Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
4/11/2009
I heard a guiding principle
Context
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
4/03/2009
I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination
Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
4/01/2009
I saw compliments on something I did
Context
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)