I was cooking at lunch-time, or beginning to cook. I had chopped the onions and put them in the microwave, as I do. I put them on for 12 minutes and went upstairs to finish my online lecture for 15 minutes which I stopped a couple of times but only for a few seconds to think about something or write something down and before I was done I was summoned downstairs because I had left the onion in the microwave.
She wasn't even cooking: she was watching a film in the sitting room. Apparently the fan on the microwave was loud and she was worried I was mistreating the machine. It has indeed had some odd moments, but not from the fan. If it can't cook properly, we need to replace it, not avoid cooking the way we want. Anyway, I took the onion out and went back to finish my lecture and a couple of minutes later she came upstairs to tell me off for being grumpy.
I was not having that, so I pointed out that I had merely been leaving them to cook whilst I finished my lecture. She then moved on to talking about emptying the bin yesterday.
I had found it full when she was washing up, so I had pulled the bin out of its alcove and was holding the lid open and taking the edges of the bag out from where they'd been tucked when she piped up "it's your turn to take the bin out. I've taken it out for the last three times."
In the right tone and context, that would be a slightly sharp way of pointing out that I was due to do it next time too, only before this week I've been away for 11 days and it was not the right tone. It was her usual unfriendly voice
Today she said "I had to tell you to take the rubbish out" and said I was making it up when I denied it. I remember the details well because as I was starting the chore I was thinking 'this is the first time it's been full since I've been back and will show her that I do chores when I see the need' (this having been a sore point for her before). I was rather angry when she piped up, because I don't believe the 3-times claim, and because I've been away. I emptied the bin a couple of days before leaving.
Apparently I just don't care, I'm dishonest and a nasty person who's impossible to get on with.
I admit that I am an untidy person, in that I have absolutely no compulsion to put things away for no reason, I accept a certain amount of things lying around and I don't mind cleaning once a month. But in this house I've been beyond that. I have left the ironing board and iron out twice, but since this house currently has two rooms that are almost entirely unused I don't see the point in putting it away only to get it out again. The sitting room is occasionally used by my housemate to sit in and watch films or programmes on her computer, but that does not take up so much space that the ironing board needs to be taken from the corner and put in the cupboard.
When ironing I did indeed leave fluff out that I'd taken from a pocket of my washing (after leaving paper in something before washing). That left a tiny pile of paper pieces and a washed plastic wrapper on the unused table by the ironing board.
I have left clothes out on the clothes horse for longer than they needed, mostly also when I've been away (giving her space and freedom to have the place to herself). Since I wasn't around to pick them up, that could have been annoying for a housemate, and I've felt guilty the two or three times I've done that. On the other hand, my clothes do need washing and drying, houses only have one machine, and in every house I've shared there have been times when people's washing schedules have overlapped, to the frustration of one person. It's part of life, not a reasonable cause for personal grievance. But I might be wrong on that. Maybe I've missed the fact that everyone else sharing houses works around each other by having a set routine, and my housemates so far have simply been forbearing. Given how vocal my housemate is about minor offences, I'd think that if this were the case I'd have been informed of her washday. As it is, I've avoided washing clothes when I have to leave them for long. I've even mentioned that I've done washing at certain times to avoid causing problems.
What else have I actually done (rather than been hassled over)? Well, so far I think it's probable that she has taken the rubbish out more times than I have. Maybe as part of my messiness I'm happy to scrunch things down before taking the rubbish out, and she isn't, meaning that we hit her threshold first. I find it a waste of bin bags (and I have indeed bought the only new supply we've needed since being here) and a bit silly.
I did leave my hair in the plug hole when I first got here. As I've said before, I've never encountered a plug sieve before, and was surprised to be told off for not emptying something I didn't even realise existed. A few days ago I counted how many hairs got stuck in it, and there were 16, none of which was longer than about an inch. I have also forgotten to empty it twice or so since then, which is, I think, quite good for learning to use something new. Even people doing work often make more mistakes than that when learning a new routine, and this is part of my (supposedly) relaxing evenings. Once I forgot, but emptied it before being pounced on, which given her tendency, I assume means that she didn't notice. I was surprised, because she had a go at me for leaving hair in the plug sieve after she went to the loo once (and the plug is not readily visible from there or the handbasin). I deduced some level of checking up on me.
I recently was asked to clean the sink after I shave. And then a minute later asked whether I was going to wipe the sink. I had not just shaved, but I got up to inspect the sink and found that the bowl was clean, but that in the dust at the back of the sink there were indeed a few (i.e less than 10) identifiable tiny pieces of hair from shaving. If you can deal with dust, which is pieces of dead hair and skin, amongst other things, I'd have thought that pieces of hair wouldn't be a problem, but I wiped it down anyway. I'll also point out here that she has decided on an arrangement whereby I clean the kitchen and the downstairs loo (which she never uses), and she cleans the bathroom. If dust is a problem for her (and behind the sink it isn't for me) then it's her cleaning that's the problem.
Shall we talk about cleaning for a moment? When I arrived I was careful to clean up after myself a lot in the kitchen. I wiped surfaces down after meals, did my washing up and cleaned the hob. I used a saucepan for storage once, which she didn't like, partly because she doesn't have many, which is fair, and partly because she thought it disgusting to leave food out. I was eating it (having offered her some when I made it), and food takes much longer to go mouldy, but it's true that the pan might have been needed. On the other hand, it was the big cauldron-like one, which she has used only very rarely.
However, I have lapsed into more lifelike ways in the kitchen because my housemate is happy to leave lots of washing up out, undone, to leave the hob uncleaned and the surfaces unwiped. I was told off for leaving bits in the draining sink once, but she has now done that a number of times. I was told off (as mentioned) for using a saucepan too much, and perhaps rightly so, only she happily leaves plates and bowls out after use. I've done quite a lot of her washing up, in the hopes of creating some goodwill. If it did, then it was not enough to outweigh my crimes.
There is an enormous collection of plastic tupperware, mostly from takeaways. I used one such supposedly disposable box for some chicken legs I had left over from a large pack and froze them. I've been told off for that, too: she's going to have to avoid using that one except for meat. Well, I'd recommend not using the chopping boards, knives or surfaces ever again then, because if washing-up doesn't work then they're all contaminated. Added to which there's a huge supply and they're disposable.
I bought loo roll just after moving in. We got through it. She bought some more. I got back from being away and that day she said "We're almost out of toilet paper." That could have been a friendly warning to someone who'd been away, but in context, I suspect it was more an unfriendly hint that I ought to buy the next batch. I had already planned to pop out to buy general supplies, including kitchen and loo roll, the next day, and told her so. I suppose that in her mind she notched that up as 'Him lying to cover himself. He had to be told to do his share.'
Returning to the kitchen, it was stocked only with her things. I have been using her saucepans (carefully, and would have done even without hectoring about taking care) and until I was outright told not to, her plates. I have bought my own plate, and use it for everything, even eating ice cream and puddings (it has decent sides). We had a discussion about this in which I explained that I don't really have any kitchen things, because every house I've been in (that had a kitchen) had a kitchen with utensils in it. She seemed to accept that as a reason, but I suspect that she didn't really, and objects to sharing. Since the saucepan incident when I first moved in I've been very careful to try not to use the saucepans when she is cooking, or about to. I have been having money troubles (as many people do when first moving from student life to work), and have not been able to afford many things, including new kitchenware. She knows I've had money troubles, because I told her that I couldn't see my mother (the fortnight before she died) because my card was rejected and I couldn't buy train tickets.
Nonetheless, I have bought a plate, a large box for the batches of food I cook up and some new knives, since I told her that hers were blunt.
I've cleaned up after myself after using the loos, including wiping them down after use, since she checks under the seat for splashes from when it was up. I'm not sure that they need it, but it's best to have deniability.
I've tried talking genially, sometimes asking how her day was, greeting her, leaving my door open for conversation, and I've been interested in what she has to say, as I am generally with people. Apart from the occasional approach, I've had taciturn responses and a lot of shut door. I've also been told off for saying 'good evening', rather than hello. I've also had my own door shut when I was playing a video of some sort loudly, even though I turned it down. I had been watching Youtube videos, and this one had a louder noise level than others. I turned it down as soon as I heard her start to speak, because I realised that it was loud, and by the time I turned around I saw my door shut. People often have noise issues with each other, but I've had friendlier requests from people disturbed for longer and in the middle of the night (when I had speakers instead of headphones once, and a few times when I was junior dean and students were making noise).
I've also been accused of more things than I have done: of using her ketchup (which I could easily deny, since I happened to have bought low salt and low sugar ketchup, and had been sure to use it), and of leaving a strange stain on the loo seat. I hadn't used the loo that day, and hadn't used it seat-down for over a month (I use the one I clean). I doubt she believed me though: she probably put it down as more lies. She certainly went to check on the ketchup story, and didn't say another word about it, so perhaps she actually believed me. She does think that I do things deliberately to annoy, so she probably notched it up as a bad thing anyway.
I'm an easy-going person, but this has got to me. I've put up with people talking in the house late at night, and I've certainly put up with noise during waking hours. I've dealt with other people using drying space I'd like to use, and I've lived in houses with barely a spare surface from others' junk. I've showered whilst looking at mildewed walls and cooked after having to wash the dishes first. Despite all those things, this is easily the worst. Am I simply accustomed to the relative squalor of student life? Am I being put apon, or are my living habits, as described above, so unusual as to be offensive? Which ones are worst?
I have two very important exams coming up, and she's told me that I have to move out, which I assume will be after the exams. I don't have time for flat-hunting or moving before then. I'm not sure that she cares though. Although she's the one who says that I don't care, since she knows that I've had my mother die and have exams coming up, I'd say that the lack of friendliness or sympathy I've had from her shows who's more likely to be the psychopath.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
matrimania
Reading that three-quarters of the jobs lost in the recession were men's jobs contrasts with the news stories I remember about the government cuts affecting more women than men.
I have just read a superb article by Kate Bolick in the Observer (which is quite long):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/27/kate-bolick-women-marriage-relationships?newsfeed=true
'In 2005, social psychologist Bella DePaulo coined the word singlism, in an article she published in Psychological Inquiry. Intending a parallel with terms like racism and sexism, DePaulo says singlism is "the stigmatising of adults who are single [and] includes negative stereotyping of singles and discrimination against singles". In her 2006 book, Singled Out, she argues that the complexities of modern life, and the fragility of the institution of marriage, have inspired an unprecedented glorification of coupling. (Laura Kipnis, the author of Against Love, has called this "the tyranny of two.") This marriage myth – "matrimania", DePaulo calls it – proclaims that the only route to happiness is finding and keeping one all-purpose, all-important partner who can meet our every emotional and social need. Those who don't have this are pitied. Those who don't want it are seen as threatening.'
'Some even believe that the pair bond, far from strengthening communities (which is both the prevailing view of social science and a central tenet of social conservatism), weakens them, the idea being that a married couple becomes too consumed with its own tiny nation of two to pay much heed to anyone else. In 2006, the sociologists Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian published a paper concluding that unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support. They call these "greedy marriages".'
I have said very similar things. I'm half intrigued and gratified that I'm not the only one, and half annoyed that it's possible to make a career and money from saying the sorts of things that I write for free.
I have just read a superb article by Kate Bolick in the Observer (which is quite long):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/27/kate-bolick-women-marriage-relationships?newsfeed=true
'In 2005, social psychologist Bella DePaulo coined the word singlism, in an article she published in Psychological Inquiry. Intending a parallel with terms like racism and sexism, DePaulo says singlism is "the stigmatising of adults who are single [and] includes negative stereotyping of singles and discrimination against singles". In her 2006 book, Singled Out, she argues that the complexities of modern life, and the fragility of the institution of marriage, have inspired an unprecedented glorification of coupling. (Laura Kipnis, the author of Against Love, has called this "the tyranny of two.") This marriage myth – "matrimania", DePaulo calls it – proclaims that the only route to happiness is finding and keeping one all-purpose, all-important partner who can meet our every emotional and social need. Those who don't have this are pitied. Those who don't want it are seen as threatening.'
'Some even believe that the pair bond, far from strengthening communities (which is both the prevailing view of social science and a central tenet of social conservatism), weakens them, the idea being that a married couple becomes too consumed with its own tiny nation of two to pay much heed to anyone else. In 2006, the sociologists Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian published a paper concluding that unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support. They call these "greedy marriages".'
I have said very similar things. I'm half intrigued and gratified that I'm not the only one, and half annoyed that it's possible to make a career and money from saying the sorts of things that I write for free.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
housemate troubles 4
I was asked yesterday whether I had poured anything down the loo. I was shown a faint grey mark on the seat.
I am pleased to say that I hadn't even used that loo recently, having been away for a week. When I do, the seat it always up. So much for paranoid suspicions. Having been unable to fault me on this one, my housemate contented herself with asking me to wipe the sink when I shave in that bathroom. I do wash the hair out of the bowl when I empty my razor, but I admit that some hairs don't drop into the bowl (I use an electric shaver which does not collect all the cut hair). I'm an amenable person, so I agreed, only to be accosted through my door a few minutes later by an angry voice asking if I was going to wipe the sink.
Well, yes, when I shave there!
I hadn't just shaved, but I assumed that some leftovers were the cause of this, so I went and had a look. The bowl was clean, but in amongst the dust and fluff that collects in the less used areas around the sink there were clearly a few tiny pieces of hair. I should have counted, but there might have been 10 identifiable pieces of hair. Yes, that might be annoying for someone, but if she doesn't care about the dust, hair-dust shouldn't matter either!
I had a shower later, and regretting not quantifying my shaving disaster, I counted the hairs that collected in the plug-sieve and which caused such anger when I first moved in. There were 16, all maybe an inch long when stretched straight. So 16 inches plus maybe 1 mm in total were the cause of fuss: about the length of two of my housemate's hairs.
Have I mentioned the muck in the sink yet? She does leave bits of junk in the sinks. She doesn't wash up very regularly (something I don't mind, but have been told off about). More annoying is the sticky muck left on the side for two days now, making me careful about making my sandwiches.
I'm also still puzzled about having to put away the iron and ironing board when I've left them up in one of the unused rooms in the house.
But perhaps I wouldn't be anywhere nearly as annoyed if she had a different approach about these things. It's not only the fussiness, but the way she says it: an accusatory, impatient, slightly angry attitude. It's "Are you going to wipe the sink?", not 'You missed some hairs on the sink last time you shaved'.
I hope it's just a cultural thing: that English people tune into delicate subtleties of politeness that other cultures don't care for or create.
I am pleased to say that I hadn't even used that loo recently, having been away for a week. When I do, the seat it always up. So much for paranoid suspicions. Having been unable to fault me on this one, my housemate contented herself with asking me to wipe the sink when I shave in that bathroom. I do wash the hair out of the bowl when I empty my razor, but I admit that some hairs don't drop into the bowl (I use an electric shaver which does not collect all the cut hair). I'm an amenable person, so I agreed, only to be accosted through my door a few minutes later by an angry voice asking if I was going to wipe the sink.
Well, yes, when I shave there!
I hadn't just shaved, but I assumed that some leftovers were the cause of this, so I went and had a look. The bowl was clean, but in amongst the dust and fluff that collects in the less used areas around the sink there were clearly a few tiny pieces of hair. I should have counted, but there might have been 10 identifiable pieces of hair. Yes, that might be annoying for someone, but if she doesn't care about the dust, hair-dust shouldn't matter either!
I had a shower later, and regretting not quantifying my shaving disaster, I counted the hairs that collected in the plug-sieve and which caused such anger when I first moved in. There were 16, all maybe an inch long when stretched straight. So 16 inches plus maybe 1 mm in total were the cause of fuss: about the length of two of my housemate's hairs.
Have I mentioned the muck in the sink yet? She does leave bits of junk in the sinks. She doesn't wash up very regularly (something I don't mind, but have been told off about). More annoying is the sticky muck left on the side for two days now, making me careful about making my sandwiches.
I'm also still puzzled about having to put away the iron and ironing board when I've left them up in one of the unused rooms in the house.
But perhaps I wouldn't be anywhere nearly as annoyed if she had a different approach about these things. It's not only the fussiness, but the way she says it: an accusatory, impatient, slightly angry attitude. It's "Are you going to wipe the sink?", not 'You missed some hairs on the sink last time you shaved'.
I hope it's just a cultural thing: that English people tune into delicate subtleties of politeness that other cultures don't care for or create.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Discrimination
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15490760
'There is a substantial and growing body of evidence to back up the claim that children born in certain months do better at school because they are the oldest in the year'
I have seen this before (famously in Malcolm Gladwell's bestselling book), and it is a very sad thing. Why can't people educate children according to maturity, not age? Surely a good educational system pushes children through lessons as they learn the subject, not according to an average schedule?
Things like this make me sorely tempted to support nuclear family life, simply because of the opportunity for home-schooling children, and therefore allowing children to proceed at their own pace.
I only started making it into sports teams at 15 or so, and never the firsts, and according to research on school years, that's an impressive enough achievement, given that I'm an August birthday.
It's shocking that a segment of the population can be systematically denied access to sporting achievement and training (training because only the best at a young age are selected for further sporting coaching, and their superiority then becomes self-fulfilling). If being born in August changed the colour of a person's skin, this would have been a cause of national outrage decades ago, but discrimination is never thought of as an abstract problem that people should avoid in any setting. It seems to be only specific to race, sex and perhaps class and religion.
Many people would laugh if I were to claim that I have suffered discrimination. As a white male from a (relatively: i.e enough to count as rich but not rich enough to get anything special in life) privileged background I am the evil oppressor. And yet as an August birthday cursed with shyness as a child and unusual opinions on religion, relationships and social conformity (this last one remaining an opinion, and mostly invisible), I have been liable to quite serious isolation and lack of equal treatment. I have not suffered as much as maybe even 70% of the population, but I nonetheless object to the idea that there is therefore no injustice to be corrected. All discrimination is the same.
It's difficult to legislate for social relationships, and so I don't think there's much room for a legal solution to the judgemental attitudes people have towards me, but that does not mean that someone who thinks I should lose my job because I don't necessarily believe marriage and female purity to be good things is not as wrong as someone who thinks another person should lose his job because he sings Allah's praises in his spare time.
Both opinions are repulsive, and for the same reason.
I do think that sexism, racism and these other discriminations do not deserve special treatment. That itself is unwarranted discrimination! Discrimination, in its illegal form, should be an abstract concept of using inappropriate characteristics to bias what ought to be a fair contest. Outside of the law, it remains a problem of judging people for characteristics that are not illegal or harmful. I know that I can slip into society in a way that a victim of racism cannot, because I can at least hide my opinions and desires (and even shyness, to an extent). That doesn't make me happy with the situation.
If I were to judge a banker on the sheer naked greed he displays, I might judge it not to be a virtue because of the negative effect I perceive it has on society through a variety of routes. I am open to being persuaded that it is a virtue, although I've had that argument (not with a banker) and am not convinced.
When I am judged for, say, thinking that the notion of female purity is an arbitrary and pointless imposition on people's sex lives, it is an absolute moral condemnation with no justification. In so far as there can be any, it is that the more people question such ridiculous cultural bulwarks, the less likely they are to be obeyed, and so anyone with a particular inclination that way, or who is somehow invested in the current cultural imposition, will feel less comfortable if my opinions are allowed.
But feeling comfortable when your opinions are widely shared is not an adequate basis for judging someone's worth. The whole purpose of an open and free society is that people can hold a diverse array of opinions, as long as those do not involve destroying the openness of society. And yet many westerners seem to think that actually the greatness of our society is not its openness, or its freedom of speech, but the fact that people tend to say what they've been trained to hear.
I wish people understood what tolerance and openness mean. I think that a central aspect of these is moral relativism (to which I often return when writing these posts), because without it of course one will judge others inappropriately. So much discrimination remains un-noticed precisely because it hasn't got a big name for itself such as sexism or homophobia. It happens in small ways when someone sees 'the wrong pair of shoes', judges a shy person as rude for being unengaging, or a girl for her choice of clothing. Most of our moral ideas have been passed into law, except for people's many and varied concepts of purity and arbitrary standards of behaviour (when they don't harm others). These standards are indeed arbitrary, and a basic understanding of moral relativism will prevent people from judging others on the basis of their own unjustifiable beliefs.
There is a world of difference between
"I wouldn't do that." and
"You shouldn't do that."
People can pay all the lip service they like to tolerance, freedom and 'meritocracy', but without the basic acknowledgement that purity is a chemical concept, not a moral one, and that moral relativism is unavoidable, lip service is all it is. The odd campaign might obtain a small break for one special behaviour that requires tolerance, such as homosexual activity, but until people actually incorporate moral relativity into their beliefs and education, all that our anti-discrimination worries will get us is discrimination against only those minorities who are too small even to campaign as a noticeable group.
There is an infinite range of activities and beliefs (near enough), and an impressive enough array of possible characteristics. We need to teach people about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as something that happens to blacks, gays and women.
'There is a substantial and growing body of evidence to back up the claim that children born in certain months do better at school because they are the oldest in the year'
I have seen this before (famously in Malcolm Gladwell's bestselling book), and it is a very sad thing. Why can't people educate children according to maturity, not age? Surely a good educational system pushes children through lessons as they learn the subject, not according to an average schedule?
Things like this make me sorely tempted to support nuclear family life, simply because of the opportunity for home-schooling children, and therefore allowing children to proceed at their own pace.
I only started making it into sports teams at 15 or so, and never the firsts, and according to research on school years, that's an impressive enough achievement, given that I'm an August birthday.
It's shocking that a segment of the population can be systematically denied access to sporting achievement and training (training because only the best at a young age are selected for further sporting coaching, and their superiority then becomes self-fulfilling). If being born in August changed the colour of a person's skin, this would have been a cause of national outrage decades ago, but discrimination is never thought of as an abstract problem that people should avoid in any setting. It seems to be only specific to race, sex and perhaps class and religion.
Many people would laugh if I were to claim that I have suffered discrimination. As a white male from a (relatively: i.e enough to count as rich but not rich enough to get anything special in life) privileged background I am the evil oppressor. And yet as an August birthday cursed with shyness as a child and unusual opinions on religion, relationships and social conformity (this last one remaining an opinion, and mostly invisible), I have been liable to quite serious isolation and lack of equal treatment. I have not suffered as much as maybe even 70% of the population, but I nonetheless object to the idea that there is therefore no injustice to be corrected. All discrimination is the same.
It's difficult to legislate for social relationships, and so I don't think there's much room for a legal solution to the judgemental attitudes people have towards me, but that does not mean that someone who thinks I should lose my job because I don't necessarily believe marriage and female purity to be good things is not as wrong as someone who thinks another person should lose his job because he sings Allah's praises in his spare time.
Both opinions are repulsive, and for the same reason.
I do think that sexism, racism and these other discriminations do not deserve special treatment. That itself is unwarranted discrimination! Discrimination, in its illegal form, should be an abstract concept of using inappropriate characteristics to bias what ought to be a fair contest. Outside of the law, it remains a problem of judging people for characteristics that are not illegal or harmful. I know that I can slip into society in a way that a victim of racism cannot, because I can at least hide my opinions and desires (and even shyness, to an extent). That doesn't make me happy with the situation.
If I were to judge a banker on the sheer naked greed he displays, I might judge it not to be a virtue because of the negative effect I perceive it has on society through a variety of routes. I am open to being persuaded that it is a virtue, although I've had that argument (not with a banker) and am not convinced.
When I am judged for, say, thinking that the notion of female purity is an arbitrary and pointless imposition on people's sex lives, it is an absolute moral condemnation with no justification. In so far as there can be any, it is that the more people question such ridiculous cultural bulwarks, the less likely they are to be obeyed, and so anyone with a particular inclination that way, or who is somehow invested in the current cultural imposition, will feel less comfortable if my opinions are allowed.
But feeling comfortable when your opinions are widely shared is not an adequate basis for judging someone's worth. The whole purpose of an open and free society is that people can hold a diverse array of opinions, as long as those do not involve destroying the openness of society. And yet many westerners seem to think that actually the greatness of our society is not its openness, or its freedom of speech, but the fact that people tend to say what they've been trained to hear.
I wish people understood what tolerance and openness mean. I think that a central aspect of these is moral relativism (to which I often return when writing these posts), because without it of course one will judge others inappropriately. So much discrimination remains un-noticed precisely because it hasn't got a big name for itself such as sexism or homophobia. It happens in small ways when someone sees 'the wrong pair of shoes', judges a shy person as rude for being unengaging, or a girl for her choice of clothing. Most of our moral ideas have been passed into law, except for people's many and varied concepts of purity and arbitrary standards of behaviour (when they don't harm others). These standards are indeed arbitrary, and a basic understanding of moral relativism will prevent people from judging others on the basis of their own unjustifiable beliefs.
There is a world of difference between
"I wouldn't do that." and
"You shouldn't do that."
People can pay all the lip service they like to tolerance, freedom and 'meritocracy', but without the basic acknowledgement that purity is a chemical concept, not a moral one, and that moral relativism is unavoidable, lip service is all it is. The odd campaign might obtain a small break for one special behaviour that requires tolerance, such as homosexual activity, but until people actually incorporate moral relativity into their beliefs and education, all that our anti-discrimination worries will get us is discrimination against only those minorities who are too small even to campaign as a noticeable group.
There is an infinite range of activities and beliefs (near enough), and an impressive enough array of possible characteristics. We need to teach people about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as something that happens to blacks, gays and women.
Housemate troubles 3
We did have a civil conversation in the last week, but mostly it's been the silent treatment. Today I got back at the end of the weekend to find the chain on the door. This was interesting, since my housemate has angrily told me (as documented previously, I think) that her door locking proclivities were obvious, being that she simply prefers to doubly secure the door at night. I arrived just past 4pm.
Barrring the sad scowl I received for disturbing her by needing to get into my home, I wasn't troubled by her presence for a while. I'd have thought that someone who finds me so annoying would be grateful for my absence for the weekend, but apparently going away is simply my way of making her angry.
Two hours later, I was huffily required to clear my clothes from the clothes horse where they'd been drying. Only a few remained, since I had cleared all the dry ones from the horse before leaving. I had had two hours to eliminate my presence from the house, barring my bedroom, so of course she was right to be frustrated.
I popped down to collect the offending items, and eventually needed to cook dinner. Here again I caused her a terrible shock when she came down, because I was using a saucepan. She had stepped backwards in horror, so I felt obliged to ask what I had done this time ["Is something wrong?"], and was surprised to discover that it was only that a pot was in use by someone in the kitchen at dinner time.
I finished cooking my pasta quite soon and washed the saucepan, which remained unused while I was eating, as she chopped and prepared her meal. She cooks nice meals, and the smell wafted up to my room, but I know better than to poke my head out and do something as offensive as offer a compliment. I'd already received dark looks of suspicion when after washing up my meal I had had the temerity to wipe down some surfaces as well! As for rinsing out the sink (as I have been painfully instructed to do after once leaving dishwater to drain without staying to wash anything away), well that also got a death-glare.
Barrring the sad scowl I received for disturbing her by needing to get into my home, I wasn't troubled by her presence for a while. I'd have thought that someone who finds me so annoying would be grateful for my absence for the weekend, but apparently going away is simply my way of making her angry.
Two hours later, I was huffily required to clear my clothes from the clothes horse where they'd been drying. Only a few remained, since I had cleared all the dry ones from the horse before leaving. I had had two hours to eliminate my presence from the house, barring my bedroom, so of course she was right to be frustrated.
I popped down to collect the offending items, and eventually needed to cook dinner. Here again I caused her a terrible shock when she came down, because I was using a saucepan. She had stepped backwards in horror, so I felt obliged to ask what I had done this time ["Is something wrong?"], and was surprised to discover that it was only that a pot was in use by someone in the kitchen at dinner time.
I finished cooking my pasta quite soon and washed the saucepan, which remained unused while I was eating, as she chopped and prepared her meal. She cooks nice meals, and the smell wafted up to my room, but I know better than to poke my head out and do something as offensive as offer a compliment. I'd already received dark looks of suspicion when after washing up my meal I had had the temerity to wipe down some surfaces as well! As for rinsing out the sink (as I have been painfully instructed to do after once leaving dishwater to drain without staying to wash anything away), well that also got a death-glare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)