Cause and effect

In 2009, City of Toronto workers, including garbage collectors, went on strike because the employer was trying to take away their sick days and leave them with a much worse arrangement.

 

Media coverage at the time (including, bizarrely, the Toronto Star, whose stated principles explicitly include being pro-labour) villainized these workers, stoking public anger against them.

Rob Ford leveraged this anger to be elected as mayor.

Doug Ford leveraged Rob Ford's apparent popularity to be elected first as city councillor, then as MPP, and eventually as Premier of Ontario.

Where he took sick days away from workers in a pandemic, among many other disastrous policies.

Here in this third year of a pandemic that those in power have no desire to end, I wonder where we as a city and as a province would be if the City of Toronto hadn't tried to take away workers' sick days.

There wouldn't have been a strike. Rob Ford wouldn't have become mayor. Doug Ford would be running a label company (or would be city councillor at worst). Ontario would almost certainly have a government better suited to the task of getting us through a pandemic. (And also, Toronto municipal workers would have a better sick day regime and therefore be better able to avoid spreading COVID.) Toronto would likely have a different municipal government as well, since it was Rob Ford's mayorality that led to John Tory being considered even remotely palatable. (Remember in 2007 when Ontario rejected him for being too far right?)

***

On a personal note, there's one vital thing that would be different:

One change made under Rob Ford's mayorality was to contract out part of Toronto's garbage collection to Green For Life.

On February 17, 2018, at 2:30 in the morning, I was in bed fast asleep when I was frightened awake by a horrific noise.

I jumped out of bed, ran to the window to see what the noise was . . . and woke up on the floor with an enormous lump on the back of my head.

Every aspect of life has been more difficult since.

The source of the noise that frightened me awake? A Green For Life contractor seemed to think 2:30 in the morning is a good time to empty a dumpster into a dump truck.

Butterfly wings.

Books read in May 2022

New:

 

1. The Nice and Accurate Good Omens TV Companion by Matt Whyman

2. Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft

3. All the Devils Are Here by Louise Penny

Reread:

1. Missing in Death

The generic "you" is a useful tool for writing inclusively

With reproductive health in the news lately, I'm seeing a lot of people diligently endeavouring to make their statements about bodies and anatomy as inclusive as possible, including inclusive of trans and non-binary people. This leads to phrases like "birthing parent" and "uterus-havers", which sound awkward, and can make the cause of inclusive language seem less credible to people who aren't already on side.

 

This makes me think of the 90s, when adults around me would often express contempt for inclusive language by performatively making it conspicuously unwieldy. "Firemen? No, wait, that isn't politically correct...firewomen? Firepeople??" Making a big noisy fuss of how inclusive language is OMG SO HARD while completely disregarding the perfectly cromulent word "firefighters". 

I think the attempts to use inclusive language for reproductive health might sometimes come across this way. 

 

In the specific case of recent inclusive reproductive health discourse, I can tell that the speakers' intentions are benign and they genuinely want to be inclusive. Sometimes they're deliberately aiming for conspicuousness, but sometimes they can't think of a less awkward way to phrase it, and the awkwardness might distract from or detract from their important point.

 

In these situations, where you want to be inclusive but can't think of a simple way to do so, a useful tool can be the generic "you".

 

Example:

Original: "Masks are mandatory in our birth centre. Mothers can remove their masks while in labour."

Attempt to make it inclusive: "Masks are mandatory in our birth centre. Birthing parents can remove their masks while in labour."

With the generic "you": "Mask are mandatory in our birth centre. You can remove your mask while you are in labour."

This is clear. It's inconspicuous. And it's inclusive - by which I mean not just that it includes anyone who might be in labour and while not being a woman or a mother, but also it specifically includes the reader (and, thereby, includes everyone). 

 

One objection to gender-inclusive language that I hear, most often from cis women, is that they feel that excluded when women are not specifically mentioned. Using the generic "you" helps mitigate this by addressing the reader directly. How could you feel excluded if I'm talking directly to you?

 

Of course, there are cases where the right communication strategy is to be conspicuously inclusive, even if the phrasing is awkward. Sometimes the situation does in fact call for a big showy show of the fact that not everyone who gives birth is a woman.

And sometimes the right communication strategy is to be inconspicuously inclusive, to make it no big deal that someone who is not a woman might be giving birth. The generic "you" can help you do that.

Read Aloud

In my work life, MVP of all computer tools since my head injury is the Read Aloud function in Word. (Similar functions exist in other software, and comparable tools are also sometimes embedded in the OS or downloadable as apps.)

Since my head injury, I've had to work harder to focus visually, especially on text and especially on a screen. This makes the revision and editing parts of my job much harder! I can easily focus enough to read for comprehension, but the deeper level of focus required to catch the kinds of errors my brain usually autocorrects takes an enormous amount of work - and all too much of that work is going into buckling down and focusing, before I can even start putting effort and energy into the actual work of my job.

My saviour is Read Aloud. When it reads the text to me verbally, the kinds of errors my eyes and my brain usually gloss over come out sounding conspicuous and bizarre. Overly-French structures sound heavy and awkward, and basically anything that needs attention sounds jarring.

Because Read Aloud reads the text at a steady pace, I don't have to keep myself on task - the computer is doing it for me. Depending on the text and my eyesight, I might read along with the text on the screen, or I might look at the French while listening to the English to make sure every concept is present, or I might put a cold compress over my eyes or work on a vision therapy exercise.

Sometimes I correct errors as I go, sometimes I flag things for further attention with the Comments function. Then, once the readthrough is finished, I can put all my effort and energy into actually fixing the things I have flagged for attention, without it all having been drained on finding the things that need attention.

***

I've talked before about how audiobooks don't work for me because they go in one ear and out the other and I don't retain the story, so it seems super counterintuitive that Read Aloud would actually help with my revision and editing. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've come to the realization that this is because I have a lifetime of experience reading for information.

When I read with my eyes, my brain is actively working to glean and assimilate meaning from the text, so it overlooks straightforward typos like public/pubic. When I listen, I'm not using the same mechanism as I've used my whole life to glean and assimilate meaning, so my brain isn't working to make sense of the text, and therefore isn't "helping" it.

I once read a book called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which helps you learn to draw by using your right brain to see lines and shadows. You learn to think "This line needs to be at this specific angle", rather than the left-brained inclination to think "I am drawing a hand." You think about the structure of the subject rather than what the subject actually is.

 

Using Read Aloud for revision works similarly. It doesn't trigger the functions in my brain that try to make the text make sense, so I can focus on the structure, on whether anything is out of place.

 

This does mean that I don't retain the content when revising. It goes in one ear and out the other just like audiobooks. (If it's my own translation, I assimilated the content during the drafting phase. If it's someone else's translation, I won't retain it.) But that doesn't actually matter! I don't need to learn the content or remember the plot, I just need to make the text work. If I ever need the information, I can look it back up! And if, for some reason, I need to actually assimilate the information, I still have the option of reading with my eyes.

Grade 13

Recently in the news: a plan to bring back Grade 13.

 

We had Grade 13 (then called OAC, which stood for Ontario Academic Credit) when I was in high school, and what I found useful about it is it gave us an opportunity for greater independence within the high-school context.

 

About three quarters of Grade 13 students were 18 years old when the school year started in September, and everyone was 18 by the end of December. This is relevant because 18 is the age of majority, students over the age of 18 weren't subject to the same rules about care and custody (for lack of a better word - I think there's a specific term for this but it escapes me).

In practical terms, this meant that we could sign ourselves out of school rather than needing a note from our parents and we didn't need our parents to sign report cards or permission slips. In fact, our teachers were not legally allowed to meet with our parents without our permission!

 

OAC classes operated on the assumption that all their students were over 18. In practical terms, this meant that if the teacher was absent, class was cancelled rather than having a substitute teacher. There weren't any parent-teacher interviews. We were expected to manage our own education and our own time like adults.

 

At the same time, the societal expectation was that we were still high school students and our parents were still expected to care for and support us as such.

 

If a parent had kicked an 18-year-old high school student out of their home, other parents - even those who would have responded positively to kicking out an 18-year-old high-school graduate - would be just as appalled as if they had kicked out a 17-year-old

 

Young people who would have responded to a peer saying "I'm an 18-year-old first-year university student and I moved out of my parents' house!" with "Cool!" would have responded to "I'm an 18-year-old high-school student and I moved out of my parents' house!" with "Is everything okay?"

This meant that we were empowered like adults to manage our education and our time, without being expected to take on the full suite of adult responsibilities like paying bills and buying groceries and managing a household. It was a sort of training wheels for adulthood.

It also helped train our parents for our adulthood. Our educational structure moved away from parental permission or parental involvement even while we were living in our parents' homes, which prepared our parents for not having direct involvement in our post-secondary education - something that's even more important today when it's even more financially difficult for students and young adults to live independently from their parents!

 

I had an on-campus job in university when Ontario eliminated Grade 13, and I noticed an immediate difference in parental involvement when the first Grade 12 cohort arrived. Parents were contacting us directly or accompanying their kids in person even for mundane things like asking how to configure an email account, seemingly without any attempt by the student to do it independently. I was only a few years older, but that simply wasn't done in my cohort! 

So if they do end up re-introducing Grade 13, I hope they take into consideration that Grade 13 students are going to be legal adults, and create a system and structure that reflects that, rather than a system and structure that has young adults spending their first year as a legal adult being treated like a child.

***

Even though my own actual firsthand experience with Grade 13 is that it was positive and empowering (and even though my own actual firsthand experience is that I felt too young for university in my first year, even though I could handle it perfectly well), I think if I were a student who expected my high school only to go as far as Grade 12, I'd find it insulting that they want to keep me in high school and living with my parents for another year. 

 

Similarly, if I were an adult who had graduated high school after Grade 12, I'd feel insulted on behalf of the youth of today and tomorrow that they'd have their launch delayed another year. 

This is why it kind of surprises me that they'd put this in a platform with the presumed goal of winning votes for an election. I'd imagine there's a significant segment of the population who would see it as completely unnecessary and perhaps even verging on punitive - especially since it has always been possible for students to keep attending high school if they aren't able to graduate or get the courses they need in the allotted number of years (historically this has been called a "victory lap".)

***

A caveat: I've noticed in recent years that teens and young adults (or, at least, a big enough proportion of the teen and young adult voices that reach me for me to notice) seem to perceive being considered/thought of/treated like a child (as opposed to an adult) as more positive than I do. 

 

They seem to feel that if you're treated like a child, you're being protected and cared for. Meanwhile, my experience - even in retrospect - was that being treated like a child meant my agency being disregarded, with no increase in care or protection. (And often, in my experience, "care and protection" was the label given to disregarding my agency.)

 

So, because of this, it's possible that today's young people might not feel liberated by being treated like an adult as opposed to like a child.

However, I am also aware that adults all too often will read or hear something about Young People Today and use that to treat young people with less agency than they should. I can't tell whether I myself am falling into that trap.

So, as with all aspects of life, the important thing is to listen to the people actually involved - today's high school students and recent high school graduates.

Books read in April 2022

New:

 

1. Nighttown by Timothy Hallinan

2.  Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment is Killing America's Heartland by Jonathan Metzl

 

Reread:

 

1. Kindred in Death

Can I claim to be an influencer now?

Five years ago, I blogged about the delight of having new Fluevogs and new Star Trek.

This year, Fluevog is making the uniform boots for Star Trek.

As I do for every such coincidence, I'm going to claim credit.

Building a better Sunshine List

1. Remove all names.  

 

Lately, I've been seeing people talk about expanding the Sunshine List to include all public servants at all pay levels, or even all jobs in all sectors of the economy, arguing that this would be good for equity.

 

One major problem with this plan is privacy. You can google a person - not even looking for their salary! - and you'll find their sunshine list entry. I googled the couple who bought my parents' house, and the first thing that came up was the husband's salary. Surely there's no reason for the daughter of the people you're buying your house from to know how much money you make! More importantly, your abuser or your stalker can also find your pay information!

 

Listing position titles without names will help keep private personal information private and, at the same time, remove much of the arguments and incentives against expanding the Sunshine List to include all jobs. 

 

I'd also be okay with including equity information if equity-seeking groups think this would be helpful.

 

2. List all information that goes into determining compensation. 

 

What is the position title and classification? How much education and experience does this person have? How much overtime did they work? How many people do they supervise? How consequential is their work? Do lives depend on them? Maybe also provide a link to their job description (what even is a "systems analyst"??)

In addition to making it clear that the jobs actually involve, this would also help with the Sunshine List's actual stated intent of determining whether good use is being made of public funds. For example, if a particular department is paying the equivalent of five full-time jobs in overtime, maybe that's a sign they need to hire more people? If everyone in a particular department has over 30 years of experience, maybe it's time to start recruiting some new trainees before everyone retires?

It would also be useful to include temporary and contract workers working for or on behalf of the government. How much do the outsourced office cleaners make? How much do substitute teachers make? How much do the extra nurses brought in to staff the ER during the pandemic make?

 

3. Include thresholds for how much housing each salary can buy.

 

Many people (including me in an old blog post that I now can't find) have pointed out that the Sunshine List threshold hasn't changed since its inception in 1996, and it really should be indexed.

 

But I have a bolder option in mind: include multiple thresholds on the list corresponding with how much housing that salary would buy in the current market, local to the location of the job.

 

For example, "This job makes $X per year in a location where you can buy an average 1 bedroom if you earn $0.8X and an average 2 bedroom if you earn $1.2X." 

If a job doesn't pay enough for a home big enough to raise a family in, or even for a 1 bedroom apartment, that information needs to be front and centre.

As an example of why this is important, a 1-bedroom in my decent but unremarkable condo building in my decent but unremarkable Toronto neighbourhood recently sold for 150% of the mortgage amount you could get for $100K in the current market. So someone could be on the Sunshine List and, at the same time, not be able to afford a 1-bedroom condo just like mine! (If you're just tuning in, I'm not on the Sunshine List - I bought preconstruction a decade ago when prices were drastically lower.) 

 

Conversely, if the job pays so much you can afford, like, multiple detached houses, that would also be highly informative - far more informative than just a big number!

Books read in March 2022

New: 

1. Lightfall: The Girl and the Galdurian by Tim Probert

2. Faithless in Death by J.D. Robb

3. she walks for days inside a thousand eye by Sharron Proulx-Turner

Reread:

 

1. Ritual in Death

2. Promises in Death

Magic words: "and also"

We live in a complex and imperfect world. This sometimes results in having complex and imperfect thoughts, feelings and opinions that aren't absolutely consistent with each other, and sometimes means we have to make imperfect decisions.

But when we talk about these things, it can sometimes come out sounding like we're justifying or excusing our imperfections, when in fact what we're trying to do is simply state that they exist.

In these situations, a useful little phrase is "and also". 

Compare:

 

1. "Amazon's labour conditions are appalling, but they're the only place I can find that sells this very specific item I need."

2. "Amazon's labour conditions are appalling, and also they're the only place I can find that sells this very specific item I need."

 

Example 1 could come across as defending or justifying or excusing their labour conditions, whereas Example 2 doesn't really do that. It more acknowledges the tension of the situation, without presuming to give a definitive resolution.

More examples:

- "That big strange dog that ran up and jumped on me was really poorly trained, and also that was the best thing that happened to me all week!"

- "Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch is a work of genius, and also Monty Python's Chinese Embassy sketch is appallingly racist."

- "I'm glad they're keeping safe by taking more precautions than are required by government policy, and also I'm disappointed that I won't get to meet the baby any time soon."

 

Both things can be true. We contain multitudes. We don't have to decide. We can acknowledge it and sit with it. 

"And also" helps us do that.

Knix Catalyst: a full-support sports bra that doesn't hurt!

This post is a review of a bra. The content contains non-sexual descriptions of breasts, and the links contain catalogue-style photos of bras being worn by models.

 

Three years after my very first bra-induced back pain incident rendered every sports bra I was professionally fitted with useless, I've finally found a sports bra that provides full support and doesn't hurt at all: the Knix Catalyst!

It holds my E-cup breasts firmly in place with no bouncing whatsoever, and it simply doesn't hurt my back or my ribs or anything. Despite my heavy breasts and protruding ribcage, it keeps my breasts lifted up high enough that they don't rest on my ribcage. Even if I have it on a too-loose setting (there are five rows of hooks rather than the usual three, so there's a lot of range available!), it gaps in the back and still stays snug and supportive under the underbust, unlike all too many bras that gap under the underbust (thereby making my breasts fall straight down with no support whatsoever) while still applying pressure (and, often, pain!) on my back.

I suspect the design feature that makes it painless is that all of the band is equally stretchy. There isn't an elastic at the bottom that's stiffer than the rest of the band, there are none of these things (I don't know what they're called) that are somehow stiffer than the rest of the band and consequently exert pressure in that part of my ribs. It's all perfectly even, thereby distributing the pressure over as much area as possible.

And, as an added bonus, it's a gorgeous shade of purple! (And is available in a bunch of other colours as well!)

A few things to know about buying from Knix:

- Knix products are not available at any other store. Therefore, this bra is likely not in your friendly local bra fitter's repertoire.

- Knix has its own sizing system that is completely unlike any other sizing system I have ever encountered. I am a 36E (in Simone Perele, Fantasie, Freya and Panache), and the Knix size chart put me at at size 7. However, the cups in the size 7 were too small, and I had to exchange it for a size 7+. Knix offers virtual fittings (which I haven't tried), and has stores in a few North American cities (including Toronto, but I haven't visited it).

 

 - Knix offers a 30 days to wash and wear return policy, so you can try on bras, sweat in them, wash them, etc. and return them if they don't work for you. As the Knix website repeatedly states, the bras do start out rather snug, but they loosen with washing and wearing. But even when it was snug, it didn't induce any back pain.

 

- The Knix website led me to believe that I'd be required or at least pressured to go through a virtual fitting in order to return my too-small bra, but in reality it was an automated system that produced a return mailing label instantly without any human intervention.

Overall, if you think any of Knix's products might meet your needs, I recommend trying them. The process is risk-free, the Catalyst certainly lived up to the hype, and I am definitely going to be trying a few other Knix products in the future.

If anyone from Knix is reading this, I'd love to see more bras that accommodate larger cups (quite a few of the styles seem to top out at the equivalent of a DD cup), and I'd also love to see a sleep bra made of a softer, more t-shirt-like material than the Catalyst is.

Books read in February 2022

New:

 

1. Our Darkest Night by Jennifer Robson

2. Jonny Appleseed by Joshua Whitehead 

3. Return of the Trickster by Eden Robinson

4. The School between Winter and Fairyland by Heather Fawcett

 

Reread:

 

1. Salvation in Death

Twosday!

(I know I already posted this on 2/2/22, but today is even twoier and it's a Tuesday!)

My third COVID vaccine experience

They opened up boosters to my demographic on December 20. On December 17, some of the major pharmacy chains let people in my cohort start signing up for waiting lists, so I signed up for every waiting list within a feasible walking distance. In the days that followed, I'd start every morning by checking the internet for new availabilities and calling pharmacies that were offering the vaccine but didn't have an online presence. (I made so many of these calls that I stopped being nervous about them!!) 

 

I was able to get an appointment for March 2, but nothing earlier came available for weeks.

I was starting to question limiting myself to walking distance. On one hand, I was on 35 waitlists - surely that's enough?? On the other hand, the fact of the matter is they weren't coming through - maybe it was time to take the risk of taking transit to get boosted sooner rather than waiting longer for something to come up nearby?

Then, in the first week of January, I got an email from my doctor's office (which had never emailed me in my life!) They were accepting vaccine appointments for later that week! So I called and was able to book an appointment for January 7.

My doctor's office limited the number of patients in the waiting room and had very aggressive ventilation going on. (I can't tell if if the ventilation was good enough, but there were fans and air purifiers and air blowing around everywhere. The doctor and the receptionist were both wearing gowns, two masks, and face shields. They rotated between 3 exam rooms, so each room had 45 minutes to air out between patients. 

I had to wait about 15 minutes before I was called because they were running a bit behind, but then got my shot (Moderna) quickly and was instructed to wait only 5 minutes afterwards. 

My symptoms were much milder with this dose than with previous doses. I slept normally and the injection site pain was mild enough that I didn't need Tylenol. My lymph nodes were inflamed for 48 hours, and then went back to normal.

 

My first period after the vaccine arrived 24 hours late, but other than that it was completely normal and I didn't notice any other symptoms.

How to gift your child wedding money when you don't trust their choice of spouse

From a recent Ethicist:

My wife and I have two adult daughters. They are very close in age and deeply connected to each other (thankfully). They attended private school and graduated from private colleges, without college debt, as we paid for everything. They are both really good people, and we are very proud of them.

Years ago, my wife and I agreed we would provide a fixed sum for our daughters’ weddings when the time came. (They could each decide how to spend it — on the ceremony, the honeymoon, a down payment on a house or whatever.) We decided to do this for a few reasons. We don’t see the value of a large and elaborate wedding. We gifted our children a superior education. And we wanted to avoid having either daughter complain that we spent more money on one wedding than the other or any last-minute requests for more money to upgrade the ceremony.

One of our daughters recently got married. We provided the gift money as promised (a not-shabby five figures), and it went toward a fairly fancy and large wedding.

Our other daughter isn’t in a serious relationship at this time. However, she has demonstrated some poor judgment in trusting people who have not earned her trust, and this makes me concerned about whom she might choose to marry.

Which brings me to my question: Are we obligated to gift the money as promised if we have a serious issue with the character of a future fiancé — his personal history, lack of a career path or ability to maintain steady employment? Our concerns would be based on her welfare, not on whether we “liked” the guy.

Another option: Would it be acceptable to place conditions on the gift? Or gift it in another fashion, such as a college savings account for future children? Something that would not go to waste or be divided in a messy divorce.

If we did any of that, we would be indicating that we are not in favor of this wedding and do not want to contribute toward it. But we would and will provide equal financial support in the future under certain circumstances. I hope this scenario won’t happen, but I do wonder what the proper and fair approach might be or if it is necessary to worry about “fairness.” Name Withheld

There's a simple way to reduce the risk of the the money being wasted on a partner of poor character while also avoiding treating your daughter unfairly or in a way she'd find alienating: give her the money now.

If she has the money now, while she's not in a relationship, she's far more likely to use it to benefit herself, towards a downpayment on a home or further education or to start her own business - or, yes, to put in a wedding fund, which would also double as emergency savings until such time as a wedding is imminent.

Divorce law varies by jurisdiction, but a general trend is that assets brought into a marriage are less likely to get divided during a divorce than assets acquired during the marriage. Prenuptial agreements can also reduce the likelihood of these assets getting divided. (As ever, people should consult with a family lawyer about their actual situation.)

Messaging is important here. It can be difficult to be the only unmarried person in your family, and you want to avoid presenting this to your daughter in a way that might hint at either "You are a person who chooses bad relationships!" or "You are a person who will never get married!"

This is where the pandemic comes in handy!

The pandemic has shed light on the many ways previously-unquestioned practices don't serve everyone well, and has led many people to rethink a lot of things they previously took for granted. 

You can use this to construct a narrative where the pandemic has made you rethink tying this financial gift to getting married.

Example: "We were recently [thinking/talking/reading an article] about how the pandemic has hindered dating and developing new relationships, and what kind of impacts this might have in the medium and long term. And we were also [thinking/talking/reading] about how the pandemic has driven up housing costs and generally made life more difficult for people just starting out, and what kinds of impacts this might have in the medium and long term. And we realized that it's hideously old-fashioned and completely unfair to tie the gift money to getting married. Therefore, we are going to give it to you now, so that you are empowered to use it to get started out in life according to your own best judgment, without having to wait for some arbitrary milestone, with our apologies for making you wait this long."

Basically, approach it from a position of humbly correcting a flaw in your own previous policies, without any mention whatosever of your evaluation of your daughter or her future spouse.

This is proper and fair, deprives your daughter of nothing, maximizes her opportunities to benefit from the money herself without being influenced by a questionable spouse, and keeps your relationship with her as positive and judgement-free as it has ever been.

Two!

Books read in January 2022

1. Fields Where They Lay by Timothy Hallinan

2. Charlie Thorne and the Last Equation by Stuart Gibbs

3. Dogs on the Trail: A Year in the Life by Blair Braverman and Quince Mountain

4. Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

Flaws in my antiracism education: educating us like children rather than future adults

If I'm talking to one of the adults who was around when I was a kid and I mention one of my racism-related shortcomings, such as the fact that I was blithely ignorant of the racist tropes contained in the media I was consuming, their response is invariably "But you were just a kid!"

 

Yes, I was just a kid. 

And now I'm not. Now I'm a middle-aged adult. A middle-aged adult who's woefully inadequate at even spotting racism, to say nothing of countering racism. 

 

And, as a middle-aged adult who's established in my profession and my community, I have (or am perceived to have) a certain amount of influence. I have no actual authority, but I can sometimes set the tone. If I say "This is a problem we should do something about," I tend to get listened to, insofar as even if they opt not to address the problem, they take seriously the fact that I see a problem. 

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, I am currently too ignorant to reliably see the problems. Even though I'm trying to do the work and learn about problems that exist and what I can do about them, I haven't yet developed the ability to extrapolate from what I've learned and identify other problems that I haven't specifically read about or been told about.

If my antiracism education had led me to start thinking along these lines, maybe I'd be better at it. Maybe by the time I'd aged into the privilege and influence that comes with being an established middle-aged adult, I'd have been thinking about it for longer and have come up with some clue about how to actually make use of that privilege and influence.

My other posts in this series have been entitled "flaws in my education". This one is entitled "flaws in my antiracism education", because the other aspects of my education did in fact assume that I personally and my peers in general would eventually be in positions of authority or influence. 

 

"Leadership" was a buzzword when I was in high school. Our teachers would compliment us or respond to others' compliments of us by saying "They're leaders!" If you'd asked any of the adults involved in our upbringing and education, they would absolutely have agreed that we would eventually be in positions of authority or influence, hiring people, training people, making decisions that affect people's lives and affect broader policy, righting the wrongs of the past.

Except, apparently, when it came to racism. Then we were just a bunch of kids who couldn't possibly be expected to know better.

 

Which is an obstacle on the path to becoming adults who can do better.

An alternative to "I'm sorry" is "My condolences"

Dear Miss Manners: I am a reasonably empathetic person. I’m not a sob sister, but I do feel true sympathy for other people’s misfortunes. But I have reached my limit.

If someone tells me that a family member has died, and I respond with an “I'm sorry,” the rejoinder is often, “Not your fault.” If a friend mentions her recently broken bone, her divorce, her speeding ticket or broken fingernail, I obviously say that I am sorry. Again, the response is, “Not your fault.”

I agree that I was not the cause of any of the aforementioned disasters; I was not indicating my guilt. I am certainly old enough to say “You have my sympathy,” but I am not formal enough to pull it off. “I see” seems heartless. “Imagine!” seems cruel. “That is so sad” sounds sarcastic.

In this age of online trolls, rudeness passing as humor, and constant hate speech by politicos, what does one say to show empathy with a friend’s or acquaintance’s tale of woe, discomfort or loss? I need an appropriate response or I’m going to start saying “huh.”

A response that would meet the letter-writer's needs is: "My condolences." 

You can make it more formal or intensive (e.g. "My most heartfelt condolences to you and your family") or just leave it as it is, depending on what's most suitable to the context. 

You can also use "My condolences" as a wry response for things like speeding tickets or broken nails, but if you want a more sincere response, and option is "Oh no!", with the same tone and delivery you'd use if the next thing coming out of your mouth was "I'm so sorry!"

I agree with Miss Manners and with LW that "I'm sorry" is perfectly appropriate, but apparently this standard script leads the people around LW to respond in a way that LW dislikes, so it's time to change up the script. I am surprised that Miss Manners didn't suggest this phrasing in her response.