I learnt last week the ICAEW MI module. I was shocked at the simplicity. The refresher course we were sent in the post started with basic arithmetic and went so far as to explain what an average was.
The course was similar, with rote-learning of a formula for calculating where a straight line between two points (either side of the x-axis) would cross the axis. This is stuff we worked out in maths GCSE without being taught. That was the last chapter, after a week of mental arithmetic (and the exciting revelation that variance analysis has nothing to do with analysis of variance, or even variance, but with differences between numbers. If only I had known before!).
This week's bundle of joy is the Business and Finance module. We started off with a definition of an organisation, for those of us who hadn't quite grasped the language yet. We then learned that an insightful chap called (Robert) Simon has pointed out that businesses don't always make decisions with reference to their primary objective of wealth creation because constraints such as legal issues apply.
Really!? I had no idea! Do laws actually exist? No Wai!!!11!!
Or perhaps 'Simon' is talking rubbish, because the businesses only care about the law because of the fines and penalties that would impede wealth creation and maintenance were the law broken. Or does 'avoiding fines and penalties' count as a secondary objective? Not to worry: discussion isn't allowed in this course, and definition is king, so we'll move on and say no more about it.
By this point I'd finished deriving the formula for the value of a perpetuity, which was troubling me from last week, and we moved on to chapter 2. Here we discovered what 'culture' is. I realise that as accountants we're not expected to be especially exciting people, but I'd have thought that most of us have encountered culture before. We also came close to transcendental enlightenment with such revealing facts as 'top managers are higher in the hierarchy than middle managers'.
Did you know that lubricants count as supplies but tools as capital goods? Don't thank me, it's my public duty to share vital information.
What things would you want to get right if you were procuring something? Got your answer? Well, forget it and learn these five words: quantity, quality, price and lead time. No, synonyms don't count.
The Harvard four cs, the Four Ps, the Seven Ps, the French and Raven powers, the five principles of scientific management, Likert's continuum, Belbin's roles and Tuckman's stages of group development (norming? Really? I justing hoathe meanless neologisms. If you haven't heard of normalising, check whether a word exists already before you make a new one) all spring out on us, unwary adventurers that we are into the world of worthless jargon. Management makes modern philosophy seem plain-speaking.
There are over 15 lists in the chapter, all desperate for criticism and the bin of academic history. But no, ours is not to reason why... ours is but to waste our time. Who cares if some idiot took two incompatible indices, put them at 90 degrees to each other and named the new index 'my grid'? Is this just some elaborate initiation ceremony in which senior accountants snigger to themselves as they torture the juniors with utter rubbish? Does it really matter if it's called participative or authoritarian or impoverished (sorry, that should be 'Participative, Authoritarian and Impoverished)? If I call things bad, commanding and involved, can you really be sure I understand it any less?
The examples are endless: 'technostructure' competes with Fayol's 14 principles of effective functioning for valuable memory space, edging out such wastes of space as cherished memories of my distant childhood. Sadly one of these principles of effective functioning doesn't seem to be not to waste time on the dungheap of management theory. If my staff aren't being paid enough, I find it hard to imagine that knowing Fayol's 13th principle will make me realise this any faster.
The classical compound of 'adhocracy' sounds fun enough, and I suppose it's better than proutocracy (?).
So we have to learn a load of tautologies and obvious observations? So what? Well, the questions really reveal the problem.
'Management belong to the 'classical school' because they adhere to the concept of unity of command. This means that a person should receive orders from one manager, there should be one manager for one activity, authority flows down one chain of command or work should be specialised?'
Really, swearing is the only answer here. Why should I care about the arbitrary definition of an unclear phrase? If you want to say 'one manager per person', feel free. If you want me to understand the pros and cons of such a system, I'm happy to learn and form my own opinion. Did you know that as of today, chocolate cake now means a black gay man? I'm going to test you on that in a week.
Is it the case that once we've learned the jargon, we'll then be taught why it's worthwhile? Why split it that way? We're a load of educated, thoughtful trainees, selected for our high levels of critical intelligence. If you want automata, write a computer programme and save some money. In this course we've been taught that people need a number of things from a job... and stimulation and a challenge are among them. The requirement to learn without analysis a load of data doesn't equate to learning information (another lesson of the course: information is processed data).
If I have the option to store meaningful information or a collection of data, I'd rather store information. When it comes to my memory, it's not merely a sensible preference, but a mental requirement, as enunciated by some management theorist whose work I'd have thought was obvious. Since it hasn't filtered through to the hopefully senior accountants who decide what future accountants need to know, maybe it was worth pointing out. Sadly, however, simply enunciating the fact doesn't mean that the course developers understand it, another conclusion that has relevance for the module. Repetition is not the same as understanding. Sir Ken Robinson has been saying so for a long time, and research backs this up. And, for those who want to quibble, it's also clear that understanding and being able to use that understanding is the more important skill for the real world.
It gets worse. The 4 Ss, 4Ds, PESTEL, 9 Ms and SWOT all follow in rapid succession. What does SWOT stand for? Strengths, weaknesses, oppportunities and threats. You know what? It would never have occurred to me to consider the weaknesses of my business if I hadn't had the handy SWOT mnemonic sitting in my mind.
Let me throw in another definition for the management-minded: a sarchasm is the gulf between the user of sarcasm and those who don't get it.
Why should I learn to call a (probably) unprofitable product a dog, rather than a cash cow? What is so special about Boston Consulting Group's terminology? Why not call it 'bad'? Dogs are loyal, beautiful and very successful as a species.
'The area outside an information systems boundary is known as the: location, setting, context or environment?'
I wouldn't have made this up before I came here. I'd have thought that this would be too extreme: so stupid that no-one would actually put it in an exam. These words are effectively synonyms. They mean the same thing. I can feel my brain rotting away just from reading this stuff.
Next up: '[Insert name here] is advising the MD of [amusing name here] plc of the advantages of setting standards and targets to specify the levels of performance that underpin the company's control system. Which three are the main components of that control system: 'measurement of actual performance and comparison against targets', 'identification of deviations from the plan', 'establishment of standards or targets to express planned performance', 'follow-up action to correct adverse results or to exploit favourable variances [sic]', 'measurement of ideal performance' or 'devising the plan'?
It turns out it's 1,2 and 4. Who cares that you can't identify deviations from something that you haven't devised, nor compare to targets you haven't established? What matters is whether you successfully learned by rote the sentences summarising the 'main components' of a control system. That you understand how a control system works doesn't matter, nor that if you were shipped off to an alien race you could introduce and implement one. You just need to know that some guy in an office somewhere decreed that this definition of this step is a main component, rather than a different arbitrary division of the process into descriptions.
One more, please: 'According to Neil Cowan, which two of the following should be considered key aspects of business ethics? Transparency, a duty of care, real acceptance of responsibility, honesty and fair-mindedness.'
The answer includes two sneaky entries from Ms Foster-Back, who also created a list of key aspects of business ethics. Since when did it matter who said which theory? Does a theory not stand or fall on its merits (in these cases, fall)? Honesty and fair-mindedness seem like good ideas to me, even if Neil Cowan missed them out.
This moronic pile of tautologies, common sense, jargon, pointless definitions and theorists claiming credit for insight worthy of a five year-old counts towards one of the professional qualifications of our society. As we have learned this week, accountants are vital for providing and providing assurance about financial data. If they've been taught to have the common sense of a computer, memorise rubbish by rote because authority says so and forgo any understanding or insightful thought it's no surprise that our financial system is in such a mess.
If the training structure of knowledge modules followed by application modules leads to having this module, it's time to rethink the structure even if the application module is a perfect return to sensible teaching. Sadly, however, I doubt it is. Application will be about remembering these 'management tools' and simply writing them out, rather than criticising them, improving on them or devising perfectly sane and effective equivalent systems.
The real world has long loved to criticise management jargon as pointless and silly. I am here to tell you that it's worse than you ever imagined.
For those who are interested, Ken Robinson makes his point well here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Monstrous education
Why are people so obsessed with the average scores?
If having rich and/or intelligent people in classes with poor/stupid people makes the average level higher beyond the addition of a high-end datum to the mix, it's not necessarily a good thing.
Yes, we want low-achievers to achieve more. But why should we sacrifice the achievement of high-achievers to that end?
If high achievers take less teacher time, and hence allow more time to be dedicated to low achievers in order to get everyone over a threshold, we're sacrificing the high-achiever's achievement beyond that threshold.
What is it that makes a high-achiever deserving of discrimination? Why should such a person get less teaching time than a low achiever?
If we want a society of utter equality, and are willing to enforce it, why don't we shave everyone's head to stop bald people standing out? Why not pluck out everyone's eyes to stop blind people being disadvantaged?
The idea that good pupils should be forced into classes in order to benefit other pupils is monstrous. We should show that this will not hurt their education in any way, and consider other giant reorganisations of the educational system that will cost a lot to introduce, before we jump on the idea.
I am, by the way, very sceptical of the idea that good pupils act as role-models for bad ones. In my limited experience of dealing with children it seems more like a couple of bad apples can sour the whole barrel, rather than a few good ones making everything better.
Private schools do promote inequality. That is a bad thing. But selection is not a bad thing, and if state schools streamed pupils, as happens in Holland, and used to happen here, then I'd happily shut down private schools.
The argument against private schools has to be a separate one from the horrific ideals/ unproven assertions of the arguments against selection.
If having rich and/or intelligent people in classes with poor/stupid people makes the average level higher beyond the addition of a high-end datum to the mix, it's not necessarily a good thing.
Yes, we want low-achievers to achieve more. But why should we sacrifice the achievement of high-achievers to that end?
If high achievers take less teacher time, and hence allow more time to be dedicated to low achievers in order to get everyone over a threshold, we're sacrificing the high-achiever's achievement beyond that threshold.
What is it that makes a high-achiever deserving of discrimination? Why should such a person get less teaching time than a low achiever?
If we want a society of utter equality, and are willing to enforce it, why don't we shave everyone's head to stop bald people standing out? Why not pluck out everyone's eyes to stop blind people being disadvantaged?
The idea that good pupils should be forced into classes in order to benefit other pupils is monstrous. We should show that this will not hurt their education in any way, and consider other giant reorganisations of the educational system that will cost a lot to introduce, before we jump on the idea.
I am, by the way, very sceptical of the idea that good pupils act as role-models for bad ones. In my limited experience of dealing with children it seems more like a couple of bad apples can sour the whole barrel, rather than a few good ones making everything better.
Private schools do promote inequality. That is a bad thing. But selection is not a bad thing, and if state schools streamed pupils, as happens in Holland, and used to happen here, then I'd happily shut down private schools.
The argument against private schools has to be a separate one from the horrific ideals/ unproven assertions of the arguments against selection.
Driving dangerously
It turns out that driving dangerously isn't the problem: the problem is driving having taken drugs. I don't understand it: if you're not dangerous to others, why should the law be concerned with what you do?
The argument, presumably, is that you're more dangerous than you were. But if we're going to take that line, then we should also make it illegal to drive once you're 50, because your reaction times are also slower when you're older. I don't remember the precise comparisons, but a 70-year old's reactions are as bad as a 20-year old's who has drunk more than enough to be over the limit.
If we care about danger, we should be testing reaction times. If we want old people to be able to drive, we should set a low reaction time limit, and train drivers and adjust traffic controls and car settings appropriately. We should then allow young people to be freer with impairing substances, because they can take it.
If we care about driving dangerously, we should prosecute the people who create speed differences, since it is changes in speed that cause problems. People who drive slowly on high-speed roads are as much of a danger as people who are driving fast and watching ahead of them appropriately, with cars tuned to have brakes good enough for the speed they can reach.
If we care about people's attitudes, then we have no way to judge them except through observation, and since dangerous driving is already an offence, we don't need any additional law about it.
The data about drink and drugged-driving look impressive, but if 20% of road fatalities are attributable to them, there's still plenty of room for other factors to be important. If there were as big a social stigma on 'old-driving' as there is on drink-driving, I wonder how many accidents would have 'old-driving' listed as a contributing factor (since drink-driving is always a contributory factor when someone who's drunk anything is involved in an accident).
Both of today's news stories suffer from the same problem: there is an assumption that everyone is identical; that any already identified differences are irrelevant and that everyone in the story is starting from the same blank slate. For better or worse people are different: like snowflakes, we have near-endless variety but share some basic features. Many people have waxed lyrical about the beauty of human diversity, and yet it seems that the basic message has yet to penetrate the thick skulls of many of those same people.
Our differences are morally neutral (barring differences caused by decisions, which can be morally charged), but in physical effects it's obvious that they are not neutral, and that we are not all the same. Any system which confuses the two is a confused system that needs changing.
If we have identified a physical effect that we want to avoid in society, then because humans vary we cannot treat everyone the same. That's like telling everyone that we want no-one to run faster than 20 mph, so everyone needs to run at 60% of maximum. It's ridiculous. Some people will be closer to the windy side of the law than others, and that's just the way it is.
Obesity costs other people money
I read this article with a combination of amusement and horror. We're looking at market forces colliding with moral ones, and for once I'm on the side of the markets, mostly because I disagree with the moral assertion being made.
If fat people are poor, don't spend money and require more resources, it's no surprise that the markets aren't accommodating them. Given that obesity is overwhelmingly a consequence of a person's decisions, not an unpreventable disease, there is no justification at all for making everyone else suffer in order to make fat people happier (nor would there be if it were entirely chance, but that's another argument entirely). If the obese section were as large as the men's or women's sections in a shop ('not just in the fat people's corner at the back') then there'd be less room for choice for normal people. Men already have to put up with always having to march half-way through any clothes shop, rather than being able to pop in and buy immediately, and that's because they're not impulse buyers, and because they tend to have a goal, rather than a gathering mentality that will pick up something that looks good that they've seen.
Clothing for the obese doesn't look good, because being obese doesn't look good (except to a few people with unusual tastes, just as there's someone into anything). It's no wonder the fat section is at the back with the menswear. Furthermore, it's not just fat people who can't find anything that fits. I am not able to find trousers that fit me, and must buy fat people's trousers and wear a belt, because manufacturers take one ratio of sizes and simply expand or shrink their clothes, ensuring that anyone not of these specific proportions will be stuck. If anyone deserves to complain, it's athletic people. Trousers and jackets are made for people with a significant degree of middle-aged spread and no muscle on their legs. Jackets in the shops always sag backwards because there's too much material around the waist, and trousers never fit because there's too little material everywhere else at the appropriate waist size. But I haven't started a campaign group because it's my choice to do exercise and be healthy, and I know that being different from the crowd will inevitably mean that the mass market won't cater for me well.
Similarly, where's the point in 'giving [fat people] ideas and styles that we can work with ' when the purpose of a style is to look good, and being fat doesn't? I understand that there might be clothes that make fat people look better than other clothes, but those probably aren't the same styles that look good on normal or thin people. Whilst being overweight might be an epidemic, apparently they're poor and hence unlikely to spend on profitable items. There isn't much money to be made in appealing (if it's possible) displays of cheap clothes; shops want to put their cheap, bulk items on a shelf and display the high-priced fashion items. So again, fat people and men won't get as much shop space.
If we force, or persuade, companies to give up shop space for fatties, and it's not as profitable as their current arrangement, that will ensure that the rest of us pay a higher price on our goods, in order to make up the shortfall. I'm not convinced that I should pay more because of the lifestyle choices of others. I pay more because of my lifestyle choices (I have to search for good clothes for longer etc.) and because of natural chance in body shape, and I accept that. If obese people think that they should get to push shopping away from the profitable distribution of goods because of a moral claim they have, then I, as an athlete and a man, have a moral claim for the same reason, and shops should be made to cater to every clothing interest group.
It's probably now obvious what I'll say about theatre, loo and hospital bed sizes. These things cost me money. If the seat is larger than I need, I will pay more than would be necessary for my ticket, because the theatre will have greater upkeep costs on a larger building and greater debt for its construction. If a hospital must invest in specialist equipment for the grossly obese then my taxes are not going on universal care, such as for muscle injuries, broken bones or simply old age. Every adaptation to overweight people in the population costs me money, either through taxes or through higher costs.
When it comes to theatres, I avoid them because I can see it on television or video and I hate being squashed into a space that would be illegally small if it were for livestock, and I'll probably enjoy the extra space. But by the time there's enough space to stop obese people feeling squashed I'll be paying for what is effectively a room of my own, not a seat.
I think the moral thing to do would be to charge obese people more, not try to warp the market to make others pay more. We need the people who have caused these increased costs to pay for them. The most important part of this is in the NHS, which spends a huge amount of money on illnesses related to being overweight. If all that money were free to be spent on research (bearing in mind that these illnesses are mostly chronic ones and so old-age care would not therefore cost more if everyone were fitter and healthier) then the annual health research budget of this country would over double. If people are too poor to afford to be overweight, then as with any other thing that costs, they should just have to do without. There is no justification for expecting a normal life when you're not normal.
sexual appetites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16552173
I suppose you'd have to describe me as hyper-sexual. I would happily have sex numerous times a day every day, and have done in the past.
I certainly experience discrimination if I ever choose to admit how much sex in a relationship means to me. Thankfully the outright disgust is often masked by an assumption that I'm merely lying to be macho, although being thought a liar is hardly the best of responses to a personal confession. I also object to the assumption that I'm a gullible fool who tries to impress people by falling into established stereotypes. It's not a particularly obvious assumption to make for anyone who's ever met me, exposing even more the antipathy people have towards the idea of a high sexual appetite.
I find it sad that we still live in an era of special interest groups appealing for special tolerance, rather than the sort of broad-mindedness that would help anyone who happens to be a bit different.
The last article I saw on the BBC about having a lot of sex was about a sex addict who was preaching to us all how much better he feels not having sex so much. Perhaps the prudish BBC, and the population in general, has some way to go before sexual taste is truly treated as a matter of personal preference. I have no doubt that if there were a special-interest group trying to protect people like myself against discrimination from conservatives and religious nutters we'd be laughed at, and probably rightly so, because we should be campaigning against bigotry in general.
It's frustrating though, to have a worthy article telling us all to accept people with no sexual appetite, and a worthy article telling us all that abstaining from having as much sex as we might feel we need can make us feel fulfilled. It seems all one-way. Why not an article about a loser telling us all how much happier he is now that he earns money and can hire a prostitute every so often? Why not an article by someone like me appealing for tolerance of those who have a high sex drive?
The bias seems obvious to me, in the selection of which well-meaning subjects to publish. The BBC, known for its current habit of putting up an alternative view to any opinion, however wacky that alternative might be, seems to have missed a golden opportunity. If climate change deniers get a slot, despite being utter idiots, I think my opinions should get a slot, being based as they are on a question of taste. Anyone who doubts whether I'll be happy having lots of sex is welcome to set up an experiment to test it.
I suppose you'd have to describe me as hyper-sexual. I would happily have sex numerous times a day every day, and have done in the past.
I certainly experience discrimination if I ever choose to admit how much sex in a relationship means to me. Thankfully the outright disgust is often masked by an assumption that I'm merely lying to be macho, although being thought a liar is hardly the best of responses to a personal confession. I also object to the assumption that I'm a gullible fool who tries to impress people by falling into established stereotypes. It's not a particularly obvious assumption to make for anyone who's ever met me, exposing even more the antipathy people have towards the idea of a high sexual appetite.
I find it sad that we still live in an era of special interest groups appealing for special tolerance, rather than the sort of broad-mindedness that would help anyone who happens to be a bit different.
The last article I saw on the BBC about having a lot of sex was about a sex addict who was preaching to us all how much better he feels not having sex so much. Perhaps the prudish BBC, and the population in general, has some way to go before sexual taste is truly treated as a matter of personal preference. I have no doubt that if there were a special-interest group trying to protect people like myself against discrimination from conservatives and religious nutters we'd be laughed at, and probably rightly so, because we should be campaigning against bigotry in general.
It's frustrating though, to have a worthy article telling us all to accept people with no sexual appetite, and a worthy article telling us all that abstaining from having as much sex as we might feel we need can make us feel fulfilled. It seems all one-way. Why not an article about a loser telling us all how much happier he is now that he earns money and can hire a prostitute every so often? Why not an article by someone like me appealing for tolerance of those who have a high sex drive?
The bias seems obvious to me, in the selection of which well-meaning subjects to publish. The BBC, known for its current habit of putting up an alternative view to any opinion, however wacky that alternative might be, seems to have missed a golden opportunity. If climate change deniers get a slot, despite being utter idiots, I think my opinions should get a slot, being based as they are on a question of taste. Anyone who doubts whether I'll be happy having lots of sex is welcome to set up an experiment to test it.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
housemate troubles 5 (summary)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)