Is "balancing a chequebook" an actual task? I always thought it was just an expression for making sure you don't run out of money, but this old For Better Or For Worse strip makes it sound like it's an actual thing you have to do. (Also, why is Elly saying "check" instead of "cheque"?)
What does it mean? Is it something I should know how to do or is it now obsolete? I'm not unfamiliar with using cheques (some of my bills still had to be paid by cheque for various reasons when I was first starting out, my old landlord had me pay rent by cheque), but it never...occurred to me, I suppose, to do any actual task that could be described as balancing one's chequebook.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Things They Should Invent: teach the words for advanced emotions as vocabulary words in elementary school
When I was in maybe Grade 6, in a class they called "Guidance" (which was basically an ineffective attempt to help us through the torments of adolescence) they taught us to use "I feel..." statements. "When you [X], I feel [Y], because [Z]". Of course, the problem was that if we'd ever actually used those statements, our peers would have laughed at us for using a formula we'd been taught in Guidance. But beyond that, the problem was that in situations where I wanted to scream and throw things and hit people, I didn't know the words for the emotions I was feeling. I wasn't feeling "happy" or "sad" or "angry", I was feeling "belittled" or "hypocritical" or "futile" or "objectified" or "helpless" or "condescended to" or "dehumanized".
The solution: introduce these words for more complex emotions in elementary school. They could be spelling words, they could be words that occur in books read in class, they could be vocabulary words. Then when people grow into adolescence and have more complex emotions, they'll be able to articulate what they're feeling when necessary.
The solution: introduce these words for more complex emotions in elementary school. They could be spelling words, they could be words that occur in books read in class, they could be vocabulary words. Then when people grow into adolescence and have more complex emotions, they'll be able to articulate what they're feeling when necessary.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Will young speech markers one day become elderly speech markers?
Even though I'm nearly 30, the features that mark my speech as young and female aren't going away. I still use upspeak. I still "like" quotatively and as a discourse marker. I still use "awesome" for things like youtube videos. I still use "dis" in casual conversation - I'd never use it in a translation, but I'd use it when explaining verbally why a word choice in a translation is unsuitable. "It makes it sound like he's dissing him." This isn't going to change. This is my dialect. And I've noticed that it's here to stay in many, if not all, of my peers.
These speech markers were used by teenagers who were cooler than me when I was a child, and my peers and I absorbed them by emulating the cool big kids. That means the early adopters are now at least in their late 30s-early 40s. It's possible there are even older early adopters who grew up in places that are on the cutting edge of linguistic trends.
Their dialect likely hasn't changed and isn't going to change. They still talk the same as they ever did. So in another decade or so, a quorum of working-age adults are going to upspeak.
I don't know if younger generations also upspeak etc. It might be too soon to tell. If they do, it's going to read as unmarked a generation from now. If they don't, in 30 years or so it will read as old lady talk. And in the interim, it will just read as people of a certain age trying to be friendly and perky, like how currently certain women of a certain age seem to deliberately modulate their speaking voice to make it more...melodious, I suppose...when they're trying to be friendly.
***
When writing a sentence that ended up not needing to be in this post, I started talking about how we wouldn't use upspeak et al when arguing a case in court, because it's non-authoritative.
But this made me realize that I use it in contexts where I'm speaking non-authoritatively to specifically designate that I'm being non-authoritative. When I have to be authoritative, I speak authoritatively. When talking to my peers or doing business or just having everyday social interactions, I'm not speaking authoritatively so I use my non-authoritative natural dialect. I sometimes even exaggerate my speech markers in situations where I'm emphasizing my lack of authoritativeness for social lubrication
So this makes me think that we used it with greater frequency as teens because we didn't really have any reason to be speaking authoritatively. Our parents might have wrung their hands because they couldn't picture a person arguing a case in court while talking like that. But would parents actually want their teenagers talking to them with the authority of a lawyer in court? If I'd done that, I would have been told either to stop talking back (which is bizarre, because as I've been working on Entitlement I've come to realize that I suffered far more for not "talking back", because my grownups actually did tacitly expect me to even though they told me not to), or I would have been told "don't be smart!" (Unless, of course, I was being told to "smarten up".) For a teen to speak authoritatively is perceived as disrespectful by their elders and stuck-up by their peers. Is it any wonder that we don't do so in situations where we don't have authority?
These speech markers were used by teenagers who were cooler than me when I was a child, and my peers and I absorbed them by emulating the cool big kids. That means the early adopters are now at least in their late 30s-early 40s. It's possible there are even older early adopters who grew up in places that are on the cutting edge of linguistic trends.
Their dialect likely hasn't changed and isn't going to change. They still talk the same as they ever did. So in another decade or so, a quorum of working-age adults are going to upspeak.
I don't know if younger generations also upspeak etc. It might be too soon to tell. If they do, it's going to read as unmarked a generation from now. If they don't, in 30 years or so it will read as old lady talk. And in the interim, it will just read as people of a certain age trying to be friendly and perky, like how currently certain women of a certain age seem to deliberately modulate their speaking voice to make it more...melodious, I suppose...when they're trying to be friendly.
***
When writing a sentence that ended up not needing to be in this post, I started talking about how we wouldn't use upspeak et al when arguing a case in court, because it's non-authoritative.
But this made me realize that I use it in contexts where I'm speaking non-authoritatively to specifically designate that I'm being non-authoritative. When I have to be authoritative, I speak authoritatively. When talking to my peers or doing business or just having everyday social interactions, I'm not speaking authoritatively so I use my non-authoritative natural dialect. I sometimes even exaggerate my speech markers in situations where I'm emphasizing my lack of authoritativeness for social lubrication
So this makes me think that we used it with greater frequency as teens because we didn't really have any reason to be speaking authoritatively. Our parents might have wrung their hands because they couldn't picture a person arguing a case in court while talking like that. But would parents actually want their teenagers talking to them with the authority of a lawyer in court? If I'd done that, I would have been told either to stop talking back (which is bizarre, because as I've been working on Entitlement I've come to realize that I suffered far more for not "talking back", because my grownups actually did tacitly expect me to even though they told me not to), or I would have been told "don't be smart!" (Unless, of course, I was being told to "smarten up".) For a teen to speak authoritatively is perceived as disrespectful by their elders and stuck-up by their peers. Is it any wonder that we don't do so in situations where we don't have authority?
Things They Should Invent: self-obsoleting road tolls
There has been talk of introducing road tolls to reduce congestion and help pay for infrastructure, and of course car people are vehemently opposed.
I previously came up with the idea of congestion-based tolls - the more cars on the road, the higher the toll. Let's build on that and charge tolls only when there are so many cars that traffic isn't flowing smoothly. If traffic on a particular road is flowing smoothly, everything's fine, we don't need tolls. If traffic is congested and yet people are still trying to drive on the road, we start charging them tolls. (There would be signage before you enter the road).
If you're a Metropass subscriber, you get a special transponder that allows you to drive on the toll roads for free. (Alternate marketing idea to attract the motorist demographic: It's an All-Access Pass that, in addition to giving you unlimited travel on the toll roads, gives you unlimited travel on the TTC.) This is good because your money is going to the TTC (which ultimately gets cars off roads).
There would also be incentives for carpooling. If you have two transponders in your car, you get 50% off tolls. If you have three or more, you get to ride for free. Since each transponder must be issued to a registered and insured vehicle (but doesn't have to be physically attached to the vehicle, so you can take it with you while carpooling), this will make sure that carpooling incentives to go actual carpoolers, not people just driving their kids around.
So ultimately, if enough people take the TTC or carpool or take alternate routes, road tolls will never be collected. But if people continue to insist on engaging in congestion-producing behaviour, road tolls will be collected. But the tolls will be used to improve infrastructure so as to reduce congestion in the long run, so ultimately they will go extinct either way.
I previously came up with the idea of congestion-based tolls - the more cars on the road, the higher the toll. Let's build on that and charge tolls only when there are so many cars that traffic isn't flowing smoothly. If traffic on a particular road is flowing smoothly, everything's fine, we don't need tolls. If traffic is congested and yet people are still trying to drive on the road, we start charging them tolls. (There would be signage before you enter the road).
If you're a Metropass subscriber, you get a special transponder that allows you to drive on the toll roads for free. (Alternate marketing idea to attract the motorist demographic: It's an All-Access Pass that, in addition to giving you unlimited travel on the toll roads, gives you unlimited travel on the TTC.) This is good because your money is going to the TTC (which ultimately gets cars off roads).
There would also be incentives for carpooling. If you have two transponders in your car, you get 50% off tolls. If you have three or more, you get to ride for free. Since each transponder must be issued to a registered and insured vehicle (but doesn't have to be physically attached to the vehicle, so you can take it with you while carpooling), this will make sure that carpooling incentives to go actual carpoolers, not people just driving their kids around.
So ultimately, if enough people take the TTC or carpool or take alternate routes, road tolls will never be collected. But if people continue to insist on engaging in congestion-producing behaviour, road tolls will be collected. But the tolls will be used to improve infrastructure so as to reduce congestion in the long run, so ultimately they will go extinct either way.
Friday, September 10, 2010
There is such thing as an accident
The Toronto Star's Public Editor discusses whether it's appropriate to use the word "accident" to refer to a car crash, on the basis that there's always a reason or cause for a car crash. In this article, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the Toronto Police says:
I don't think "unskilled" belongs on this list. While it is true that being unskilled increases your risk of an accident, being unskilled is not negligent. It is not deliberate. It is not a moral failing, it is not a sin, and it can coexist with absolutely perfect diligence. Being unskilled - and driving while unskilled - is necessary and unavoidable; all skilled drivers were once unskilled drivers.
Suppose I called up Sgt. Burrows and said "I'm an unskilled driver. What can I do to remedy that?" He would probably tell me to find a reputable driving school. Then suppose I find my reputable driving school and ask them what I can do to become a skilled driver. I am absolutely certain that, on top of giving me a training plan, they would tell me "Practise, practise, practise." So to become a skilled driver, I would have to drive while unskilled, extensively. I would have to drive through my entire unskilled phase, and my unskilled phase wouldn't go away unless I drove through it. Yes, instruction is available, but you really do have to practise to make it work.
As an example, let's look at the problem of black ice. I have never knowingly experienced black ice as either a driver or a passenger, and I have never knowingly seen black ice. (It's possible that I met it as a child before I ever had to think about how to drive on it, but I have no memory of any sight or experience called "black ice.") As it happens, I do have some driver education and I do know the theory of what to do on black ice, but, having never knowingly encountered it, I remain unskilled.
So suppose I get behind the wheel of a car and encounter some black ice. Would I recognize it? Maybe, maybe not. Would I react correctly and in time? Maybe, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. Perhaps I'll release the gas pedal, tap the brakes, steer in the direction I want to go (not falling into the trap of thinking about what "steer into the skid" actually means), and bring my car to a safe stop. Or perhaps I won't realize what's happening until it's too late, crash into something, and then go "Oh, so THAT'S what black ice is!"
If I do crash the very first time I ever encounter black ice, that would be entirely due to being unskilled, and entirely an accident. It wouldn't be on purpose. It wouldn't be due to negligence. And, in my specific case, it wouldn't be preventable. Maybe it's just one of those cases where you can't do something right until you try it a few times. The first time I don't recognize what's happening until it's too late. The second time I realize what's happening, but maybe you have to turn the wheel and do the brakes with more or less intensity than I'd anticipated. The third time maybe I get it right. Not much we can do to expedite that learning curve. Yes, it's certainly suboptimal and a risk to the other drivers on the road for me to be out there without having ever been on black ice, but there's no other way to become skilled at it.
One thing I think I've noticed is that driving is one of the few areas where being unskilled is seen as some kind of moral failing, rather than a benign need to practise more or work harder. It's possible I'm biased towards noticing this pattern because driving is one of the things I'm worst at (another thing I'm bad at - and where lack of skill is also seen as something of a red flag - is people skills). In most other areas of life, I find if I'm not good at something, general societal attitude is a chipper "Don't worry, work hard and practise and you'll be fine!" When I was a kid being pressured into being an engineer, I was told not to worry about the fact that I'm not good at making or designing actual physical things that exist in reality - school would get me there! There are even certain circles where being good at stuff is considered "elite" and therefore suspect. But in driving, it's the opposite. We've all heard people shout "Learn to drive!" at other cars. The Globe & Mail recently had a column where an adult learning to drive for the first time wrote about her experiences, and there were people in the comments telling her to get off the road because she doesn't know how to drive.
In most areas of life, I feel it's morally imperative for me to be instantly competent, but the rest of the world disagrees. Early on in my current job, I did a bit of a messy job on a difficult text and apologized to my reviser. He replied "You've been here two weeks! We don't expect you to be good yet!" But driving is one of the few areas of life where it would take a long time for me to become competent, and the rest of the world sees that as a moral failing.
“drive distracted, impaired, fatigued, aggressive, unaware or unskilled and you will cause injuries and/or death.”
I don't think "unskilled" belongs on this list. While it is true that being unskilled increases your risk of an accident, being unskilled is not negligent. It is not deliberate. It is not a moral failing, it is not a sin, and it can coexist with absolutely perfect diligence. Being unskilled - and driving while unskilled - is necessary and unavoidable; all skilled drivers were once unskilled drivers.
Suppose I called up Sgt. Burrows and said "I'm an unskilled driver. What can I do to remedy that?" He would probably tell me to find a reputable driving school. Then suppose I find my reputable driving school and ask them what I can do to become a skilled driver. I am absolutely certain that, on top of giving me a training plan, they would tell me "Practise, practise, practise." So to become a skilled driver, I would have to drive while unskilled, extensively. I would have to drive through my entire unskilled phase, and my unskilled phase wouldn't go away unless I drove through it. Yes, instruction is available, but you really do have to practise to make it work.
As an example, let's look at the problem of black ice. I have never knowingly experienced black ice as either a driver or a passenger, and I have never knowingly seen black ice. (It's possible that I met it as a child before I ever had to think about how to drive on it, but I have no memory of any sight or experience called "black ice.") As it happens, I do have some driver education and I do know the theory of what to do on black ice, but, having never knowingly encountered it, I remain unskilled.
So suppose I get behind the wheel of a car and encounter some black ice. Would I recognize it? Maybe, maybe not. Would I react correctly and in time? Maybe, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. Perhaps I'll release the gas pedal, tap the brakes, steer in the direction I want to go (not falling into the trap of thinking about what "steer into the skid" actually means), and bring my car to a safe stop. Or perhaps I won't realize what's happening until it's too late, crash into something, and then go "Oh, so THAT'S what black ice is!"
If I do crash the very first time I ever encounter black ice, that would be entirely due to being unskilled, and entirely an accident. It wouldn't be on purpose. It wouldn't be due to negligence. And, in my specific case, it wouldn't be preventable. Maybe it's just one of those cases where you can't do something right until you try it a few times. The first time I don't recognize what's happening until it's too late. The second time I realize what's happening, but maybe you have to turn the wheel and do the brakes with more or less intensity than I'd anticipated. The third time maybe I get it right. Not much we can do to expedite that learning curve. Yes, it's certainly suboptimal and a risk to the other drivers on the road for me to be out there without having ever been on black ice, but there's no other way to become skilled at it.
One thing I think I've noticed is that driving is one of the few areas where being unskilled is seen as some kind of moral failing, rather than a benign need to practise more or work harder. It's possible I'm biased towards noticing this pattern because driving is one of the things I'm worst at (another thing I'm bad at - and where lack of skill is also seen as something of a red flag - is people skills). In most other areas of life, I find if I'm not good at something, general societal attitude is a chipper "Don't worry, work hard and practise and you'll be fine!" When I was a kid being pressured into being an engineer, I was told not to worry about the fact that I'm not good at making or designing actual physical things that exist in reality - school would get me there! There are even certain circles where being good at stuff is considered "elite" and therefore suspect. But in driving, it's the opposite. We've all heard people shout "Learn to drive!" at other cars. The Globe & Mail recently had a column where an adult learning to drive for the first time wrote about her experiences, and there were people in the comments telling her to get off the road because she doesn't know how to drive.
In most areas of life, I feel it's morally imperative for me to be instantly competent, but the rest of the world disagrees. Early on in my current job, I did a bit of a messy job on a difficult text and apologized to my reviser. He replied "You've been here two weeks! We don't expect you to be good yet!" But driving is one of the few areas of life where it would take a long time for me to become competent, and the rest of the world sees that as a moral failing.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
First days of school
First day of kindergarten. I'm scared and nervous. I don't know objectively what my parents did or did not do, but I felt like no one had every told me this was coming. So I want to bring Smurfy, my very favourite toy Smurf and best friend in the world, with me. My mother tells me "If you bring Smurfy, everyone will know you have a Smurf." I think this is a good thing. After all, he's a good Smurf and I'm proud of him!
First day of middle school. I have to take the bus. Some of the older boys at the bus stop are really big and scary and testosterony (although I don't yet know that word). The kids from the other elementary school are somehow more worldly (although I don't yet know that word) and bring into our grade a whole new set of unspoken rules. I manage to break most of them the first day, before I was even aware that they were there.
First day of high school. I'm wearing blue because a magazine quiz told me that's what colour I am, not yet having any idea how to select flattering clothes. I'm wearing make-up! Concealer under my eyes, a bit of powder because it seemed like the thing to do, mascara on my lashes, white eyeshadow under my brows, and lipstick. It was actually more attractive than it sounds. I'm back to walking to school and feel very independent doing so, but I have to walk alone because none of my friends are along my route. A couple of bigger, older boys are walking in front of me but more slowly than I am, and I agonize over whether I should pass them on the sidewalk. It seems vaguely uppity (although I don't yet know that word) to pass people who are supposed to be bigger and stronger and more athletic than me, and I'm worried I'll get bullied for it. I get to the school and there's no one around that I know. My supposed best friend isn't there because the first day of school fell on Rosh Hashanah that year. Little do I know that she's decided she doesn't want to be my friend any more. She, and the rest of the circle, are going to abandon me, and the girls who are her new friends (I don't even know how she made new friends with that group so quickly) are going to be mean to me. I will spend the next 2.5 years literally friendless.
First day of university at my alma mater. I'm in 2nd year when I move into student housing the first time, and am mistaken for a frosh and told to go to a frosh orientation event. I realize early on that it's for frosh and sneak out under the guise of going to the bathroom, thinking that they're somehow enforcing attendance. There's pizza in the caf and it looks and smells so very tempting, but if I go there and buy it they'll see me. So, thinking that somehow they even care, I sneak out the other way and go back to my room, where my very first meal living on my own is a cup of instant noodles eaten in my bedroom.
Today. I woke up in the same apartment I've lived in for 3 years, put on a flattering outfit I've worn to work dozens of times before, and went to the same job I've had for 7 years. There I saw the same people and did the same work as the day before and the week before and the year before. The rules and expectations are the same, and if for some reason they aren't I can ask outright what they are. Life stays the same. No major changes. Pas de rentrée.
I love adulthood!
First day of middle school. I have to take the bus. Some of the older boys at the bus stop are really big and scary and testosterony (although I don't yet know that word). The kids from the other elementary school are somehow more worldly (although I don't yet know that word) and bring into our grade a whole new set of unspoken rules. I manage to break most of them the first day, before I was even aware that they were there.
First day of high school. I'm wearing blue because a magazine quiz told me that's what colour I am, not yet having any idea how to select flattering clothes. I'm wearing make-up! Concealer under my eyes, a bit of powder because it seemed like the thing to do, mascara on my lashes, white eyeshadow under my brows, and lipstick. It was actually more attractive than it sounds. I'm back to walking to school and feel very independent doing so, but I have to walk alone because none of my friends are along my route. A couple of bigger, older boys are walking in front of me but more slowly than I am, and I agonize over whether I should pass them on the sidewalk. It seems vaguely uppity (although I don't yet know that word) to pass people who are supposed to be bigger and stronger and more athletic than me, and I'm worried I'll get bullied for it. I get to the school and there's no one around that I know. My supposed best friend isn't there because the first day of school fell on Rosh Hashanah that year. Little do I know that she's decided she doesn't want to be my friend any more. She, and the rest of the circle, are going to abandon me, and the girls who are her new friends (I don't even know how she made new friends with that group so quickly) are going to be mean to me. I will spend the next 2.5 years literally friendless.
First day of university at my alma mater. I'm in 2nd year when I move into student housing the first time, and am mistaken for a frosh and told to go to a frosh orientation event. I realize early on that it's for frosh and sneak out under the guise of going to the bathroom, thinking that they're somehow enforcing attendance. There's pizza in the caf and it looks and smells so very tempting, but if I go there and buy it they'll see me. So, thinking that somehow they even care, I sneak out the other way and go back to my room, where my very first meal living on my own is a cup of instant noodles eaten in my bedroom.
Today. I woke up in the same apartment I've lived in for 3 years, put on a flattering outfit I've worn to work dozens of times before, and went to the same job I've had for 7 years. There I saw the same people and did the same work as the day before and the week before and the year before. The rules and expectations are the same, and if for some reason they aren't I can ask outright what they are. Life stays the same. No major changes. Pas de rentrée.
I love adulthood!
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Justice Lori Douglas did nothing wrong and there is no reason to suspend her
I was shocked to read that Justice Lori Douglas "has requested to be temporarily relieved of her duties as a sitting justice of the province's Court of Queen's Bench", and will "remain in her position in an administrative capacity" as the Canadian Judicial Council investigates a complaint against her. Justice Douglas did absolutely nothing wrong and there is nothing about the situation that warrants an investigation.
The alleged professional misconduct was by Justice Douglas's husband, Jack King, who propositioned the complainant, one of his clients. The complainant was never Justice Douglas's client, and Justice Douglas did not do the alleged propositioning. (In fact, if she had done the propositioning, it would not have been professional misconduct because the complainant was not her client.)
Mr. King has already admitted that he was sharing the sexually explicit photos of his wife without her knowledge (and therefore, we can assume, without her consent). This makes her a victim, just like the complainant.
At this point, some people are thinking "But he's her husband!" Yes, he is. Think about your husband - or wife, or boyfriend, or girlfriend, or whatever else you call your partner. Think of the last time they did something idiotic. Was it your fault? Could you have stopped them even if it were your responsibility to do so? Did this have any bearing whatsoever on your sense of judgement as it pertains to your job?
And at this point, some people are thinking "But did you hear about what she was doing in those pictures? Disgusting!" I agree completely. I find the activities described completely repulsive and worlds away from my lofty ideas of what marriage should be.
That's why I've taken the sensible measure of not engaging in those sorts of activities or marrying anyone who enjoys doing so. However, all married couples engage in activities that not everyone would enjoy within the privacy of their marriage. I know more than one couple for whom foreplay includes taking basal body temperature and verifying the quality of cervical mucus. I can't think of anything less sexy! I know couples who enjoy spending their weekends renovating their home, or growing and preserving their own food. That's no way to live! I know couples who think camping is an appropriate honeymoon activity! Ugh!!
And, really, that's what marriage is for - creating life the way the two of you enjoy, with all your quirks and everything, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks. There's a beautiful phrase in the bible of all things describing marriage as leaving your family of origin and "cleaving unto" your spouse. It draws up this image of throwing off the shackles and drama and baggage forced onto you in your early life and holding fast to the one you love, the two of you united against everything the world throws at you. And that's what Justice Douglas and Mr. King were doing when engaging in kinky activities that I and many other people find distasteful - cleaving unto each other, creating the life of their choosing regardless of what the rest of us think, just like every other married couple.
Therefore, according to testimony by the subject of the complaint, Justice Douglas did not have a professional relationship with the complainant, did not participate in the act that is alleged to be professional misconduct, and was in fact a victim of the subject of the complaint. The only negative thing anyone has been able to come up with about Justice Douglas is that evidence exists that she engaged in conjugal activities that not everyone would enjoy, with the full knowledge and enthusiastic consent of her husband. Nothing here anything near remotely cause for inquiry by one's employer.
I am confident that the investigation will find no wrongdoing on Justice Douglas's part, but I'm astounded that anyone with the intelligence, worldliness, broad-mindedness, and sense of nuance necessary to be a judge would think an investigation is necessary in the first place.
The alleged professional misconduct was by Justice Douglas's husband, Jack King, who propositioned the complainant, one of his clients. The complainant was never Justice Douglas's client, and Justice Douglas did not do the alleged propositioning. (In fact, if she had done the propositioning, it would not have been professional misconduct because the complainant was not her client.)
Mr. King has already admitted that he was sharing the sexually explicit photos of his wife without her knowledge (and therefore, we can assume, without her consent). This makes her a victim, just like the complainant.
At this point, some people are thinking "But he's her husband!" Yes, he is. Think about your husband - or wife, or boyfriend, or girlfriend, or whatever else you call your partner. Think of the last time they did something idiotic. Was it your fault? Could you have stopped them even if it were your responsibility to do so? Did this have any bearing whatsoever on your sense of judgement as it pertains to your job?
And at this point, some people are thinking "But did you hear about what she was doing in those pictures? Disgusting!" I agree completely. I find the activities described completely repulsive and worlds away from my lofty ideas of what marriage should be.
That's why I've taken the sensible measure of not engaging in those sorts of activities or marrying anyone who enjoys doing so. However, all married couples engage in activities that not everyone would enjoy within the privacy of their marriage. I know more than one couple for whom foreplay includes taking basal body temperature and verifying the quality of cervical mucus. I can't think of anything less sexy! I know couples who enjoy spending their weekends renovating their home, or growing and preserving their own food. That's no way to live! I know couples who think camping is an appropriate honeymoon activity! Ugh!!
And, really, that's what marriage is for - creating life the way the two of you enjoy, with all your quirks and everything, regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks. There's a beautiful phrase in the bible of all things describing marriage as leaving your family of origin and "cleaving unto" your spouse. It draws up this image of throwing off the shackles and drama and baggage forced onto you in your early life and holding fast to the one you love, the two of you united against everything the world throws at you. And that's what Justice Douglas and Mr. King were doing when engaging in kinky activities that I and many other people find distasteful - cleaving unto each other, creating the life of their choosing regardless of what the rest of us think, just like every other married couple.
Therefore, according to testimony by the subject of the complaint, Justice Douglas did not have a professional relationship with the complainant, did not participate in the act that is alleged to be professional misconduct, and was in fact a victim of the subject of the complaint. The only negative thing anyone has been able to come up with about Justice Douglas is that evidence exists that she engaged in conjugal activities that not everyone would enjoy, with the full knowledge and enthusiastic consent of her husband. Nothing here anything near remotely cause for inquiry by one's employer.
I am confident that the investigation will find no wrongdoing on Justice Douglas's part, but I'm astounded that anyone with the intelligence, worldliness, broad-mindedness, and sense of nuance necessary to be a judge would think an investigation is necessary in the first place.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Things They Should Invent: indicate the percent income tax paid on the notice of assessment
The notices of assessment we get from Revenue Canada after we file our tax returns already indicate our income for the year and the amount of income tax we pay that year.
They should also show as a line item the percentage of our income we paid in tax.
There are a lot of popular misconceptions about how much tax we pay in Canada. There also seems to be a strong movement towards transparency in taxation, which is apparently why they don't include sales tax in the sticker price when you buy stuff at the store.
Simply adding this line item would make the whole process far more transparent for everyone and would make Canadians better informed of their real taxation levels. The tax preparation software I've been using these past few years (I forget which one it is - it's on my mother's computer) tells you this, and I find it very informative.
It would be practically no effort to implement. It's a simple Excel function. They could probably get it done in 15 minutes.
They should also show as a line item the percentage of our income we paid in tax.
There are a lot of popular misconceptions about how much tax we pay in Canada. There also seems to be a strong movement towards transparency in taxation, which is apparently why they don't include sales tax in the sticker price when you buy stuff at the store.
Simply adding this line item would make the whole process far more transparent for everyone and would make Canadians better informed of their real taxation levels. The tax preparation software I've been using these past few years (I forget which one it is - it's on my mother's computer) tells you this, and I find it very informative.
It would be practically no effort to implement. It's a simple Excel function. They could probably get it done in 15 minutes.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Current annoyances
1. My G1 licence (which I only have for ID) expired a while back, so today I went to Service Ontario at College Park to renew it. I was a good girl and arrived nice and early at 8:30. I was given a ticket with a number in the 50s. By 10:30, the numbers had only made it as far as 25. I had to be at work at 11, so I had to leave. All that getting up early and waiting in line for nothing! I've never before in my life been in a situation where two hours of waiting in line time wasn't enough to get a simple errand like that done! So now to add insult to injury, I'm going to have to take another day off, wake up early, and spend literally half the day waiting in line.
This is particularly annoying because for years I have been writing to provincial politicians encouraging them to create an ID card that has the same ID value as a driver's licence, but does not entitle the bearer to drive. I'm sure there are blog posts on this subject somewhere within the archives. They already have the resources to screen people and photograph people and issue this ID, and they could even make money off it because initially at least they could totally get away with charging the same fee as for a G1. This would solve the ID problem for people who are medically unable to drive, make the line move faster because they wouldn't have to conduct knowledge and eye tests of all G1 applicants, and facilitate the process of getting seniors to stop driving when the time comes (it's a lot easier to get Grandma to give up driving if she no longer has a driver's licence, and it's a lot easier to get her to let her driver's licence lapse if she doesn't need it to open a fricking bank account).
Few things in life annoy me more than when I've solved a problem and communicated the solution to the people who can make it happen, but still have to be inconvenienced because they won't make it happen and I can't do it unilaterally.
2. I recently started subscribing to Discovery Health because they have a morning exercise show. It's called All-Star Workout, and it's really quite good. Good variety, suitable intensity, easy to follow - totally worth the extra $2.79 a month on my cable bill. But now it looks like they're discontinuing that show come September, which means that there are NO English-language non-yoga exercise shows on in the morning on any of the channels Rogers provides. (Yoga is fantastic, but I put on weight if I do only yoga.)
What happened? There used to be a number of different ones to choose from, and now there are none. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this the most convenient way to exercise. You can do it in the privacy of your own home, it doesn't cost anything (other than cable fees, which most people are paying anyway), it provides far more variety than you'd get from DVDs and more innovation than you could come up with yourself.
So now, in addition to simply motivating myself to exercise, I have to come up with how to exercise. My entire adult life, I've just turned on the TV and done what it tells me, and it's worked well. But now I have to make my own plan, figure out whether to get DVDs or a Wii or what, and this for something that I absolutely detest doing. Exercise is the least favourite of all my chores!
In the US, they have a TV channel called FitTV that shows exercise programs all day every day. We should have that here! It would be beneficial to public health! We're always hearing about how people are too sedentary and need to exercise more, so why not make it as easy as humanly possible? You turn on the TV any time of the day or night, and someone is there to guide you through your workout. What could be easier? We could even just use the US TV channel, just have our cable companies carry it. They do carry some TV channels from other countries directly, and surely FitTV would be more beneficial to Canadian society than, say, Spike.
This is particularly annoying because for years I have been writing to provincial politicians encouraging them to create an ID card that has the same ID value as a driver's licence, but does not entitle the bearer to drive. I'm sure there are blog posts on this subject somewhere within the archives. They already have the resources to screen people and photograph people and issue this ID, and they could even make money off it because initially at least they could totally get away with charging the same fee as for a G1. This would solve the ID problem for people who are medically unable to drive, make the line move faster because they wouldn't have to conduct knowledge and eye tests of all G1 applicants, and facilitate the process of getting seniors to stop driving when the time comes (it's a lot easier to get Grandma to give up driving if she no longer has a driver's licence, and it's a lot easier to get her to let her driver's licence lapse if she doesn't need it to open a fricking bank account).
Few things in life annoy me more than when I've solved a problem and communicated the solution to the people who can make it happen, but still have to be inconvenienced because they won't make it happen and I can't do it unilaterally.
2. I recently started subscribing to Discovery Health because they have a morning exercise show. It's called All-Star Workout, and it's really quite good. Good variety, suitable intensity, easy to follow - totally worth the extra $2.79 a month on my cable bill. But now it looks like they're discontinuing that show come September, which means that there are NO English-language non-yoga exercise shows on in the morning on any of the channels Rogers provides. (Yoga is fantastic, but I put on weight if I do only yoga.)
What happened? There used to be a number of different ones to choose from, and now there are none. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this the most convenient way to exercise. You can do it in the privacy of your own home, it doesn't cost anything (other than cable fees, which most people are paying anyway), it provides far more variety than you'd get from DVDs and more innovation than you could come up with yourself.
So now, in addition to simply motivating myself to exercise, I have to come up with how to exercise. My entire adult life, I've just turned on the TV and done what it tells me, and it's worked well. But now I have to make my own plan, figure out whether to get DVDs or a Wii or what, and this for something that I absolutely detest doing. Exercise is the least favourite of all my chores!
In the US, they have a TV channel called FitTV that shows exercise programs all day every day. We should have that here! It would be beneficial to public health! We're always hearing about how people are too sedentary and need to exercise more, so why not make it as easy as humanly possible? You turn on the TV any time of the day or night, and someone is there to guide you through your workout. What could be easier? We could even just use the US TV channel, just have our cable companies carry it. They do carry some TV channels from other countries directly, and surely FitTV would be more beneficial to Canadian society than, say, Spike.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
How can the median family income be three times the median individual income?
From an otherwise unrelated article:
How is the median family income three times the median individual income? The vast majority of families/households (not sure why they chose the word "family" instead of "household", but I don't think that's relevant here) have either one or two breadwinners.
I do understand what the word median means, and I do understand that because we're talking about the median, these two numbers are not mathematically related to each other. But it does seem like they should be closer. Just applying logic, you'd assume that the family income is more than 100% but less than 200% of the individual income. But instead it's nearly 300%. What's going on here?
So in a city where, according to the 2006 census, individuals earned a median income of $26,754 a year, and annual family median income was $75,829 and declining, councillors’ wages are nothing to sneer at.
How is the median family income three times the median individual income? The vast majority of families/households (not sure why they chose the word "family" instead of "household", but I don't think that's relevant here) have either one or two breadwinners.
I do understand what the word median means, and I do understand that because we're talking about the median, these two numbers are not mathematically related to each other. But it does seem like they should be closer. Just applying logic, you'd assume that the family income is more than 100% but less than 200% of the individual income. But instead it's nearly 300%. What's going on here?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tragic ungoogleability
This is Monty Python's Galaxy Song:
Very useful for science students! Except who does astrophysics in miles any more?
What this song really needs is a metric version! I've been saying that ever since Grade 12 Physics class, and every once in a while I google to see if anyone has done it yet.
Unfortunately, it seems the band Metric has a song called "Twilight Galaxy", which renders a metric version of the galaxy song very difficult to google. This is a tragedy for science students everywhere!
If you write a metric version of Monty Python's Galaxy Song, or find one elsewhere and want to link to it, make sure you include "Monty Python" in the title to preserve what little googleability is left!
Very useful for science students! Except who does astrophysics in miles any more?
What this song really needs is a metric version! I've been saying that ever since Grade 12 Physics class, and every once in a while I google to see if anyone has done it yet.
Unfortunately, it seems the band Metric has a song called "Twilight Galaxy", which renders a metric version of the galaxy song very difficult to google. This is a tragedy for science students everywhere!
If you write a metric version of Monty Python's Galaxy Song, or find one elsewhere and want to link to it, make sure you include "Monty Python" in the title to preserve what little googleability is left!
Why people who support mayoral candidate Rob Ford's ideas should be concerned about him
1. Rob Ford "forgot" that he was charged with drug possession in the US. Regardless of whether or not the drug charges themselves are a problem, forgetting that they happened (and this only 11 years ago) is a problem. Do you remember your last encounter with police? Yes you do. Do you remember every encounter you've ever had with police? Probably. I do, and they weren't even negative. Dealing with police is unusual, inconvenient, a break from routine, and pretty scary. Having it happen in another country with strict drug laws is even scarier. So how could he have forgotten it? Is he losing his faculties? Does he face police charges so often that they've become routine? Or does he think his constituency is so stupid they won't notice that there's something wrong with this picture? I can't imagine any scenario that wouldn't be a cause for concern among his supporters.
2. Rob Ford wants to stop immigrants from moving to Toronto, saying we have too many people already. Remember when you first moved to Toronto? All the application forms you had to fill out? The stress of waiting for acceptance? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. You just show up. Secure housing and move in. Or don't secure housing first if you don't want to, just show up. Being able to live wherever you want in Canada is an actual, enshrined-in-the-Charter capital-R Right. The mayor of a city can in no way do anything about it. So why bring it up as though it's actionable? Does he egregiously misunderstand the scope of powers of mayor? Or does he think his constituency is so stupid they're unaware of how it works? I can't imagine any scenario that wouldn't be a cause for concern among his supporters.
2. Rob Ford wants to stop immigrants from moving to Toronto, saying we have too many people already. Remember when you first moved to Toronto? All the application forms you had to fill out? The stress of waiting for acceptance? Of course not, because it doesn't work that way. You just show up. Secure housing and move in. Or don't secure housing first if you don't want to, just show up. Being able to live wherever you want in Canada is an actual, enshrined-in-the-Charter capital-R Right. The mayor of a city can in no way do anything about it. So why bring it up as though it's actionable? Does he egregiously misunderstand the scope of powers of mayor? Or does he think his constituency is so stupid they're unaware of how it works? I can't imagine any scenario that wouldn't be a cause for concern among his supporters.
Friday, August 27, 2010
How to spot an optimistic Francophone
I already knew that there are two French words for the ordinal number "second" (deuxième and second), but I only very recently learned the difference between the two. It turns out second is used when there are only two things being counted, and deuxième is used when there are more than two.
So here's my theory: if you want to tell if a Francophone is an optimist or a pessimist, as them the name of the war that took place in Europe in 1939-1945. If they say «Seconde Guerre mondiale», they are an optimist. If they say «Deuxième Guerre mondiale», they are a pessimist.
So here's my theory: if you want to tell if a Francophone is an optimist or a pessimist, as them the name of the war that took place in Europe in 1939-1945. If they say «Seconde Guerre mondiale», they are an optimist. If they say «Deuxième Guerre mondiale», they are a pessimist.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
A horse
Today I saw a police horse for the first time since the G20. (If you're just tuning in, the reason why this is significant is described in anecdote #1 here.) I was glad to see that I still reacted to it like a beautiful animal rather than like a police weapon, but I still didn't feel safe. My first reaction was "Oh, wow, a horse!" But an instant later I was instinctively looking around for kettling escape routes, getting my phone out of my purse in case I need to document anything, and hastening towards the subway hoping not to attract the attention of the police officer.
Before the G20, I probably would have approached the horse, engaged the officer in conversation, found out the horse's name and asked if I could pet him, taken a picture, maybe had a look at that interesting horse trailer set-up he had going on. It would have been a positive experience, community relations, a citizen taking interest in the work our police do. But instead I hurried along with my head down trying to be invisible, just like my relatives did when they were oppressed behind the Iron Curtain, before they managed to flee to Canada.
In the aftermath of the G20, there was a hashtag on Twitter called #MyToronto. People used this hashtag to post things that are awesome about Toronto - our real city, not the police state it had been transformed into. I posted pictures of Pride and Yonge St. hockey celebrations, descriptions of cars with two World Cup flags and children peering out the front window of the subway car, anecdotes of multilingualism and diversity and street life.
But the very first #MyToronto moment of my life was that day, ten years ago, when my newly-arrived teenage self got to pet a police horse in the middle of a busy downtown. That was my very first glimpse of how the city promises me something bigger and better than I'd ever imagined. That was the very first step in the process that would turn The Big City into My City.
And now it's gone.
Before the G20, I probably would have approached the horse, engaged the officer in conversation, found out the horse's name and asked if I could pet him, taken a picture, maybe had a look at that interesting horse trailer set-up he had going on. It would have been a positive experience, community relations, a citizen taking interest in the work our police do. But instead I hurried along with my head down trying to be invisible, just like my relatives did when they were oppressed behind the Iron Curtain, before they managed to flee to Canada.
In the aftermath of the G20, there was a hashtag on Twitter called #MyToronto. People used this hashtag to post things that are awesome about Toronto - our real city, not the police state it had been transformed into. I posted pictures of Pride and Yonge St. hockey celebrations, descriptions of cars with two World Cup flags and children peering out the front window of the subway car, anecdotes of multilingualism and diversity and street life.
But the very first #MyToronto moment of my life was that day, ten years ago, when my newly-arrived teenage self got to pet a police horse in the middle of a busy downtown. That was my very first glimpse of how the city promises me something bigger and better than I'd ever imagined. That was the very first step in the process that would turn The Big City into My City.
And now it's gone.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Cute of the day
Did you go look at how big the Pakistan flood is? If not, go look at it now.
Did you look at it? Really?
Okay, now you can watch the monkey with the pet kitten
Did you look at it? Really?
Okay, now you can watch the monkey with the pet kitten
You need to drop everything and look at this right now
Remember that website that project the oil spill onto a map centred on your hometown?
Now they have one that does the same thing with the Pakistan flood.
You really need to look at this. Seriously. It's so much bigger than I ever thought possible. It's even bigger than I thought it would be after people told me it's so much bigger than I ever thought possible.
Now they have one that does the same thing with the Pakistan flood.
You really need to look at this. Seriously. It's so much bigger than I ever thought possible. It's even bigger than I thought it would be after people told me it's so much bigger than I ever thought possible.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A concrete improvement to one of the TTC panel recommendations
I've been reading the TTC Customer Service Panel Report (PDF), and I thought of a way to improve upon Recommendation 2R.
The report says:
This issue would be better addressed by thinking about why people stand in doorways.
People stand in the doorways because those little red and clear wall-like things next to the doorways are convenient to lean against. It's easy to stay balanced there, and you can even have your hands free to read or text or game. To address this - especially if there's still time to tweak the design of the new subway cars - they need to make the doorways less convenient places to stand, and other parts of the subway car more convenient places to stand.
In terms of immediate action, the best thing they could do install a rail down the centre of the ceiling of trains that don't already have a rail there. (Some do and some don't). When there's no centre ceiling rail, it's very difficult to stand in the aisle, so more people will gravitate to other parts of the trains (including all the nice convenient walls and bars near the door). A centre rail enables tall people at least to stand comfortably in the middle of the aisle, well away from the doors, without fear of losing balance. It won't solve the whole problem, but it will help.
In the more long term, the ideal would be good handsfree standing places that aren't near the door.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it's totally okay to stand in front of the doors that aren't going to open. If I'm riding north on Yonge from downtown and getting off at Eglinton, it's totally okay for me to stand in front of the left-hand doors, because all the downtown stations use the right-hand doors and Eglinton is the first station to open on the left. I'm in front of the doors the whole time, but totally out of everyone's way.
However, sometimes people block doors because they don't know which doors are going to open next. Longtime riders on familiar routes know, but people who are new to a given route sometimes stand in front of the wrong door thinking they're diligently keeping out of the way. If there was some kind of visual or audio signal indicating which doors are going to open next, people could get themselves out of the way before the train pulls into the station.
***
Also, I just had to add this really bizarre thing from the Panel's proposed list of customer responsibilities:
I see the argument for not running on a subway platform. However, by telling us not to run for a bus or streetcar, they'd be basically telling us not to run down the street! Sorry, TTC, but that's out of your jurisdiction. We can evaluate the risk of running down the street for ourselves, thanks.
I sincerely hope they choose not to retain that particular wording.
The report says:
OBSERVATION 2R
Many customers stand right in the doorway of the subway cars, which blocks and slows down passengers getting on or off.
RECOMMENDATION 2R: Review Subway Door Signage
The TTC should review the current signs that say, "Do not block doorway.” A more effective sign should be developed and used on all subway car doors.
This issue would be better addressed by thinking about why people stand in doorways.
People stand in the doorways because those little red and clear wall-like things next to the doorways are convenient to lean against. It's easy to stay balanced there, and you can even have your hands free to read or text or game. To address this - especially if there's still time to tweak the design of the new subway cars - they need to make the doorways less convenient places to stand, and other parts of the subway car more convenient places to stand.
In terms of immediate action, the best thing they could do install a rail down the centre of the ceiling of trains that don't already have a rail there. (Some do and some don't). When there's no centre ceiling rail, it's very difficult to stand in the aisle, so more people will gravitate to other parts of the trains (including all the nice convenient walls and bars near the door). A centre rail enables tall people at least to stand comfortably in the middle of the aisle, well away from the doors, without fear of losing balance. It won't solve the whole problem, but it will help.
In the more long term, the ideal would be good handsfree standing places that aren't near the door.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it's totally okay to stand in front of the doors that aren't going to open. If I'm riding north on Yonge from downtown and getting off at Eglinton, it's totally okay for me to stand in front of the left-hand doors, because all the downtown stations use the right-hand doors and Eglinton is the first station to open on the left. I'm in front of the doors the whole time, but totally out of everyone's way.
However, sometimes people block doors because they don't know which doors are going to open next. Longtime riders on familiar routes know, but people who are new to a given route sometimes stand in front of the wrong door thinking they're diligently keeping out of the way. If there was some kind of visual or audio signal indicating which doors are going to open next, people could get themselves out of the way before the train pulls into the station.
***
Also, I just had to add this really bizarre thing from the Panel's proposed list of customer responsibilities:
Never run to catch the bus, streetcar, or subway. This is dangerous for you as well as other riders.
I see the argument for not running on a subway platform. However, by telling us not to run for a bus or streetcar, they'd be basically telling us not to run down the street! Sorry, TTC, but that's out of your jurisdiction. We can evaluate the risk of running down the street for ourselves, thanks.
I sincerely hope they choose not to retain that particular wording.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Things They Should Invent: standardized, widely-known way for children to make clear that they're just being cheerful to be polite
(This actually stems from another blog post that I'm hoping to get up today (the one about the secret to unhappiness, if it's up by the time you're reading this). I started composing the other one first but this one just came barging in and wrote itself beginning to end.)
I dislike the word "sulking" and similar concepts. They trivialize a person's emotions by implying that they're feeling those emotions for the sole purpose of annoying other people. Think about your own life. When you feel a negative emotion, is it in any way about how other people will feel about it? Of course not! Your emotion is your emotion, and you're expressing it because it's what you're feeling.
(I always find it especially bizarre when parents say their child us "up sulking in their room." Remember when you were a kid and, for whatever reason, weren't interested in being downstairs where everyone else was, so you went up to your room? Think about what you were doing. Were you sitting there with arms crossed and a sour face grumbling about the goings-on downstairs? Of course not! You were reading your books, playing with your toys - living your life, basically, rather than doing stuff you didn't want to. It was the childhood equivalent of whatever you're doing at home today on this rainy Sunday.)
I've been reading Miss Conduct's book (which is very interesting - a lot of examination of people's motivations, which I find useful), and one thing she mentions several times is "People aren't [X] at you!" The guest at your dinner party who doesn't eat shrimp isn't not eating shrimp at you, he's just not eating shrimp - just like that other guy who doesn't have a shrimp on his plate at the moment. The girl in the bar who looks hot isn't looking hot at you, just like how you aren't being tall at her.
Similarly, a kid who's feeling a negative emotion isn't sulking at you. They're just feeling a negative emotion. The real issue is the parent would like the kid to hide the negative emotion and pretend to enjoy the situation, and the kid isn't doing that.
So at this point we have to ask ourselves: why do people hide negative emotions? Think about your own life. You hide negative emotions when you have something to gain by doing so. What do kids have to gain by hiding negative emotions?
Let me remind you of another phrase you probably heard in your childhood: "See? That wasn't so bad!" When you're a kid, if you get through a situation you dislike without expressing a huge amount of negative emotion, you parents get all smug and told-you-so about it. Then next time you don't want to do something, they completely dismiss your feelings "Oh, don't be silly, you'll like it." Or, if it's the same thing, "What's the matter? You LIKE X!" And not only do they dismiss your feelings to your face, they also convince themselves that you actually did like the thing, to the point that they truly believe that your word on what you do and do not enjoy cannot be taken at face value.
Therefore, there's absolutely no motivation for a kid to hide their feelings. If they do, their feelings won't be taken seriously next time and the parents will truly think that the kid likes the things they say they didn't like. Their only possibility for being taken seriously is to express their feelings as vociferously as possible. (And even that often doesn't work because parents think they have to instill that kids won't get their way by "whining".)
So what is needed is a way for kids to express to their parents (before the fact, after the fact, or both) that they don't really enjoy something but were just trying to make the best of the situation to be polite. The parent would need to communicate this to them explicitly, as well as talking to them about why and under what circumstances and to what end people might hide their negative emotions. And then - this is the important part - the parents need to praise them for being good, and believe and remember that the kid actually dislikes the thing in question. If the kid doesn't like going to church but was good and sat quietly through the whole mass last week and then does the same this week, the parent needs to be thinking "They were so good and polite and helpful to sit quietly through mass!" It is absolutely imperative that the parent not start thinking "Oh, I see little Johnny likes church now. I knew he'd come around!"
I dislike the word "sulking" and similar concepts. They trivialize a person's emotions by implying that they're feeling those emotions for the sole purpose of annoying other people. Think about your own life. When you feel a negative emotion, is it in any way about how other people will feel about it? Of course not! Your emotion is your emotion, and you're expressing it because it's what you're feeling.
(I always find it especially bizarre when parents say their child us "up sulking in their room." Remember when you were a kid and, for whatever reason, weren't interested in being downstairs where everyone else was, so you went up to your room? Think about what you were doing. Were you sitting there with arms crossed and a sour face grumbling about the goings-on downstairs? Of course not! You were reading your books, playing with your toys - living your life, basically, rather than doing stuff you didn't want to. It was the childhood equivalent of whatever you're doing at home today on this rainy Sunday.)
I've been reading Miss Conduct's book (which is very interesting - a lot of examination of people's motivations, which I find useful), and one thing she mentions several times is "People aren't [X] at you!" The guest at your dinner party who doesn't eat shrimp isn't not eating shrimp at you, he's just not eating shrimp - just like that other guy who doesn't have a shrimp on his plate at the moment. The girl in the bar who looks hot isn't looking hot at you, just like how you aren't being tall at her.
Similarly, a kid who's feeling a negative emotion isn't sulking at you. They're just feeling a negative emotion. The real issue is the parent would like the kid to hide the negative emotion and pretend to enjoy the situation, and the kid isn't doing that.
So at this point we have to ask ourselves: why do people hide negative emotions? Think about your own life. You hide negative emotions when you have something to gain by doing so. What do kids have to gain by hiding negative emotions?
Let me remind you of another phrase you probably heard in your childhood: "See? That wasn't so bad!" When you're a kid, if you get through a situation you dislike without expressing a huge amount of negative emotion, you parents get all smug and told-you-so about it. Then next time you don't want to do something, they completely dismiss your feelings "Oh, don't be silly, you'll like it." Or, if it's the same thing, "What's the matter? You LIKE X!" And not only do they dismiss your feelings to your face, they also convince themselves that you actually did like the thing, to the point that they truly believe that your word on what you do and do not enjoy cannot be taken at face value.
Therefore, there's absolutely no motivation for a kid to hide their feelings. If they do, their feelings won't be taken seriously next time and the parents will truly think that the kid likes the things they say they didn't like. Their only possibility for being taken seriously is to express their feelings as vociferously as possible. (And even that often doesn't work because parents think they have to instill that kids won't get their way by "whining".)
So what is needed is a way for kids to express to their parents (before the fact, after the fact, or both) that they don't really enjoy something but were just trying to make the best of the situation to be polite. The parent would need to communicate this to them explicitly, as well as talking to them about why and under what circumstances and to what end people might hide their negative emotions. And then - this is the important part - the parents need to praise them for being good, and believe and remember that the kid actually dislikes the thing in question. If the kid doesn't like going to church but was good and sat quietly through the whole mass last week and then does the same this week, the parent needs to be thinking "They were so good and polite and helpful to sit quietly through mass!" It is absolutely imperative that the parent not start thinking "Oh, I see little Johnny likes church now. I knew he'd come around!"
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Slice of life
Summer, 10 years ago. My bedroom was right under the roof. My fast food shift started early in the morning and ended early in the afternoon. I'd come home, tired from being on my feet all day, smelling of grease, just in time for the afternoon thunderstorm. (Convective weather was like clockwork that year.) I'd change out of my smelly clothes, lie down on top of my comforter and wrap it around me like a cocoon, and let the sound of the rain beating down on the roof lull me to sleep. Somehow, these conditions made for the most interesting dreams.
I work a regular schedule now, at a computer, in an office, sitting down. I make more in a day now than I did in a week then, and my life is way easier and less stressful. I wouldn't go back then for anything. But, on rainy days like today, I miss my afternoon naps.
I work a regular schedule now, at a computer, in an office, sitting down. I make more in a day now than I did in a week then, and my life is way easier and less stressful. I wouldn't go back then for anything. But, on rainy days like today, I miss my afternoon naps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)