Context
As I was leaving the library for lunch today, a woman came down in the elevator with me and a tweenish girl who appeared to be her daughter. The younger lady was wearing the tiny shorts that are in vogue these days. As we stepped out into the alley behind the library, a gentleman in his twenties or thirties gave the girl a once-over.
Commentary
I thought the gentleman's scrutiny of the young lady was inappropriate for a couple of reasons: she was much younger than him and, as I said, probably walking with her mother. The fact that he was checking out a stranger also came to mind, but realistically, that happens all the time. Driving While Black is the term we use for unwarranted traffic stops based on the color of one's skin; perhaps I'll coin the term Walking While Female to describe the "She's on the street, therefore she's on display for my enjoyment" mentality.
Which brings me to the shorts. Is it the case that someone wearing short shorts is deliberately putting herself on display? Possibly not, because sometimes clothing that happens to be good-looking also happens to be comfortable, functional, and/or mandatory.
On the other hand, it would be silly for me to say ladies young and old don't ever try to attract male attention with their clothing. For myself, I can think of five different things I'm trying/have tried to say by wearing attractive clothing, "attractive" here being defined as smart, stylish, sexy, or some combination of those.
1) "I'm single and looking. If you're a sufficiently attractive, interesting and well-mannered guy, you're welcome to make a romantic or sexual pitch in my direction."
2) "I feel ugly (or some other kind of 'bad') today. You're welcome to pay some attention to me, as it may raise my self-esteem, but I'm not interesting in starting anything."
3) "I feel pretty (or some other kind of 'good') today. If you want to look at me and share in my general positive mood, yay! Anything beyond a look and a smile will be presumptuous, though."
4) "I'm with my husband and I'm dressed this way so he won't be embarrassed to be seen with me. You're welcome to appreciate his impeccable taste in women."
5) "I'm dressed this way FOR my husband. You're not welcome to participate at all."
Unfortunately, my actual clothing doesn't explicitly convey any of these messages, and it's probably not fair to expect guys to be able to discern the correct explanation in the amount of time it takes me to walk by them. However, I would state that it's equally unfair for a guy to assume any one of them, and refuse to give up that assumption when I make my intentions clear. I'm willing to count a little scrutiny as human nature. More than that without encouragement is just plain rude.
What did you see today?
6/17/2011
6/15/2011
I heard someone talk about complaints
Context
I'm a long term care visiting volunteer for the Caddo Council on Aging's Ombudsmen Program for nursing homes, so I get to hear a lot of residents' complaints about the facility I visit. Today, I had occasion to discuss these complaints with a staff member, and she expressed her belief that some people will always have something to complain about and will never be satisfied.
Commentary
I just have one quick thing to say about customer service: the fact that someone always has something to complain about doesn't eradicate our obligation to address the complaints.
What did you hear today?
I'm a long term care visiting volunteer for the Caddo Council on Aging's Ombudsmen Program for nursing homes, so I get to hear a lot of residents' complaints about the facility I visit. Today, I had occasion to discuss these complaints with a staff member, and she expressed her belief that some people will always have something to complain about and will never be satisfied.
Commentary
I just have one quick thing to say about customer service: the fact that someone always has something to complain about doesn't eradicate our obligation to address the complaints.
What did you hear today?
6/12/2011
I saw an editorial title
Context
I read an editorial today in The Shreveport Times on debit card swipe fees. It was entitled Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side and can be found here, at least for now. The Times appears to clean out their archive on a regular basis.
Commentary
So this debit card swipe issue that I've commented on before has some legs. I find this surprising, but maybe that's because although I use my debit card frequently, I never think of myself as being in the majority on any lifestyle issue.
I don't think we need to rehash the legislation again. Instead, I want to talk about the title of the piece: Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side. Since that's a sentiment I think we can all agree on, I have good news for you: elected officials are always on the people's side. It's just a matter of which people.
Well, it's a democracy, right? So they should be on the side of the majority of the people. Sounds reasonable, especially if you modify that to say "a majority of the voters," because that's who politicians need to please in order to keep being elected.
But majority rule is only part of the equation in American government. We also believe in minority rights. That's why I hate it when people say (and legislate as if) the U.S. is a Christian country. Yes, a majority of the adults here self-identify as Christians, but if we call it a Christian country, we're trampling over the rights of the minority of people who don't identify with that religion. Just say we're a country with a lot of Christians and I'll be perfectly happy.
OK then, can we agree, as our editorialist seems to be contending, that elected officials should be on the side of the most downtrodden people? Well, it might be nice, and certainly the Bible says the church should behave that way, but again, we're not a Christian country. Sometimes the government stands on the side of the most powerful people (cynics will say "most of the time") because supporting them is perceived to benefit the nation as a whole. You may think that's a bad idea, but I for one think we gained a lot more from NAFTA than we lost.
Now it's my turn to be cynical. I think when we say elected officials should be on the side of the people, we mean "people like us." I don't feel the need to comment on that (surprise, surprise!); I'm just positing the theory.
Please understand, I think the editorial mentioned above is well written and makes several good arguments, even though I don't hold precisely the same opinion as the person who wrote it. I just think the title is meaningless. We haven't come to the point where robots are taking over, so elected officials are always on the side of the some people somewhere.
What did you see today?
I read an editorial today in The Shreveport Times on debit card swipe fees. It was entitled Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side and can be found here, at least for now. The Times appears to clean out their archive on a regular basis.
Commentary
So this debit card swipe issue that I've commented on before has some legs. I find this surprising, but maybe that's because although I use my debit card frequently, I never think of myself as being in the majority on any lifestyle issue.
I don't think we need to rehash the legislation again. Instead, I want to talk about the title of the piece: Elected Officials Should be on the People's Side. Since that's a sentiment I think we can all agree on, I have good news for you: elected officials are always on the people's side. It's just a matter of which people.
Well, it's a democracy, right? So they should be on the side of the majority of the people. Sounds reasonable, especially if you modify that to say "a majority of the voters," because that's who politicians need to please in order to keep being elected.
But majority rule is only part of the equation in American government. We also believe in minority rights. That's why I hate it when people say (and legislate as if) the U.S. is a Christian country. Yes, a majority of the adults here self-identify as Christians, but if we call it a Christian country, we're trampling over the rights of the minority of people who don't identify with that religion. Just say we're a country with a lot of Christians and I'll be perfectly happy.
OK then, can we agree, as our editorialist seems to be contending, that elected officials should be on the side of the most downtrodden people? Well, it might be nice, and certainly the Bible says the church should behave that way, but again, we're not a Christian country. Sometimes the government stands on the side of the most powerful people (cynics will say "most of the time") because supporting them is perceived to benefit the nation as a whole. You may think that's a bad idea, but I for one think we gained a lot more from NAFTA than we lost.
Now it's my turn to be cynical. I think when we say elected officials should be on the side of the people, we mean "people like us." I don't feel the need to comment on that (surprise, surprise!); I'm just positing the theory.
Please understand, I think the editorial mentioned above is well written and makes several good arguments, even though I don't hold precisely the same opinion as the person who wrote it. I just think the title is meaningless. We haven't come to the point where robots are taking over, so elected officials are always on the side of the some people somewhere.
What did you see today?
6/10/2011
I saw a call for experts
Context
An e-mail list I subscribe to called HARO (what this stands for and more details here) is supported by ads. One of today's ads came from an internet media company. They were looking for experts in various fields to star in podcasts distributed to a number of their websites. I'm not providing a lot of detail because the terms of service on HARO say I can't reproduce the contents of the e-mails elsewhere without their express permission.
Commentary
One of the reasons I joined the HARO list is because they say something I believe: everyone is an expert on something. When I read the ad today, I thought, "I could provide an expert opinion on a couple of topics, like customer service or writing."
On the other hand, I don't have an expert's credentials in either of these fields. I'm interested in both and believe I have useful things to say, but does that make me a credible source? Maybe I'm just someone with an ax to grind and a fondness for hearing myself talk. OK, no "maybe" about that, but you get my point.
In fact, it's even hard to say if people who do have credentials are credible. I recently borrowed a book called Wrong: Why experts keep failing us - and how to know when not to trust them from the Jefferson Parish Library. Even though I haven't started it yet, I doubt it's lacking in examples of experts failing us.
So how does one know what to believe? I try to use a three-pronged approach:
1) What are the credentials behind the theory? Credentials are far from infallible, but for a starting point, I find the CDC more believable than an actress on the topic of vaccines. Also, credentials imply commitment to me, someone who considered the subject important enough to jump through what may seem like meaningless hoops to the rest of the world because he/she really wanted to arrive at the correct answer.
2) How does this theory fit in with what I already know? I may be an expert on nothing else, but I do know my own mind. Too much reliance on it means I only listen to people who support my prejudices, but too little and I end up unmoored and unable to tell anyone why I've chosen one course over another.
3) Does this mode of thinking yield good results? In almost all cases, only time will tell on this one, but once time has told, I don't get to rely on #1 and #2 to override the evidence before me.
#3 makes me believe flexibility is the key to untangling the expertise knot. If you follow an expert of any stripe for just as long as her/his approach yields good results and no further, I think your rate of failure will be quite manageable indeed.
What did you see today?
An e-mail list I subscribe to called HARO (what this stands for and more details here) is supported by ads. One of today's ads came from an internet media company. They were looking for experts in various fields to star in podcasts distributed to a number of their websites. I'm not providing a lot of detail because the terms of service on HARO say I can't reproduce the contents of the e-mails elsewhere without their express permission.
Commentary
One of the reasons I joined the HARO list is because they say something I believe: everyone is an expert on something. When I read the ad today, I thought, "I could provide an expert opinion on a couple of topics, like customer service or writing."
On the other hand, I don't have an expert's credentials in either of these fields. I'm interested in both and believe I have useful things to say, but does that make me a credible source? Maybe I'm just someone with an ax to grind and a fondness for hearing myself talk. OK, no "maybe" about that, but you get my point.
In fact, it's even hard to say if people who do have credentials are credible. I recently borrowed a book called Wrong: Why experts keep failing us - and how to know when not to trust them from the Jefferson Parish Library. Even though I haven't started it yet, I doubt it's lacking in examples of experts failing us.
So how does one know what to believe? I try to use a three-pronged approach:
1) What are the credentials behind the theory? Credentials are far from infallible, but for a starting point, I find the CDC more believable than an actress on the topic of vaccines. Also, credentials imply commitment to me, someone who considered the subject important enough to jump through what may seem like meaningless hoops to the rest of the world because he/she really wanted to arrive at the correct answer.
2) How does this theory fit in with what I already know? I may be an expert on nothing else, but I do know my own mind. Too much reliance on it means I only listen to people who support my prejudices, but too little and I end up unmoored and unable to tell anyone why I've chosen one course over another.
3) Does this mode of thinking yield good results? In almost all cases, only time will tell on this one, but once time has told, I don't get to rely on #1 and #2 to override the evidence before me.
#3 makes me believe flexibility is the key to untangling the expertise knot. If you follow an expert of any stripe for just as long as her/his approach yields good results and no further, I think your rate of failure will be quite manageable indeed.
What did you see today?
6/04/2011
I saw a driver slow down
Context
When I drive to Texarkana on Saturdays to attend my Quaker meeting, I usually obey the posted speed limit. Since a great deal of my trip takes place on a two-lane highway, this means when people pass me, they then pull in front of me.
A gentleman driving an older sedan with cracks in the windshield did this today. Shortly thereafter we came upon three vehicles on the opposite shoulder, one of which belonged to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's office and had its lights flashing. Louisiana law requires us to move over or slow down for vehicles with flashing lights on our own shoulder, but there are no obligations pertaining to vehicles on the opposite side. Nevertheless, the guy who had just passed me slowed down considerably, even going a few MPH under the speed limit. I was tempted to pass him, but restrained myself.
Commentary
My first reaction to the driver slowing down ahead of me was, "My driving decisions make my life easier." Consider: except for the "move over or slow down" rule mentioned above, I never have to change how I'm driving when I see a member of law enforcement. Other people have to make numerous adjustments.
Not that my method is entirely stress-free. When people pass me on the two-lane, they sometimes express annoyance, and I'm not completely immune to that. Nonetheless, I'd have to say my method of driving is the one that brings me the most peace.
Making all our decisions according to which ones will bring us the most peace is not a bad way to go, although it is complicated by the need to predict how we'll feel in the future on a regular basis. If nothing else, we can evaluate our current path to see if it's bringing us peace and make adjustments accordingly. Who knows? Doing this often enough might improve our powers of prediction.
So what do we define as peace? I'll admit that for me it has the air of "I know it when I feel it," but I'll try to be more definite. I think we can all agree that peace is not worry or stress or guilt, but I would venture to say it's not necessarily happiness or satisfaction, either. As mentioned previously, I often get a great deal of visceral satisfaction when I do the wrong thing. There's always psychic damage to clean up afterwards, though.
Absence of conflict is a reasonably good definition of peace, but it depends on how you define conflict (wheels within wheels!). I often find that making a good decision for me causes opposition from other people. What really tears me up is when I make the right choice for myself and someone else makes the right choice for her/himself and we still end up in conflict! These disputes can usually be resolved by recognizing our differing needs and perspectives, but still!
I also can't really say that making good decisions means I won't be conflicted about them. Change, even good change, is often very stressful. However, I usually find that once I've made my initial commitment and taken the first few steps, most of the strain falls away. Peace manifests in the feeling that a way is opening up for me.
If peace is the revelation of a path we can follow, then I have to say that neither complacency nor resignation fits the bill. Complacency does its level best to never move at all, and resignation implies that one is not deciding where to go. I do, however, have to leave room for the radical resignation that says, "I'm giving up everything to follow God's will."
There, I did it. Stuck God into the middle of a perfectly good (psychological? philosophical?) treatise. I can't help it, though. For me, even seeking peace is related to my religious beliefs that there is a God, that He cares about me, and that He has a plan. When I say "a way is opening up," I mean God's way. Realistically, I don't believe it's actually possible for us to thwart God's will. On the other hand, I think we can cause ourselves a lot of stress and worry by trying to.
What did you see today?
When I drive to Texarkana on Saturdays to attend my Quaker meeting, I usually obey the posted speed limit. Since a great deal of my trip takes place on a two-lane highway, this means when people pass me, they then pull in front of me.
A gentleman driving an older sedan with cracks in the windshield did this today. Shortly thereafter we came upon three vehicles on the opposite shoulder, one of which belonged to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's office and had its lights flashing. Louisiana law requires us to move over or slow down for vehicles with flashing lights on our own shoulder, but there are no obligations pertaining to vehicles on the opposite side. Nevertheless, the guy who had just passed me slowed down considerably, even going a few MPH under the speed limit. I was tempted to pass him, but restrained myself.
Commentary
My first reaction to the driver slowing down ahead of me was, "My driving decisions make my life easier." Consider: except for the "move over or slow down" rule mentioned above, I never have to change how I'm driving when I see a member of law enforcement. Other people have to make numerous adjustments.
Not that my method is entirely stress-free. When people pass me on the two-lane, they sometimes express annoyance, and I'm not completely immune to that. Nonetheless, I'd have to say my method of driving is the one that brings me the most peace.
Making all our decisions according to which ones will bring us the most peace is not a bad way to go, although it is complicated by the need to predict how we'll feel in the future on a regular basis. If nothing else, we can evaluate our current path to see if it's bringing us peace and make adjustments accordingly. Who knows? Doing this often enough might improve our powers of prediction.
So what do we define as peace? I'll admit that for me it has the air of "I know it when I feel it," but I'll try to be more definite. I think we can all agree that peace is not worry or stress or guilt, but I would venture to say it's not necessarily happiness or satisfaction, either. As mentioned previously, I often get a great deal of visceral satisfaction when I do the wrong thing. There's always psychic damage to clean up afterwards, though.
Absence of conflict is a reasonably good definition of peace, but it depends on how you define conflict (wheels within wheels!). I often find that making a good decision for me causes opposition from other people. What really tears me up is when I make the right choice for myself and someone else makes the right choice for her/himself and we still end up in conflict! These disputes can usually be resolved by recognizing our differing needs and perspectives, but still!
I also can't really say that making good decisions means I won't be conflicted about them. Change, even good change, is often very stressful. However, I usually find that once I've made my initial commitment and taken the first few steps, most of the strain falls away. Peace manifests in the feeling that a way is opening up for me.
If peace is the revelation of a path we can follow, then I have to say that neither complacency nor resignation fits the bill. Complacency does its level best to never move at all, and resignation implies that one is not deciding where to go. I do, however, have to leave room for the radical resignation that says, "I'm giving up everything to follow God's will."
There, I did it. Stuck God into the middle of a perfectly good (psychological? philosophical?) treatise. I can't help it, though. For me, even seeking peace is related to my religious beliefs that there is a God, that He cares about me, and that He has a plan. When I say "a way is opening up," I mean God's way. Realistically, I don't believe it's actually possible for us to thwart God's will. On the other hand, I think we can cause ourselves a lot of stress and worry by trying to.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)