution (apart from the ubiquitous free samples): all places that sell condoms should sell condoms individually as well as in packages. (I'm honestly not sure whether they already do this or not - I've never been in the market for just one condom.) They could also have fitting instructions on their website, similar to the more advance bra-fitting instructions you sometimes see. For example, "If the elastic of the James Bond condom rides up, try the Chuck Norris condom."
Friday, February 26, 2010
The good old days
A couple of days ago, I blogged about how my grandmother didn't have a pension from her job. The employer offered one, but the vast majority of the workers didn't want one because, in my grandmother's words, "they all had husbands." I didn't see the cause and effect there so I had to ask my grandmother a whole bunch more questions, but it turns out that each of the husbands had a job, each of those jobs came with a pension, and job security was so great in those days that they had literally no reason to believe that he would ever be without a pension. Even on the off chance he lost his job, he could totally find another job with a pension.
This got me thinking about happiness studies. There was one a few months ago that suggested women are becoming less and less happy (and I think there have been others to this effect too, about various demographics of people). All the commentary I saw on this was interpreting it as the influence of feminism (perhaps because I read about it in the feminist blogosphere), but what if it isn't about feminism at all? What if it's about employment conditions?
In my grandmother's day, when people had a pension, they had a pension. Imagine a world where getting a job with a pension means you will be able to retire and you no longer have to worry about it! I woke up this morning to Michael Hlinka saying interest rates on safe investments will likely be extremely low for a decade, so I lay there in bed wondering how earth do I save for retirement when I not going to be able to get the kinds of returns financial planning strategies are based on until I'm in my 40s. That's something my grandmother's cohort never had to worry about. They also never had to worry about what they'll do if their pension plan goes bankrupt and they're 80 years old and have been out of the workforce for nearly two decades. Nor did they have to worry about very loud people, likely embittered by years of contract hell, dissing people who have pensions and calling for them to be fired and/or pensions to be eliminated. All my grandmother's cohort had to do was get a job that has a pension, work hard, and they were fine.
Imagine a world where working hard is enough! My grandmother's job was typing! Just typing! Imagine being able to make a living just by being able to type! I would love to live in a world where that's even an option, where if I lose my awesome job, I could earn a living by typing or working on an assembly line or even collecting garbage. The problem is that, in my experience, employers aren't willing to give jobs to people who have had or that the employers perceive to be overqualified. So I can't assume I'd have the safety net of being able to serve coffee or answer phones or work a cash register. My grandmother never had to worry about that!
My grandmother has also told me stories about how to instill in her kids the value of education, she "got them" menial jobs, serving food or shoveling coke, so they'd get the sense that if they don't stay in school, they'll be doing that the rest of their lives. Imagine a world where a parent can just get a job for their kid! I have never known anyone in my own lifetime who could do that. It took me years to get a minimum wage fast food job because employers didn't want to hire someone who had never had a job before. My grandmother's generation (and my parents' generation) never had to worry about that, because the plant could always use another pair of hands somewhere.
So if I would in fact have been happier in another decade, I think it isn't because I'd be taking care of the house (and kids?) instead of being in the workplace (if I am in fact married in this alternate decade). Maybe it's because if I (or my spouse) was able to get a job with a pension I'd have no reason to believe the pension wouldn't always be there, so I wouldn't have to worry about long-term investment strategies or the possibility of having to work well into my 80s. If was good at something and worked hard - hell, I could type - I would never have to worry about unemployment. If I knew a person who had a job, they could probably get me a job. Whole categories of worries - probably 80% of the worries that I've been carrying around since I first became economically aware - were completely nonexistent. Even if they did have less money in the bank and fewer home electronics, who wouldn't be happier under those circumstances?
This got me thinking about happiness studies. There was one a few months ago that suggested women are becoming less and less happy (and I think there have been others to this effect too, about various demographics of people). All the commentary I saw on this was interpreting it as the influence of feminism (perhaps because I read about it in the feminist blogosphere), but what if it isn't about feminism at all? What if it's about employment conditions?
In my grandmother's day, when people had a pension, they had a pension. Imagine a world where getting a job with a pension means you will be able to retire and you no longer have to worry about it! I woke up this morning to Michael Hlinka saying interest rates on safe investments will likely be extremely low for a decade, so I lay there in bed wondering how earth do I save for retirement when I not going to be able to get the kinds of returns financial planning strategies are based on until I'm in my 40s. That's something my grandmother's cohort never had to worry about. They also never had to worry about what they'll do if their pension plan goes bankrupt and they're 80 years old and have been out of the workforce for nearly two decades. Nor did they have to worry about very loud people, likely embittered by years of contract hell, dissing people who have pensions and calling for them to be fired and/or pensions to be eliminated. All my grandmother's cohort had to do was get a job that has a pension, work hard, and they were fine.
Imagine a world where working hard is enough! My grandmother's job was typing! Just typing! Imagine being able to make a living just by being able to type! I would love to live in a world where that's even an option, where if I lose my awesome job, I could earn a living by typing or working on an assembly line or even collecting garbage. The problem is that, in my experience, employers aren't willing to give jobs to people who have had or that the employers perceive to be overqualified. So I can't assume I'd have the safety net of being able to serve coffee or answer phones or work a cash register. My grandmother never had to worry about that!
My grandmother has also told me stories about how to instill in her kids the value of education, she "got them" menial jobs, serving food or shoveling coke, so they'd get the sense that if they don't stay in school, they'll be doing that the rest of their lives. Imagine a world where a parent can just get a job for their kid! I have never known anyone in my own lifetime who could do that. It took me years to get a minimum wage fast food job because employers didn't want to hire someone who had never had a job before. My grandmother's generation (and my parents' generation) never had to worry about that, because the plant could always use another pair of hands somewhere.
So if I would in fact have been happier in another decade, I think it isn't because I'd be taking care of the house (and kids?) instead of being in the workplace (if I am in fact married in this alternate decade). Maybe it's because if I (or my spouse) was able to get a job with a pension I'd have no reason to believe the pension wouldn't always be there, so I wouldn't have to worry about long-term investment strategies or the possibility of having to work well into my 80s. If was good at something and worked hard - hell, I could type - I would never have to worry about unemployment. If I knew a person who had a job, they could probably get me a job. Whole categories of worries - probably 80% of the worries that I've been carrying around since I first became economically aware - were completely nonexistent. Even if they did have less money in the bank and fewer home electronics, who wouldn't be happier under those circumstances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)