Sunday, December 30, 2012

Household hint: freeze leftover sauce in ice cube trays

With my GERD diagnosis, I had to cut back on my tomato sauce intake.  Pre-GERD, I routinely had pasta with tomato sauce (about half a cup) for breakfast every morning. Post-GERD, I have a small bowl of pasta a couple of times a month with a small amount of tomato sauce (about a tablespoon) mixed in real good, which, with judicious cheese ratios, is almost as good flavour-wise as slathering half a cup on top.  Who knew?

But I quickly discovered a new problem: my tomato sauce kept going bad before I use it all up.  Even though I was putting it in the coldest part of the fridge, it kept going moldy after only a few uses, with maybe 3/4 of a jar left.

After some trial and error, I discovered the solution: freeze it in ice cube trays, then put all the frozen cubes in a tupperware in the freezer for storage.  I got this kind of ice cube tray, because the bottoms are flexible so you can just pop each cube out rather than having to twist the tray (which is more difficult when the substance in it is denser than water).  The ice cubes made by this tray are, conveniently, one teaspoon in volume, which is useful if you ever need to measure how much sauce you're using.

You can thaw it either by taking a couple of cubes out and just letting them thaw, with a quick zap in the microwave (supervise carefully if you're doing very small quantities), or by tossing it in with your cooking.  It takes a bit of stirring to get the texture right, but it stands up.

Once I started doing this, I realized it also solves my Hollandaise problem. I like Eggs Florentine as an occasional treat, but I only need a small quantity of Hollandaise sauce and always have a bunch left over.  Then I'm frantically trying to think of things to do with Hollandaise before it all goes bad. Next time, I'm just going to freeze is and then thaw a cube whenever the mood strikes.

Friday, December 28, 2012

My childhood home

One of the fantastic characteristics of my friendship with Poodle is that it withstands neglect.  From time to time, one or both of us will get caught up in our careers or projects or fandoms or the business of everyday life, and fail to do the normal everyday friend stuff that sustains a friendship.

But the friendship is still always there.  If, after a period of neglect, one of us needs a ride or tech support or fashion advice or non-English proofreading or to be wingmanned to Eddie Izzard, the other's response is always "Of course! Let's make that happen!  And how have you been, anyway?"  Then we address the issue at hand and catch up on everything else without any resentment or animosity about the period of neglect.

I have a similar relationship with the house where I grew up.   I don't go there often, but, when I do, it's always right there for me.  My room is still my room.  Everything is right where I can find it.  It's a constant that has been present for literally my entire life, and I've always been able to rely on it, even when I don't have any immediate need for it.

My parents are planning to sell their house at some point in the next year, and it breaks my heart.  This place that has always been there for me will no longer be there for me.  The room that has always been mine will no longer be mine. They bought this house for me, in a way.  They were living in a very small house and were pregnant with me, so they bought a bigger one to raise kids in.  We were the first ones to live there.  It hasn't just always been ours, it's only ever been ours. My room has only ever been my mine.  It's been a place of safety and refuge forever, and soon it won't be.

***

At this point, you're probably thinking "So why not make an offer when it goes up for sale?" The irony is, objectively speaking, I don't even like it.  It's a house.  It has a basement and an attic and a roof and a yard.  There's probably a spider somewhere in it right this minute.  It's inconveniently located.  Basically, I don't want it for the exact same reasons my parents don't, so I can't even blame them.

I stayed over there over xmas, and I found myself getting irritated by it.  You have to time having a shower around laundry and dishes and other showers, and the hot water is easily depleted.  My bed there has no redeeming qualities.  The wind rattles the windows. The air blowing out of the furnace vents has a magical ability to blow directly into my mouth when I'm trying to sleep.  From the creaks of the floorboards, you can tell exactly where everyone else in the house is and what they're doing.

When I returned to Toronto, a sense of contentment and belonging came over me as I walked home from the subway, through my own neighbourhood, and turned onto my own street.  My face lit up as I walked into my own apartment, as it hasn't done for my childhood home since before I moved out for the first time.

And yet, I still mourn for the loss of my childhood home.  My eyes still well up with tears as I write this. In an attempt to comfort myself, I considered the possibility that I might not miss it when it's gone.  But that only breaks my heart more.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

What if 20/20 vision isn't perfect?

20/20 vision means that when you're 20 feet away from something, you can see it as well as a person with normal can see it when they're 20 feet away from it.

But what if that isn't perfect or optimal?  What if the people they used to calculate normal vision had subpar vision? 

Because 20/20 is considered optimal, our corrective lenses usually correct us to 20/20.  But what if they could correct us to better with a different kind of lense?  What if we could have superhuman distance vision?  Among other things, imagine how that would improve driving safety!

Horoscopes

From the Star:
 
IF TODAY IS YOUR BIRTHDAY: This year you often will go to extremes. In the process of doing so, you couldn’t care less. It is how you feel after the fact that will cause you to employ some self-discipline. You have a vision for what your life could be and what you want out of it. You ambitiously will start to create just that. If you are single, your desirability speaks for itself. Commit only when you are good and ready. If you are attached, the two of you blend together well. You can count on your sweetie. TAURUS can be seductive yet difficult.

From the G&M:

Neptune, planet of dreams and imagination, is strong on your birthday this year, so if there is something of an artistic or creative nature you would like to do now is the time to get on with it. Seize the future and make it your own.

Interesting, I'm not entirely sure what to make of these.  I hope I can avoid Tauruses though - seductive yet difficult is the last thing I need.

Monday, December 17, 2012

How to slide the edge guide in an Epson Stylus NX130

In the paper tray of the Epson Stylus NX130 all in one inkjet printer, there is a grey slidey thing, apparently called an edge guide.  It needs to be slid to the side so the paper will fit in.

In order to slide it side to side, you have to squeeze it while sliding it.  It won't move if you don't squeeze it.

I'm blogging this because I had a hell of a time finding this information when I needed it.

(Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of this printer.  I bought it because I needed a scanner and a printer on short notice and didn't have time to research or comparison shop, and this was the cheapest one that was small enough in the box for me to carry.  It does the job, but printing is slower and noisier than it could be.  I would have preferred to do more research and buy a faster, quieter, better-quality laser printer.)

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Why Kim from Between Friends shouldn't speak to her son's class: the parental ego approach

I blogged previously about a storyline in the comic strip Between Friends, where the character of Kim had been asked by her son's teacher to go speak to her class. (If you click through in the old post, you can see the whole week's worth of strips.  The storyline also continues the week of November 26.)  I proposed that she shouldn't because it would be disrespectful of her son's expressed feelings, and parents should want to set the example for their children that you respect feelings and that you can expect your feelings to be respected.

However, some people (some of whom are parents) aren't very receptive to this argument.

So here's another one from a parental ego perspective:

We know that Kim's speaking to the class must be of some educational benefit to the students, or the teacher wouldn't have brought up the idea.

We know that any good parent wants to give their kid every advantage possible.

So if Kim doesn't speak to her son's class, she's retaining that educational benefit for her son, giving him an advantage over his classmates.

All of which sounds rather mercenary, doesn't it?

BUT, Kim can remove any perception that she's being mercenary by simply telling the teacher that she isn't going to do it this year out of respect for her son's feelings, but she'll revisit the idea in a couple of years when it isn't relevant to her son any more.  This would make her look like a good, thoughtful, considerate mother who's setting an example for her child so he grows up to be respectful, while also making her look like she's an engaged member of the community who wants to help students and be involved in her school.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Sunday, December 09, 2012

New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition III

This post is a follow-up to this and this.

7. Anyone who replies to a complaint about life's unfairness with "Well, life isn't fair" will thenceforth only get a restatement of the problem in response to any complaint they make.

"My foot hurts."
"Well, your foot hurts."

"Damn, I spilled my coffee everywhere!"
"Well, you spilled your coffee everywhere."

"This widget I purchased doesn't work properly."
"Well, this widget doesn't work properly."

Saturday, December 08, 2012

Things Google Should Invent: don't index blog template sidebars on individual post pages.

Newer blog templates have expandable tree archive links that contain the title of every post.  (You can see an example in the right-hand column of this blog, under the twitter feed.)

The problem is that Google indexes these archive links like they're just regular words on the page, with the result that if you google within someone's blog for a word or phrase that happens to appear in a post title, Google will return every single page from that blog.

For example, I once wrote a blog post with the title "Denervousization", which isn't a real word at all and I just made up for the post.  However, if you google the word "denervousization", you get the post entitled "Denervousization", you get this post if you're reading it after it's been indexed, and you get a number of other posts that are turning up simply because they have the link to the "Denervousization" post in the archive links.

Not that many extra posts are turning up for this particular search because I switched to a template with expandable tree archive links very recently, but as time goes by they'll all get reindexed and eventually every single post will turn up if you search for just the one post with a distinctive title.  Not terribly useful, is it?

Since Blogger and Blogspot belong to Google, they should be able to work something out between the two of them to produce more effective search results.

Monogamy as sexual orientation

I was rather surprised and disconcerted to see Dan Savage, in both last week's column and the week before's (last letter both times), insist that polygamous and monogamous aren't sexual orientations.  This was bizarre to me, because I've been coming to realize over the course of my life that my sexual orientation is most accurately described as "monogamous".

In this week's column, he has some testimonials from people who identify as orientationally poly, but there's nothing firsthand from people who identify as orientationally monogamous.  So I thought I'd share what I can currently articulate about how it works for me.

- "Why do you describe it as an orientation rather than a practice?" Sexual orientation is the primary factor in defining who you are capable of being sexually attracted to.  If you're heterosexual, for example, the fact that someone is of the opposite sex is the primary factor in determining whether you can be sexually attracted to them.  People talk about "meeting men" or "meeting women" - the gender is so intrinsic to defining who we're capable of being attracted to that people use it as a shorthand for "people I am capable of being attracted to."  For me, the primary factor is whether I love them.  That's the one factor that absolutely must be present to switch on sexual attraction.  Yes, this means that I'm not sexually attracted to people before I love them.  I've never once in my life looked at a random passer-by and thought "I'd hit that!"  I have to have a reason to fall in love with them first.  I can be sexually attracted to someone for whom I have unrequited love as long as there's no requited love going on in my life, but it can only be that one person.

- "But can't you be in love with more than one person?"  No.  I don't have room.  Analogy: I have two breasts, each of which has one nipple.  Therefore, I could nurse a maximum of two babies simultaneously.  There is no possible way to do more, because there simply aren't more nipples.  There's no expansion pack, there's no extension cord, it's a hard and fast limit.  Similarly, I only have one slot in my brain for being in love with a person.  There simply isn't any more room and no way to expand it. Yes, I've heard that some people can, and I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to question their self-knowledge.  But the fact remains that I can't.

- "It's illogical."  I totally agree.  I always assumed that a monogamous relationship was just for fairy tales and old-fashioned people to whom it didn't occur to do otherwise.  How presumptuous would it be for me to think anyone could possibly find me sufficient!  But then, one day, my boyfriend raised the idea that we could be monogamous.  I was shocked that such a thing would be suggested in real life, but I noticed that since we'd gotten together I hadn't had even the slightest glimmer of interest in anyone else, so I agreed.  And HOLY SHIT WAS IT SEXY!!!  It was so sexy that everything I'd previously thought was sexy was relegated to "unremarkable".  It was the emotional equivalent of discovering the clitoris. It' s so sexy that the (physical or psychological) involvement of someone with whom I'm not in a monogamous committed relationship in any sort of sexual experience cannot possibly contribute to the sexiness of the situation - even if the situation is one where I would otherwise be alone.  The best possible outcome is neutral; the worst, and most likely, outcome is total turn-off.  Much like, I'd imagine, Dan Savage would feel if I turned up in his bed.  Analogy: the clitoris is illogical.  It would be far more logical if everyone's primary source of orgasms were vaginal stimulation, because that would facilitate procreation and provide primary stimulation to both partners in an opposite-sex coupling simultaneously.  However, this does not negate the fact that the clitoris exists and is the primary source of orgasms for many people.

- "So how do you transition from one relationship to another?"  As I've mentioned in other blog posts, my feelings - all feelings, not just romantic - don't go away.  They pile up like the stuff in the "miscellaneous" pile on your desk - the ones at the bottom might be hidden from view by the ones added more recently, but they still exist, perfectly whole and in their original state.  What this means for romantic feelings is that new feelings must be so strong that they completely envelop and overwhelm the old feelings.  The old feelings don't go away, they just become insignificant in the face of the exponential superiority of the new feelings. I can't go from one relationship to another equal relationship; I can only transition to a significantly better relationship.  (This also applies for platonic relationships, BTW.  I've blogged before about how my Grade 8 friends abandoned me before high school started.  My feelings for those people are still exactly the same as they were when they were still being friends with me, it's just the friends I've made since are so much more awesome that the feeling I was defining as "friendship" in Grade 8 no longer counts as such.  My current close friends found me when we were in our mid/late teens, and I haven't felt the need to seek out new friends since.)

- "What about fantasy?" When my love is requited, I don't fantasize about anyone else.  I can't explain why, it just doesn't happen.  When my love is not requited, I'm like Marshall in How I Met Your Mother.  Marshall, as you may recall, can only fantasize about someone other than his wife Lily if he constructs a scenario where Lily has died but, on her deathbed, gave him her blessing to be with whomever is the subject of the fantasy.  Similarly, the premise of my fantasy has to be that my previous love thinks it's for the best that I'm with the subject of the fantasy. When my 13-year-old self transitioned from crushing on Wil Wheaton as Wesley Crusher to crushing on Dean Cain as Clark Kent, she constructed a scenario where Wesley had to go off and join the Traveller, and therefore introduced her to the most powerful man on earth to ensure she'd have a worthy partner.  (Did I mention this was fantasy?)  It sounds complex when I write it up like this, but all fantasy actually involves a lot of premise.  You're constructing a scenario where the subject of your fantasy likes you and enjoys spending time with you and doesn't smell and is into all the same sex acts as you and can do that thing with their tongue and isn't creeped out by the fact that you have a poster of them over your bed, all on top of the fact that the two of you were in the same place at the same time and managed to talk and they found you interesting enough that they didn't just pass you over for the next fangirl.

- "But is poly something anyone can do or something some people are? I come down on the "do" side" - Dan Savage, Nov. 28. You could do it without being it, and you could (with much more incentive and self-discipline) be it without doing it.  I could, I suppose, have more than one lover, as in I could physically carry out the motions.  But I don't want to, and am in fact repulsed by the idea.  Just like I'm sure Dan Savage could engage in a rousing session of cunnilingus (and, being a sex advice columnist, would probably even know a trick or two), but I suspect he'd rather be in bed alone with a book.  Polyamory is something anyone can do just like having sex with a woman is something anyone can do.  That doesn't mean it isn't an orientation factor.

- "But I'm monogamous as a result of a deliberate choice to be so - it has nothing to do with my sexual orientation!"  I have no doubt that's true.  Many people make a conscious decision to be monogamous.  However, it is still my orientation.  Analogy: It is perfectly possible for someone who is bisexual to make a conscious decision to only have relationships with members of the opposite sex, perhaps for procreation, religious, or convenience purposes.  However, this does not negate the fact that many people are heterosexual by orientation and are actually turned off by the idea of sex with a member of the same sex.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Teach me about optican economics

Optical stores, at least large chains, often have major discounts that only apply if you buy a complete pair of glasses (i.e. frames and lenses).  They won't ever give you a discount if you just have new lenses installed in a pair of frames that you already own.

As a result, there are times, with major sales and less expensive frames, when  you could get a complete pair of glasses for less than it would cost for just the lenses.  For example, using numbers that make the math easy, if the frames cost $100, the lenses cost $200, and there's a 50% discount happening, you could get a complete pair for $150 where they would charge you $200 to put exactly the same lenses in a pair of your own frames. 

I understand that the lenses are custom-made and frames are mass-produced, so the margins are far greater on frames.  But what do they gain by charging me less for buying more things?

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Things They Should Invent: give out your primary online presence rather than asking for phone numbers

Reading this Reddit thread, I was surprised how many people seem to still be subscribing to what should really be considered an old-fashioned script for hitting on people: you approach them, say something complimentary or clever, exchange some banter, and ultimately walk away with their phone number.

This is not a good script, because the stated definition of success (the approachee giving their phone number to the approacher) has the approachee bearing all the risk.  Now someone you barely know has your phone number.  You don't have their phone number, you don't know anything about them other than what they've told you during your conversation. The approacher is the one who started it, so they should bear the risk by giving their contact information to the approachee, rather than vice versa.  The standard script is really the in-person equivalent of phishing.

But the norm of giving out a phone number is also suboptimal. The phone number tells you nothing except how to contact a person.  It would be far more useful for the approacher to give the approachee the address of their primary online presence - blog, twitter, facebook, even a reddit profile is informative.  Then the approachee could vet the approacher at their leisure, see what kind of person they are, what kind of opinions they have, what they're a fan of, whether they do that annoying thing where they make elipses out of commas,,,,,etc.  If the approachee is particularly enthusiastic, they can share their primary online presence right away; if they're more hesitant, they can retain the option to vet first.

The problem with taking this approach is that it currently isn't normal.  It would come across as both arrogant and creepy-weird to walk up to someone, hand them a card, and say "Here's my website, check me out."

But if this method could be normalized, it would make approaching people both more honest and more efficient.  You wouldn't need to have a conversation to win them over, your online presence will do that for you if they're compatible.  So you can just walk up to them and write down your URL or hand over your card.  You also wouldn't have to come up with a pick up line or a clever way to make conversation or otherwise figure out a way to artificially win someone's trust enough to get them to take the risk of giving you their phone number.  You can just say "Hi, I think your red hair is gorgeous. Here's where to find me if you're interested."  If you're the approachee, you can see how attractive the approacher is when they approach you (if that's a decision factor), but you can also find out more about them at your leisure rather than having to base your decision on their charm offensive.  You'll also be able to discover core incompatibilities faster (e.g. you're childfree and they're not, they prioritize health and fitness and you would like to retain the option of letting yourself go) and thereby avoid wasting time trying to make someone who's essentially incompatible like you.

This would also allow people who are interested in doing so to move on more people in a given night.  You don't have to make an excuse to stop talking to each person, you're just politely retreating to give them space after you hand over your card, so there's nothing wrong with talking to another person afterwards (although it would come across as skeevy if you walked straight over to th enext person).  You can, of course, have an actual conversation immediately if both parties are inclined, but it's not necessary to close the deal.

At this point, you might be thinking "But a person could totally create a fake online presence!"  Yes, and a person could totally lie to someone they're trying to pick up.  But for people who are being genuine, giving out your online presence would be a far better approach than asking for the person's phone number.  This method needs to be normalized.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Things They Should Invent: computer program for choosing condo finishes

Apparently the way you choose finishes for your new condo is you actually go to a place and look at swatches and choose them that way. 

That's so 20th century!

They need instead a computer simulation where you can click on each finish and see what it would look like in your actual unit. You could view different combinations at a click of a mouse, save them and revisit them later, and even share them.

In my particular case, nearly everyone I've ever met is inexplicably enthusiastic about the possibility of choosing finishes, so I was giving very serious consideration to crowd-sourcing the whole thing.  (The part of my brain that finds randomness satisfying would appreciate that.) Unfortunately, that's not very feasible if you have to make an appointment and be at a specific place at a specific time.  However, if everyone could log in to a website and save their preferences, I could choose my finishes by pure democracy, or have everyone put together a look they like best, or have everyone put together a look and then put it to a general vote to pick the best look.

If this were sharable by social media, it could even help create buzz for the condo builder - people might start tweeting and facebooking their gorgeous future kitchens.  Plus, it would certainly be more affordable to build a real-life version of the Sims' build function (maybe it could even be done IN the Sims' build function?) than to rent and staff physical space for people to go look at swatches for every single condo a given developer builds.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Potentially reluctant fathers in Call the Midwife

Warning: this post contains spoilers for Call the Midwife episodes 3 and 6

One criticism I've seen of Call the Midwife is that episode 3 is unrealistic.  In this episode, an older couple finds themselves unexpectedly pregnant, and the mother seems less than thrilled about this development.  Partway through the episode, she confides in the midwives that she's afraid that when the baby is born it will be black.  It seems she didn't love her husband, only married him for financial security for her (now grown) children from her previous marriage, and had had a single one-night stand with a black man.  So the baby is born, and it is black.  And the mother's husband thinks it's the most adorable baby that has ever lived, and is later seen proudly pushing his pram.

Critics say that the man's immediate acceptance of a baby that clearly isn't is isn't realistic, especially for that era.  But it really worked for me as an audience member because, for that very reason, it was a totally unexpected plot twist.  I was expecting her husband to abandon her or beat her or something, or, as a longshot, have a visceral negative reaction but ultimately forgive his wife.  His utter delight at having a baby to raise came as a complete surprise, and therefore I found it narratively satisfying.

However, this affected my reaction to episode 6. In episode 6, a patient informs the midwives that she has come to London from wherever she was before to be with the father of her baby.  She is confident that he will be thrilled that she's pregnant.  He isn't home (she says he's a sailor and is at sea) so she gains entry to his flat somehow only to discover that there's no sign of life and the electricity and water isn't turned on.  And then, of course, she goes into labour there.  (And gives birth to triplets.)  And is still deliriously happy with the situation.

I was expecting her babies' father to never come back, or to turn her out of his house, or to end up already having a wife and kids.  But instead, we see her in one of the final scenes walking down the street pushing her pram, with the babies' father walking beside her and proudly carrying one of the babies.  And this struck me as unrealistic and not narratively satisfying. 

An unexpected plot twist is enjoyable, but having every single potentially reluctant father end up being thrilled with the new arrival eliminates a lot of the potential dramatic tension.  Either they should have had an unhappy new father in between these two plots, or the triplets' father's willingness to be a father should have been established earlier.  (Even though the triplets' mother's story is an impetus in Chummy's decision to move forward with her love life, they could have resolved the father's issue by having him find the mother in labour and call the midwives, and then gotten dramatic tension from a sudden delivery of undiagnosed triplets.) Creating the same dramatic tension as in episode 3 and having it resolve the same way weakens the series as a whole.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

How to get rid of the colon after the comments in Blogger's "Ethereal" template

Short version: search your template's HTML for <data:post.commentLabelFull/>:, and delete the colon after the >

Detailed version:

1. Log into Blogger
2. From the More Options drop-down (just to the left of the "View Blog" button), select "Template".
3. Under "Live on Blog", click on the "Edit HTML" button.
4. A warning may pop up; click on "Proceed".
5. Check the "Expand Widget Templates" checkbox.
6. Use your browser's search function (most likely Ctrl+F) to search for <data:post.commentLabelFull/>:
7. Delete the colon after the >.
8. Click "Preview" to make sure it worked.
9. Click on "Save Template".

Friday, November 16, 2012

State of the blog template

I think I've got my new template pretty much finalized.  The only problem is the colon after the word "comments" at the bottom of each post.  I can't for the life of me figure out how to make it go away.  I even used the search function to find every colon in my template HTML, and I couldn't find any that didn't serve a specific coding purpose.  (My template is called "Ethereal", if anyone feels like trying to figure it out.) 

Update: I've just figured out how to make it go away.

Other than that, if anything is difficult to read or isn't working properly, this is the place to report it.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Under construction

Currently making some changes to the template.  Any residual weirdness should be gone shortly.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Praising children's accomplishments

My Favourite Little Person recently turned 1!  I'm so proud of her!

Yes, even though it isn't actually an accomplishment, my immediate emotional response is to be proud of her. The same holds for any milestone.  She can crawl!  She can walk!  If you ask her "Where's the apple?" she'll point at the apple!  (Aside: that blows my mind - I didn't even know pre-verbal children could do that!)  I'm so proud of her!

When I'm actually in the same room as her,  my immediate emotional response to her doing anything new or new to me or successful or big-girlish is to gush.  "Wow!  Look at you!  You're walking!  **Applause**  Good girl!"  Even though  it's a perfectly normal milestone that everyone who is physically capable achieves.

There's a parenting philosophy that you shouldn't gush over kids' accomplishments when they're regular everyday accomplishments, you should save it for the truly impressive. And proponents of this philosophy seem to think that parents are gushing over kids' accomplishments in an attempt to boost the kids' self-esteem.

But based on my visceral and emotional inclination to gush about MFLP (who isn't even my own child!) I question whether it's possible for a loving parent to not gush over a small adorable child learning something new or achieving a milestone.  It seems like it would take a massive amount of restraint, and would build up an emotional wall for no good reason.

What if parents made a point of never humiliating their kids?

This post was inspired by this comic strip:








Her son is mortified by the idea of her speaking to his class, but she completely shrugs off his emotions.  Her husband might be enjoying the fact that their son is mortified, and she seems to be amused by this.

This is sort of a common cultural trope - kids are embarrassed by their parents, the parents see the kids' embarrassment as foolish and invalid, and the parents therefore take a certain delight in embarrassing their kids.  And, as a cultural trope, it's seen as all in good fun, at least by the parents.

But it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that could foster bullying attitudes.

A kid in a family like this will learn that feelings aren't worth respecting. If someone finds something humiliating, taking advantage of that fact to make them feel humiliated is normal, valid, and entertaining.  Surely no good can come of taking that attitude into the schoolyard with them!  The kid will also learn (as I did) that baseline human reality is that people want to embarrass you, and develop self-worth and defence mechanisms accordingly.

But suppose instead the parent said "I respect your feelings. If it would embarrass you, I won't do it."  And then the parent said to the teacher "It would embarrass Danny to have his mother come speak to the class, and I respect his feelings.  I'd be happy to come speak to your students in a year or two, once it would no longer bother him."

Then he would learn that respecting people's feelings is normal, and might carry that forward into the rest of the world.