I wrote about chores a couple of months ago here
I agree entirely with JSB (in comments below) that giving children an allowance in exchange for chores "is a way to get the kids to help out around the house". But I think there are much better ways of having a clean house than treating one's children as cheap labour.
If cleaning is important to a parent, they should do the cleaning. If the child sees it is something interesting/fun/energetic/worthwhile, then the child will be interested in joining in.
If the parent cannot persuade their family rationally of the need for a certain level of cleanliness, and of the need for a certain level of filial assistance to maintain that level, then they should either rethink their desired level of cleanliness or ask for help in solving what is - after all - the parent's problem. To link such assistance to an allowance is an abuse of power.It does not give the child a say in how their living space looks or how their time is spent - and why? - because the parents control the family finances.
'Nothing is more demoralizing than being forced to work for nothing' except possibly being forced to do something the value of which you do not appreciate in order to meet your side of a hopelessly lop-sided bargain that your parents have coerced you into.
Sharing rented accommodation as a student can provide better models for dividing household chores in autonomy respecting ways. The humble rota causes many a falling out. The best situation I've encountered is one where one person who really enjoyed laundry did all the laundry, another who enjoyed getting her rubber gloves on regularly cleaned the bathroom and kitchen surfaces, and a third who hated cleaning but loved cooking did most of the catering and had no idea where the washing powder was kept... everyone contributed according to their values and priorities.
I have known quite small children take on major chores (like looking after the poultry, involving getting up 20 minutes before everyone else to feed them before school) not because anyone forced them to, or paid them to, but because they WANTED to.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Monday, February 21, 2005
allowances
An allegory:
Husband has a job; wife works at home, being a homemaker and bringing up the children. Wife wants to buy a book.
Husband says "well, I have the money in my account, but you don't get your allowance until Thursday, and by the way, you have to wash my car and change three fuses before you can have it. And you can only buy the book if I think it is appropriate"
It all depends on one’s attitude to property and resources within the family. I do not think those doing the earning should dictate what happens to all the money; other members of the family contribute to family life in other ways but do not end up with $$$.
In favour of an allowance system: if family works out how much spending money is left after rent, bills, food etc., and works out what sorts of money-spending activities each is likely to want, then sharing out the money saves the child(ren) having to ask for permission or approval. It respects their autonomy, and means that they themselves can learn (with advice where asked for) about managing their finances, and about choosing the resources they want around them.If child blows a week’s allowance on something they immediately regret, then parent can help them minimise the frustration (selling item on Ebay? What is the shop’s returns policy? Does a friend want to do a swop?)
In favour of not having an allowance: as long as everyone has a sense of how much money is available, and everyone is prepared to put a rational case for their spending plans, and everyone’s desire for a share of the family resources is met, then handing the money around can be done in an ad hoc way. This requires everyone involved to be happy to justify their expenditure – it might be rather collectivist for some. “Mum can I have £30 for some DVDs?” “no, we have no spare money” “why not?” *blush* *stonewall* *hedge* *equivocate* “your hair cut looks lovely, mum; what did it cost?…”
At the moment, I would advocate an allowance for what used to be called “pin money”, so that every child, from when se expresses an interest in having money, can buy a magazine, some sweets, some Star Wars stickers, a small lego set, without having to ask anyone. Instant larger purchases have implications for the finances of the whole family, and therefore should be open to discussion.
I would never advocate forcing a child to perform tasks for a share of the family money, especially since it is not easy for children to earn money in the West. If what the family can spare is insufficient for the child’s needs, then helping them to make money legally should be a priority for the parent – paper round; computer programmer; making cakes for the Women’s Institute; whatever.But forcing someone to vacuum in order to be allowed a share of the family resources implies that only those actually earning $$$ should have a say in how they are spent.
Husband has a job; wife works at home, being a homemaker and bringing up the children. Wife wants to buy a book.
Husband says "well, I have the money in my account, but you don't get your allowance until Thursday, and by the way, you have to wash my car and change three fuses before you can have it. And you can only buy the book if I think it is appropriate"
It all depends on one’s attitude to property and resources within the family. I do not think those doing the earning should dictate what happens to all the money; other members of the family contribute to family life in other ways but do not end up with $$$.
In favour of an allowance system: if family works out how much spending money is left after rent, bills, food etc., and works out what sorts of money-spending activities each is likely to want, then sharing out the money saves the child(ren) having to ask for permission or approval. It respects their autonomy, and means that they themselves can learn (with advice where asked for) about managing their finances, and about choosing the resources they want around them.If child blows a week’s allowance on something they immediately regret, then parent can help them minimise the frustration (selling item on Ebay? What is the shop’s returns policy? Does a friend want to do a swop?)
In favour of not having an allowance: as long as everyone has a sense of how much money is available, and everyone is prepared to put a rational case for their spending plans, and everyone’s desire for a share of the family resources is met, then handing the money around can be done in an ad hoc way. This requires everyone involved to be happy to justify their expenditure – it might be rather collectivist for some. “Mum can I have £30 for some DVDs?” “no, we have no spare money” “why not?” *blush* *stonewall* *hedge* *equivocate* “your hair cut looks lovely, mum; what did it cost?…”
At the moment, I would advocate an allowance for what used to be called “pin money”, so that every child, from when se expresses an interest in having money, can buy a magazine, some sweets, some Star Wars stickers, a small lego set, without having to ask anyone. Instant larger purchases have implications for the finances of the whole family, and therefore should be open to discussion.
I would never advocate forcing a child to perform tasks for a share of the family money, especially since it is not easy for children to earn money in the West. If what the family can spare is insufficient for the child’s needs, then helping them to make money legally should be a priority for the parent – paper round; computer programmer; making cakes for the Women’s Institute; whatever.But forcing someone to vacuum in order to be allowed a share of the family resources implies that only those actually earning $$$ should have a say in how they are spent.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
linkage
I just came across this site:
http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/
I haven't read much of what is on it yet, but it struck me as a FANTASTIC
way for a vicar to broaden the audiences for her sermons. Buh-bye hard pews. Buh-bye attention wandering for 30 seconds and losing the rest of the audience.
Woo hoo.
http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/
I haven't read much of what is on it yet, but it struck me as a FANTASTIC
way for a vicar to broaden the audiences for her sermons. Buh-bye hard pews. Buh-bye attention wandering for 30 seconds and losing the rest of the audience.
Woo hoo.
fussing #2
So fussing is making an unnecessary bother about something which really isn’t important: “Have you got enough layers on, dear?” “Oh, don’t FUSS mother”
It concerns me that the US parlance for a crying baby is that se is “fussy” or “fussing”. If a child is hungry, uncomfortable, tired, frightened, thirsty, cold, bored, or any of the other challenges which a baby does not have the physical resources to overcome alone, what is se supposed to do to avoid having hir emotions branded with the same brush-off as a suburban lady with too many antimacassars? Wait patiently for someone to notice se needs help?
Is it silly to concern oneself with definitions, or do the words we use to talk about children reveal what we really think of them?
It concerns me that the US parlance for a crying baby is that se is “fussy” or “fussing”. If a child is hungry, uncomfortable, tired, frightened, thirsty, cold, bored, or any of the other challenges which a baby does not have the physical resources to overcome alone, what is se supposed to do to avoid having hir emotions branded with the same brush-off as a suburban lady with too many antimacassars? Wait patiently for someone to notice se needs help?
Is it silly to concern oneself with definitions, or do the words we use to talk about children reveal what we really think of them?
Saturday, February 19, 2005
fussy children
This is an idiom which just doesn't travel across the Atlantic. It always makes me uneasy when I hear children described as fussy.
In the UK, if someone is fussy it means
a) that they are constantly rearranging the doilies on their perfectly clean nested occasional tables
OR
b) that they will only eat steamed vegetables, rice not pasta, and drink wine only from the Loire Valley
I know it doesn't mean the same in the US, but I wonder whether it carries the same perjorative connotations? If so, then my unease is justified... more on why later, maybe
In the UK, if someone is fussy it means
a) that they are constantly rearranging the doilies on their perfectly clean nested occasional tables
OR
b) that they will only eat steamed vegetables, rice not pasta, and drink wine only from the Loire Valley
I know it doesn't mean the same in the US, but I wonder whether it carries the same perjorative connotations? If so, then my unease is justified... more on why later, maybe
Sunday, February 06, 2005
The Lady and the Unicorn
This book follows Tracy Chevalier’s usual structure of taking the creation of an art work as her imaginative starting point. I love the unicorn tapestries, and every few pages I found myself turning to the reproductions at the ends of the books to look at a detail or just enjoy the sequence. Chevalier has a gift for making a scene come alive through evoking a sense: the feeling of a garden under one’s fingers; the smell of cloves for curing toothache.
Of course, the unicorn stories are all about the seduction and capturing of a wild beast, and the thread of seduction, forbidden or welcomed, runs through the book. There was too much detail for my taste – some passages were squelchier than necessary. And lust was made to be too much of a (blinding) motivating force… but this all connected with the seduction and taming of the characters in the book, so I understand why Chevalier did it.
I prefer books where the characters are motivated by saving their honour or their country or staying alive or solving some practical problem – characters who are concerned with acting in a morally right way, and wrestle with achieving that. Good children's books do this because obviously sex is not a motivating force, and sex is actually pretty boring as a plot device (what does it achieve, beyond titillation?)
Of course, the unicorn stories are all about the seduction and capturing of a wild beast, and the thread of seduction, forbidden or welcomed, runs through the book. There was too much detail for my taste – some passages were squelchier than necessary. And lust was made to be too much of a (blinding) motivating force… but this all connected with the seduction and taming of the characters in the book, so I understand why Chevalier did it.
I prefer books where the characters are motivated by saving their honour or their country or staying alive or solving some practical problem – characters who are concerned with acting in a morally right way, and wrestle with achieving that. Good children's books do this because obviously sex is not a motivating force, and sex is actually pretty boring as a plot device (what does it achieve, beyond titillation?)
Saturday, January 29, 2005
The Case for Democracy
...by Natan Sharansky
Sharansky argues that the best weapon against tyranny is the creation of free societies. He argues that the West can and should intervene, using the tactic of linkage. If a tyrannical regime (presiding over a "fear" society) wants to trade with free societies, such trade must be linked to them changing their human rights record: the population must be able to express their views freely without fear of reprisal.
The most uplifting aspect of the book is Sharansky's narration of the collapse of the soviet union. The most depressing aspect is the hash that he considers everyone - Europe, the US, successive Israeli governments - has made of moving towards a separate Palestinian state. I was feelling quite optimistic about the role of the security fence in removing terrorist violence, but he reminded me that leaving the Palestinian regime to continue as a "fear society" condemns its people to more years of poverty, doublethink, and propaganda.
He makes no connection to the micro-level, but I think his message applies there to. Just as a free, democratic society functions better than a fear-filled dictatorship, which inevitably carries the seeds of its eventual implosion, so a family with authoritarian parents is doomed to disaster as the children defect to freer climes as soon as they have the physical and mental power.
Sharansky argues that the best weapon against tyranny is the creation of free societies. He argues that the West can and should intervene, using the tactic of linkage. If a tyrannical regime (presiding over a "fear" society) wants to trade with free societies, such trade must be linked to them changing their human rights record: the population must be able to express their views freely without fear of reprisal.
The most uplifting aspect of the book is Sharansky's narration of the collapse of the soviet union. The most depressing aspect is the hash that he considers everyone - Europe, the US, successive Israeli governments - has made of moving towards a separate Palestinian state. I was feelling quite optimistic about the role of the security fence in removing terrorist violence, but he reminded me that leaving the Palestinian regime to continue as a "fear society" condemns its people to more years of poverty, doublethink, and propaganda.
He makes no connection to the micro-level, but I think his message applies there to. Just as a free, democratic society functions better than a fear-filled dictatorship, which inevitably carries the seeds of its eventual implosion, so a family with authoritarian parents is doomed to disaster as the children defect to freer climes as soon as they have the physical and mental power.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
random recipe
I was waiting for the groceries to arrive, but needed to make supper.
So this is what I did:
fry a couple of onions and some garlic while thinking...
add about 2lb lamb mince and brown.
In a great wave of inspiration, add a teaspoon of ground cumin, same of ginger, same of coriander. And a chopped up dried red chilli.
Then (on a roll now) add a tin of tomatoes and a small tin of tomato puree. Throw in some cardamom pods. Pepper. A beef stock cube (I thought it needed beefing up)
Cook for about 20 minutes, while thinking what on earth to do with this mixture. Add a tin of black-eyed beans in desperation.
Put a good dollop of live yoghurt in the bottom of a lasagne dish; soften some lasagne sheets in boiling water and put on top. Shove in the random lamb gloop, put on another layer of lasagne and then another layer of yoghurt. No cheese on top (didn't I say? We were waiting for the grocery shopping to arrive... and one of the guests is lactose intolerant)
Cook for about 40 minutes in a medium oven.By the time it was ready, the groceries had arrived so instead of the anticipated frozen peas, we had broccoli. This dish was a HIT!!!
I wanted to record it for posterity. If I had more minutes, I'd do some half-cocked tie in to parenting ;-)
So this is what I did:
fry a couple of onions and some garlic while thinking...
add about 2lb lamb mince and brown.
In a great wave of inspiration, add a teaspoon of ground cumin, same of ginger, same of coriander. And a chopped up dried red chilli.
Then (on a roll now) add a tin of tomatoes and a small tin of tomato puree. Throw in some cardamom pods. Pepper. A beef stock cube (I thought it needed beefing up)
Cook for about 20 minutes, while thinking what on earth to do with this mixture. Add a tin of black-eyed beans in desperation.
Put a good dollop of live yoghurt in the bottom of a lasagne dish; soften some lasagne sheets in boiling water and put on top. Shove in the random lamb gloop, put on another layer of lasagne and then another layer of yoghurt. No cheese on top (didn't I say? We were waiting for the grocery shopping to arrive... and one of the guests is lactose intolerant)
Cook for about 40 minutes in a medium oven.By the time it was ready, the groceries had arrived so instead of the anticipated frozen peas, we had broccoli. This dish was a HIT!!!
I wanted to record it for posterity. If I had more minutes, I'd do some half-cocked tie in to parenting ;-)
Saturday, January 01, 2005
leaving food on your plate
It was always the starving children in Africa whose welfare my generation was invited to consider when threatening to leave food on our plates. As I watched a mother cajole her child into eating "just two more mouthfuls" recently, it struck me anew how illogical it is to force a person to eat food when they do not have portion control. Noone can guess correctly for another person how hungry they are (children should not be forced to eat food they do not like either, but that is another question for another day).
This is one reason why I am firmly outside the puree-up-vats-of-boiled-vegetables-and-spoon-it-into-the-child's-mouth school of solid food introduction. When the baby smiles or opens hir mouth to burble something, in pops another spoonful of slop. Much better to keep on with the breastfeeding and let the child develop the hand-eye coordination to get as many spoonfuls of yoghurt or handfuls of cooked carrots into hir mouth as se wants to eat/taste/play with.
Controlling what one puts in ones own body is important.
This is one reason why I am firmly outside the puree-up-vats-of-boiled-vegetables-and-spoon-it-into-the-child's-mouth school of solid food introduction. When the baby smiles or opens hir mouth to burble something, in pops another spoonful of slop. Much better to keep on with the breastfeeding and let the child develop the hand-eye coordination to get as many spoonfuls of yoghurt or handfuls of cooked carrots into hir mouth as se wants to eat/taste/play with.
Controlling what one puts in ones own body is important.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Crying in the Night
Amid all the conventional parenting books and family sleep therapy and whatever else middle class parents are turning to to try to get a good night's sleep, one important piece of information seems to slip through the net.
A child does not cry to inconvenience hir parents. Se is attempting to communicate with them but does not have the words or gestures in that moment to make hir meaning clear.
This is why controlled crying is so wrong wrong wrong. Instead of watching one's clock from outside the nursery to see if it is time to check that the child has not broken hir arm between the cot bars in hir rage, fear and frustration, the parent of a crying chld should be trying to work out what the problem is.
Here's a likely list: hungry, thirsty, cold, hot, lonely, uncomfortable, in pain, sick, teething pain, frightened, alert and bored, a nightmare.
How exactly is leaving a child alone in a quiet room going to help them solve their problem, or learn anything except that when things get tough, noone will help them? :-(
PS if a parent sleeps in the same bed as hir child, it is often possible to solve the problem before either person is fully conscious, thereby facilitating those glorious hours of sleep for which the parents yearn.
A child does not cry to inconvenience hir parents. Se is attempting to communicate with them but does not have the words or gestures in that moment to make hir meaning clear.
This is why controlled crying is so wrong wrong wrong. Instead of watching one's clock from outside the nursery to see if it is time to check that the child has not broken hir arm between the cot bars in hir rage, fear and frustration, the parent of a crying chld should be trying to work out what the problem is.
Here's a likely list: hungry, thirsty, cold, hot, lonely, uncomfortable, in pain, sick, teething pain, frightened, alert and bored, a nightmare.
How exactly is leaving a child alone in a quiet room going to help them solve their problem, or learn anything except that when things get tough, noone will help them? :-(
PS if a parent sleeps in the same bed as hir child, it is often possible to solve the problem before either person is fully conscious, thereby facilitating those glorious hours of sleep for which the parents yearn.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Frightening childhood illnesses and cures
We can have lots of splendid ideas about how to interact with the people we live with, but in the heat of the moment, concrete examples are sometimes more inspiring than abstract theories. They can perfectly well be made up, but being concrete can really help.
E.g.
Abstract theory: doing something to my child against hir will damages hir, damages me, and damages our relationship.
Concrete example related by friend: "Our child had awful teething pain and was crying and crying. When I tried to give hir infant paracetemol, se closed hir mouth tight and turned hir head. So I said 'Mmmm, yummy' and licked the spoon, and then se drank it all up and wanted more".
In the moment: preverbal child has (*thinks for a hypothetical*) such a ghastly tummy bug that the doctor prescribes a suppostitory (*do doctors even prescribe suppostitories any more?*). The very prospect of inserting said suppository is ghastly. I'm assuming that the parent's best theory is that the child definitely needs the medicine. The most likely thing is that the parent will grit their teeth, hold the child down and do the deed, giving lots of hugs and apologies afterwards (but the child won't associate getting better with the 'necessary evil' of being held down and having medicine pushed up hir bottom). In that stressful moment, ("I know it's going to bloody hurt my child and our relationship, but what am I supposed to DO??? MY CHILD NEEDS THIS MEDICINE"), the model of the friend's anecdote might help one think creatively more than the abstract theory.
The anecdote might just get one thinking of parallels. I'm not suggesting that one should attempt to jolly the child into wanting the suppository... it's not quite the same as a painkiller in a sweet suspension... but instead of thinking "I have to do this right now, even if it hurts my child", wait for a good moment. Find a way of distracting the child during a nappy change so they hardly notice? Or when they are just out of the bath? Or maybe when they are asleep?
E.g.
Abstract theory: doing something to my child against hir will damages hir, damages me, and damages our relationship.
Concrete example related by friend: "Our child had awful teething pain and was crying and crying. When I tried to give hir infant paracetemol, se closed hir mouth tight and turned hir head. So I said 'Mmmm, yummy' and licked the spoon, and then se drank it all up and wanted more".
In the moment: preverbal child has (*thinks for a hypothetical*) such a ghastly tummy bug that the doctor prescribes a suppostitory (*do doctors even prescribe suppostitories any more?*). The very prospect of inserting said suppository is ghastly. I'm assuming that the parent's best theory is that the child definitely needs the medicine. The most likely thing is that the parent will grit their teeth, hold the child down and do the deed, giving lots of hugs and apologies afterwards (but the child won't associate getting better with the 'necessary evil' of being held down and having medicine pushed up hir bottom). In that stressful moment, ("I know it's going to bloody hurt my child and our relationship, but what am I supposed to DO??? MY CHILD NEEDS THIS MEDICINE"), the model of the friend's anecdote might help one think creatively more than the abstract theory.
The anecdote might just get one thinking of parallels. I'm not suggesting that one should attempt to jolly the child into wanting the suppository... it's not quite the same as a painkiller in a sweet suspension... but instead of thinking "I have to do this right now, even if it hurts my child", wait for a good moment. Find a way of distracting the child during a nappy change so they hardly notice? Or when they are just out of the bath? Or maybe when they are asleep?
Friday, December 17, 2004
"Please don't go to work, Daddy"
In most families, there are times when what one person wants seems incompatible with what another wants. Rather than the parent self-sacrificing, or telling the child, however kindly, "life isn't fair", there are alternatives. The main investments required are time, creativity and flexibility.
For example, many children miss a parent who is at work all day. Is it possible for the child to go to the workplace too? Is it possible for the child and the person who cares for them during the day to make the commute to work with the parent, so they get some extra time together? Or come to the workplace to have coffee or lunch with the parent? Maybe there are good places to hang out near the workplace so the parent can pop out to touch base from time to time during the day.
I don't think we ever find a solution to balancing work/family that everyone is happy with for the foreseeable future. Families have to regularly recalibrate as their interests and activities change. A newborn baby might easily be welcomed in an open plan office in a sling, where they are at the mostly feeding and sleeping stage; a slightly older child might disturb colleagues less if the parent can have their own office, or take work home rather than sharing the office space.
I think families should try to find flexitime solutions wherever possible - being able to work while the child(ren) is/are happily occupied with something else, working at the weekends (which is often a great time for taking a child into an office) translates into four half-days during the week, making lists until the child's activities permit a whirlwind of ticking jobs off.
For example, many children miss a parent who is at work all day. Is it possible for the child to go to the workplace too? Is it possible for the child and the person who cares for them during the day to make the commute to work with the parent, so they get some extra time together? Or come to the workplace to have coffee or lunch with the parent? Maybe there are good places to hang out near the workplace so the parent can pop out to touch base from time to time during the day.
I don't think we ever find a solution to balancing work/family that everyone is happy with for the foreseeable future. Families have to regularly recalibrate as their interests and activities change. A newborn baby might easily be welcomed in an open plan office in a sling, where they are at the mostly feeding and sleeping stage; a slightly older child might disturb colleagues less if the parent can have their own office, or take work home rather than sharing the office space.
I think families should try to find flexitime solutions wherever possible - being able to work while the child(ren) is/are happily occupied with something else, working at the weekends (which is often a great time for taking a child into an office) translates into four half-days during the week, making lists until the child's activities permit a whirlwind of ticking jobs off.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
musing about uniforms
I walked past a goth the other day. Not the variety which sacked Rome, but the kind with long black leather overcoats and black jeans and black books with metalwork on. It occured to me that the cool thing about being a goth or a punk or a member of another clearly-defined fashion subculture is that moving city is really no problem. All you have to do is hang around in the market square of the new town for a couple of hours on a Saturday, and you'll guarantee to meet people with the same taste in music, literature and film, and probably with similar political and moral views too.
Religious clothing laws are not the same shorthand. A goth wears goth stuff to show his gothicness; a plymouth brethren, amish, or Hassidic Jewish woman wears modest dark clothes similarly to identify herself as part of a group, sure. But there's more to it than that - it is a morally good act not to send signals of sexual availability with provocative clothing if one is not actually available. It is easier to focus straight in on the person and the mind of someone in neutral clothing - the person IS the mind, the wrapping is largely a distraction.
But the burquha is different again, IMO, because it is hard to interact in person with a mind whose mouth and eyes are invisible.
Religious clothing laws are not the same shorthand. A goth wears goth stuff to show his gothicness; a plymouth brethren, amish, or Hassidic Jewish woman wears modest dark clothes similarly to identify herself as part of a group, sure. But there's more to it than that - it is a morally good act not to send signals of sexual availability with provocative clothing if one is not actually available. It is easier to focus straight in on the person and the mind of someone in neutral clothing - the person IS the mind, the wrapping is largely a distraction.
But the burquha is different again, IMO, because it is hard to interact in person with a mind whose mouth and eyes are invisible.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Good news for education
The UK news today is full of the 'disaster' that Cambridge University architecture department is to close. This news comes a week after the announcement that Exeter University Chemistry Department is to go.
Amid all the media wailing about Media Studies taking over the country, it occured to me that actually this might be a Good Thing. If Ciba-Geigy and Astra-Zeneca and everyone find they can't recruit good people with chemistry degrees, then presumably they will eventually start offering people low pay for a few years while they train them up as good bench scientists. Same with the big architecture companies. Instead of delegating the task of training a professional work force to the government, companies - who know what knowledge and skills their employees need - will take responsibility for it themselves.
And if lots of people want to study Media Studies, then all power to them. Can't be less 'relevant' than the old war horse of professional advancement - a degree in Classics. If they want to study Media Studies enough, maybe they'll even be prepared to pay for it.
/rant
Amid all the media wailing about Media Studies taking over the country, it occured to me that actually this might be a Good Thing. If Ciba-Geigy and Astra-Zeneca and everyone find they can't recruit good people with chemistry degrees, then presumably they will eventually start offering people low pay for a few years while they train them up as good bench scientists. Same with the big architecture companies. Instead of delegating the task of training a professional work force to the government, companies - who know what knowledge and skills their employees need - will take responsibility for it themselves.
And if lots of people want to study Media Studies, then all power to them. Can't be less 'relevant' than the old war horse of professional advancement - a degree in Classics. If they want to study Media Studies enough, maybe they'll even be prepared to pay for it.
/rant
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Vaccinations
People often feel grotty a few hours after they have an injection. Assuming the grottiness won't last too long, it therefore makes sense for injections to take place as late in the afternoon as possible - then the person is asleep during the majority of the grottiness.
But I suppose the time scale is too unpredictable on these things for doctors' surgeries to offer afternoon appointments as a matter of course.
But I suppose the time scale is too unpredictable on these things for doctors' surgeries to offer afternoon appointments as a matter of course.
The Gruffalo
I've come across so many people raving about this book. Well, I finally read it yesterday and I think I know why people like it so much.
It isn't the pictures, clear and attractive and brightly coloured as they are. It isn't even the good story line, with nested three-fold plot structure, satisfying as that is. (A good story line is essential)
Nor is it the appeal of the principal characters, cunning and charming and creative though they may be.
No, what really makes this book wonderful is that it is impossible to read it without rhythm. The rhymes really work, the metre really works, the assonances flow along... and before you know it "that's the end of Gruffalo story".
Too many children's books are full of lines like
"the butcher, the baker, the candlstick maker,
they all jumped over a hot potato"
Go on. Make that rhyme. Blech.
It isn't the pictures, clear and attractive and brightly coloured as they are. It isn't even the good story line, with nested three-fold plot structure, satisfying as that is. (A good story line is essential)
Nor is it the appeal of the principal characters, cunning and charming and creative though they may be.
No, what really makes this book wonderful is that it is impossible to read it without rhythm. The rhymes really work, the metre really works, the assonances flow along... and before you know it "that's the end of Gruffalo story".
Too many children's books are full of lines like
"the butcher, the baker, the candlstick maker,
they all jumped over a hot potato"
Go on. Make that rhyme. Blech.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Guardian man
There's a bus I quite often catch which coincides with the commute to work of a gentleman with luxuriant shoulder-length layered curls, slightly greying, a tweed jacket (this is England) and - invariably - a copy of the Guardian open at the opinion pages.
"I saw Guardian man today" has become one of my regular desultory conversational gambits.
But I've been thinking about it a bit more. By labelling this person "Guardian man", I am making assumptions about the political, economic and social beliefs he holds; I have already written him off as someone I am unlikely to have a fruitful conversation with (NB not that I am necessarily expecting to get into discussions with complete strangers on buses - this is England, as I said). This is unfair to him, because he may be reading the Guardian for any number of reasons, he does not necessarily agree entirely with their editorial policy. It is also unfair to me. By dismissing this person as "Guardian man", I am shutting myself off from the chance of learning lots from him about - oh, I don't know - butterflies, or walking routes in the Dordoygne, or fantastic recipes using flax seeds.
Good ideas are good ideas, no matter where they come from. It takes some mental adjustment to accept them from people one is accustomed to dismissing, though.
"I saw Guardian man today" has become one of my regular desultory conversational gambits.
But I've been thinking about it a bit more. By labelling this person "Guardian man", I am making assumptions about the political, economic and social beliefs he holds; I have already written him off as someone I am unlikely to have a fruitful conversation with (NB not that I am necessarily expecting to get into discussions with complete strangers on buses - this is England, as I said). This is unfair to him, because he may be reading the Guardian for any number of reasons, he does not necessarily agree entirely with their editorial policy. It is also unfair to me. By dismissing this person as "Guardian man", I am shutting myself off from the chance of learning lots from him about - oh, I don't know - butterflies, or walking routes in the Dordoygne, or fantastic recipes using flax seeds.
Good ideas are good ideas, no matter where they come from. It takes some mental adjustment to accept them from people one is accustomed to dismissing, though.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Gattaca
NB Title of this post (and the movie) stealth corrected *blush* props to Gil
This movie is set in a dystopia where genetic determinism rules. Go watch it immediately.
Having a genetic defect is something that it might be rational to choose not to know about. Such knowledge can be paralysing, and can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is also possible greatly to exceed the expectations of others, which can put limits on what one is permitted to attempt. The knowledge being genetic helped make the point very starkly, because of its supposed objectivity despite the major role of probability in forecasting; the film also reminded me how limiting expectations and assumptions about the interests, strengths and weaknesses of our family members can be.
Sometimes it is morally right to pretend to be something you are not, if society is morally wrong about something. I am reminded of the hoo-haa in the Church of England Cathedral world some years ago when a candidate for an alto singing job put only their initial and surname on their very impressive application. It was only when the candidate turned up for interview that the panel discovered that she was a woman, and therefore ineligible, whether or not her voice would have blended superbly.
This movie is set in a dystopia where genetic determinism rules. Go watch it immediately.
Having a genetic defect is something that it might be rational to choose not to know about. Such knowledge can be paralysing, and can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is also possible greatly to exceed the expectations of others, which can put limits on what one is permitted to attempt. The knowledge being genetic helped make the point very starkly, because of its supposed objectivity despite the major role of probability in forecasting; the film also reminded me how limiting expectations and assumptions about the interests, strengths and weaknesses of our family members can be.
Sometimes it is morally right to pretend to be something you are not, if society is morally wrong about something. I am reminded of the hoo-haa in the Church of England Cathedral world some years ago when a candidate for an alto singing job put only their initial and surname on their very impressive application. It was only when the candidate turned up for interview that the panel discovered that she was a woman, and therefore ineligible, whether or not her voice would have blended superbly.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Playing at Maisie's house
OK, I don't actually remember any of the names in this brief encounter, so they are made up, but the shape of the conversation is real.
I met Jeremy (aged 5) on his way back home with his mother after a week at Granny's house.
Mother "I've spoken to Maisie's mum, and you can go and play there tomorrow"
Jeremy "I don't want to play at Maisie's; she never lets me do what I want to. I want to stay at home with Billy and Jilly (little brother and sister) because I've really missed them"
Mother "we'll see"
WE'LL SEE??? WE'LL SEE??? How articulate and rational would this child have had to be to have his preference considered???
Strangely enough, "I don't want to go to school on Monday, it's boring" received about the same level of serious attention. "nonsense. You can see all your friends" "I can see all my friends anyway"
No kidding. I heard this exact conversation. :-(
I met Jeremy (aged 5) on his way back home with his mother after a week at Granny's house.
Mother "I've spoken to Maisie's mum, and you can go and play there tomorrow"
Jeremy "I don't want to play at Maisie's; she never lets me do what I want to. I want to stay at home with Billy and Jilly (little brother and sister) because I've really missed them"
Mother "we'll see"
WE'LL SEE??? WE'LL SEE??? How articulate and rational would this child have had to be to have his preference considered???
Strangely enough, "I don't want to go to school on Monday, it's boring" received about the same level of serious attention. "nonsense. You can see all your friends" "I can see all my friends anyway"
No kidding. I heard this exact conversation. :-(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
