Context
I was reading Annie's Mailbox again today. The middle letter was from a woman who described some very disrespectful behavior on her boyfriend's part, who then compounded the offense by telling the writer that all men were like him and she should seek professional help for her insecurities. My husband and I agreed that she should in fact seek professional help, right after dumping his sorry butt.
Commentary
What makes us stay with people who treat us badly? I suppose there's more than one answer, but I always seem to encounter this one when I ask people about it: "This is the best I can do, so I'd better not blow it."
I'm not against humility per se, but when it allows people to continue behaving badly I think it's counter-productive. So I'm going to suggest we channel our low self-esteem in a different direction. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we said, "I don't deserve much, but I'm going to go for the best and then work hard to deserve what I get?"
What did you see today?
7/09/2009
I saw a bumper sticker
Context
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.
Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?
If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.
In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.
What did you see today?
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.
Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?
If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.
In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.
What did you see today?
7/06/2009
I heard a co-worker describe a work situation
Context
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)