No one right way

I have often, over the course of the past few months, found myself conflicted. I would wonder if I was making the right choices. The choices varied, but I guess the easiest way to unify them is to say they were mainly purchasing decisions.

I have started being more aware of the way my choices as a consumer affect the world at large, and as a result, wondering at every step whether I should be making my consumer choices differently. Should I be buying more produce at the farmer's market? Should I go thrifting more? Should I frequent Craigslist?

My roommate has a thing for antiques and restoring furniture. She peruses Craislist and frequents the Habitat for Humanity ReStore in town, finds promising pieces, and typically refinishes them to make them amazing. My other roommate (who just moved out) was into a similar hobby, though in a slightly different style. She also managed to find amazing things on Craigslist.  I totally admire and slightly envy their talent at this. It's an idea I can get behind.

My parents house is furnished with a combination of mismatched Target/Walmart bookshelves, furniture they got secondhand when my dad was a grad student (kitchen table and chairs, nice wood desk, nice wood chest of drawers, my dad's metal office desk).  The secondhand pieces are actually quite nice, but they've never been restored, updated, or fixed, except for the kitchen chairs, which my mom reupholstered a few times. Point is, most of those decisions were made based on utility on a tight budget and not appearances or style of any kind. Which I totally respect, also; raising a family of 4-5 on a grad student stipend and a postdoc salary would not be an easy task! 

So, between these two mindsets, one that I grew up with and one that I have been living around, and both of which I respect (choose high quality but used and restore it vs choose low quality but cheap and take care of it), when it came time to buy additional furniture for my new room, I found myself having issues.

I felt guilty when I didn't like anything on Craigslist or at the ReStore.  I felt guilty when I did not like any of the cheaper options ($15 black bookshelf from Target, $100 metal futon). But what it came down to, for me, was that I wanted what I wanted, within reason. Frankly, if I couldn't find options that fit within a reasonable budget, I would probably have done without rather than get what I didn't like for utility alone.

I'm not on as tight a budget as my parents were. And now, when they are on a budget with more wiggle room, they are starting to get nicer things.  Furthermore, I think I'm bothered more by things that look mismatched. On the other hand, I'm not as interested in tracking down deals or vintage items as my roommates.  Carefully handled particleboard can last for years and years, as we have found, and I currently have too many projects lying around unfinished to add more to that queue, as much as it would be fun to work on some furniture. It's just too much effort for the satisfaction I would get; it would be more productive to fix my bike  (which I still plan to do, instead of buying one, or before buying one, at any rate).

So, the upshot of ALL this? I need to remember that there's more than one way to make any decision, and what's right for my friends may not be right for me.  This goes for more than just buying choices. Same goes for planning a work/study/workout schedule, choosing a diet plan and how to stick with it, etc. I feel like people are always advocating their systems and their values, and as much as those make sense to me and I can respect them, that doesn't mean they are right for me. Even the values I was brought up with.

84.6 miles: My feminism

I suppose feminism is an actual philosophy; perhaps one that's evolved over time, but basically one that has a set philosophy or agenda. I haven't really looked it up. Rather, I've kind of developed the impression that almost every woman has her own idea of feminism now; the once fairly unified movement has diverged into a range of views that vary based on her individual experiences. In fact, I would like to retroactively include men in that statement, also.  So, with that disclaimer, I don't claim this to be true feminism or anything. I claim this to be my philosophy when it comes to women's rights and responsibilities, justice, equality, family, and all that jazz.

Primarily and fundamentally, my feminist viewpoint is that it (feminism, or being a feminist) is about CHOICE above all.  The freedom to make an individual choice about how your life will proceed.  It's a movement against fitting people into societal niches, particularly based on tradition and traditional gender roles.  I find that the movement as a whole would be pointless if we went from 'all women should stay at home and be mothers and homemakers' to 'all women should be working on careers.'  Furthermore, it is hypocritical for women to demand supposed 'equality' and yet continue to hold men to the same (or harsher) standard as before. It needs to be acknowledged that being viewed as the 'frailer' and 'more maternal' sex did and still does have certain perks. One of the most heartbreaking? The issue of father's rights.

Brief sidetrack: one of the few legitimate complaints I've heard from guys about feminism relates to the fact that the courts (and "the system") if you will, are still heavily skewed toward women when it comes to divorce, child custody, etc. Furthermore, the feminist view on abortion (pro-choice) tends to completely disregard the potential interest(s) of the father; the choice is considered to be entirely the mother's.  Basically, we stereotype men as money-earning (or on the flip side, shamefully deadbeat) machines that don't (or shouldn't) care the slightest about their kids (except, of course, as a drain on resources).  I admit, I know, in my generation, only three (unmarried or divorced) fathers. Only one is remotely close to this. The other two (at least when it comes to their kid(s)) are incredibly conscientious.  Some statistics support my experience: http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php .  (Incidentally, here's hoping my sample does not expand too much in the future, I don't really want any friends going through this...).  So my point is, a true feminist ought to see the injustice here and ought to be opposed to such practices.

In the abortion question, the question is a truly sensitive one...what if he (for whatever reason, i.e. personal, religious, moral) wants to keep the baby and she does not? And if we allow the man to have a call in this situation, how do we keep him from abusing that right to 'punish' the woman by forcing her through the pregnancy and then abandoning her and the child?  If the mother has the choice to abort the baby and give up the responsibilities it entails, why do we hold the father to fiscal responsibility for the child without giving him a choice? How is that fair?  Like I said, it is a delicate situation where many possible outcomes need to be foreseen.  I don't claim to have answers, but I know that the current system is not working, in the most unfortunate way.

So, back to the subject: true equality isn't about completely equal earnings and equal pay and equal everything. It's about equal CHOICES and opportunities. It's about being able to choose family or career or both no matter what sex you are. To make the right choice for your family based on your situation and not be harshly judged for it. That means removing the stigma from stay at home dads. That means taking turns paying for dates. That means not insisting that 'men' (because I am generalizing) be high earners or buy diamond rings or do whatever, but  finding the man (or woman) that best fits you and your lifestyle and the kind of partnership you want to have.

There are still men who want a homemaker wife. And for that matter, there are still women that want to be homemakers, who are prepared for 'mother' being their most important 'career.'  There is nothing wrong with that.  There may be couples who are both interested in working. Or where the woman is more career-oriented. I realize I am being hetero-centric here, and yes, I don't have to be. This all applies equally to gay and lesbian couples; but then, they already realize this, by necessity ;) .  I would even expand that idea of choice to say we shouldn't need to restrict marriage or family to one- or two-parent arrangements. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Moving on. It is my personal belief that the search for absolute 'equality' is doomed. Men and women, on a biological level, are not organized the same way.  However, I believe (I see, in my day-to-day life) the variance between people in terms of all character and physical traits--aptitude in mathematics or communication, athleticism and strength, stoicism, neatness, etc. all vary more between individuals than between sexes. Not to mention some of that variance is related to upbringing rather than genetics.  So again, we need to stray away from 'all men are this' and 'all women are that' thinking. Maybe we'll end up with 30% women in Mechanical Engineering...or 40% or 20%...or 60%!  Regardless, if all women feel free to choose any career and know they will be respected for their skill in it, a cultural victory will have been achieved. A victory of choice.

I should amend that. Women (and men) should be free to choose the lifestyle they want that meshes with their upbringing without judgement; this includes religious lifestyles that stress male dominance, as much as I personally think those are harmful to individuals and the society.  If this sounds contradictory...my view, again, promotes choice of lifestyle.  If someone is brought up a certain way with certain views (on morality, family, etc), then that may be the lifestyle they are comfortable and happy with, so I cannot convince myself that it is right for me to exclude that choice among others for them if their choices do not actively affect me.

That last was important: Forcing one's views on another, e.g. legislatively, or through violent, extremist, offensive actions, is not 'freedom of' anything.  It is impinging on freedom.  It is the opposite.  Taking away others' choices is the only invalid choice. 

I don't think that was a complete philosophy, but probably enough for today, because I need to go home eventually. I'd like to hear what others think of this and have my views challenged; it'll help me further refine them! :)

77.8 miles: Thoughts on the future of education.

I'm taking an online class this semester for the first time.  I've had classes at IIT that had an online section, which was very convenient; I could catch up on lectures if I had to miss a class, instead of puzzling through someone's notes.  But to have the entire experience online is rather different.

On a related note, I happened across an article today on how 'online education' is being implemented in schools. It's not completely online, but it's definitely taking advantage of it. It's called the 'flipped' school day. The idea is simple: did you ever get 'stuck' watching a lecture at school as opposed to stuck on a homework problem? Did you ever wish you could 'rewind' the teacher and  hear that concept again before moving on, or pause it to jot down a long formula without missing the next bit? Basically did you ever wish the lecture was being done on your time? On the other hand, isn't it helpful to have someone knowledgeable around when you're actually solving problems or completing an assignment? So, the simple concept is, flip the two! Stop sending problems and assignments home; instead, send the lectures, in video form.

I see another upshot: you're saving the passive learning (lectures) for the less energetic part of the day, and active, experiential learning for the middle of the day. You're working with most people's natural energy peak. You're also saving your teachers' time...a lecture only needs to be recorded once (during prep time) for several sections of the same class. Perhaps even across years! And like the article says, you can even exchange lectures with other schools.

I am wondering a few things, however.  Are the improvements cited by the school really due to moving those lectures, or can they be abolished altogether? I'm thinking of this other article that I read recently. In a nutshell, some physics profs structure classes based on small group problem solving and discussion, rather then lectures; and they see better results. Granted, I think they assigned reading and expected it to be done, too.

I'm going to admit, I never read for my classes; if I do, I'm just getting the same information a second time in lecture, and I'm bored. I'd rather go back to the book and read if I don't understand something from lecture. However, this hinges on the fact that I don't need to read to go to class. If I did, I probably would.

So, back to my online class...it's really a middle ground. Usually, I 'attend class' when it's going on, which lets me ask questions and participate if I want. On the other hand, I always have the option of watching or re-watching later (including late at night when I wouldn't do other work). The software used also has lots of cool features (which of course we aren't using). Everyone 'attending' can call in and talk, or even call in with video. We can point to the 'board' and write on it. We have a chat function. Frankly, taping a classroom is not the best use of it!  I'm not sure what is.

Here's what I am sure of: we're way past lectures. Information is so easy to come by these days: you have Khan Academy, you have Wikipedia, you have Google. You have Instructables. You can learn whatever you want without ever leaving your screen...so what do we do with classtime? I refuse to succumb to the view that organized education is outdated; but in order to have value over a self-education, it must switch from imparting information to a different model. One centered around verifying the student received the information correctly (correcting misunderstandings and confusion), and teaching them to apply that information. Perhaps even to seek out more of it.

Since I plan to become an educator, this is a thought in progress. For today, I just wanted to point out a cool trend I was seeing.

77.8 miles: Junk and Gourmet

So, I was contemplating a conversation with someone about music today, and realized that I have an interesting ability to appreciate junk as well as gourmet offerings in a number of areas.

An obvious one is food. I love a refined palette of flavors on my plate. Sushi, aioli, prosciutto, arugula...probably not at the same time, but good, tasteful ingredients thoughtfully combined make very tasty food. And yet on the flip side I have the occasional craving for a fast-food cheeseburger and fries, potato chips, gummy bears, pizza.  That isn't to say either (or both) of these categories are my whole diet. Most of what I eat falls in-between: a few sliced tomatoes with onions, salt, and sunflower oil, or mozzarella, basil, and olive oil. PB&J on whole wheat with natural PB (peanuts & salt) and redcurrant jelly. A colorful beef stir-fry with carrots, onions, bell peppers, and snow peas. A roast chicken to eat for a week. Greek yogurt with a little strawberry jam for flavor.  Everyday, affordable (mostly) ingredients combined in quick ways that still make tasteful food.  But when it comes to treats, I can take the high road and go for sushi or the low road and grab a greasy burger, and either will be delicious.

Same goes for movies. I can appreciate a deep, thoughtful, artistic film. And the next day I'll watch a mind-numbing teen chick flick. In music, I can appreciate a talented artist who writes good lyrics and puts them to an appropriate, creative tune. Or I can appreciate a catchy, redundant song that nevertheless has lots of feel-good quality to it.  I'll never call it good music, but it will probably end up on my workout playlist. Music is actually interesting because I'll feel a lot less appreciation for mediocre music...that's neither truly good nor catchy-bad. Then again, my tastes in music are mysterious and varied....

In books, I clearly like thoughtful, intricate, and/or original writing...recently, of course, Name of the Wind captured my imagination. Not a particularly original story in most senses, but beautifully crafted (it has its original moments...I like his concept of dragons).  George RR Martin, of course, cannot be beat for intricacy in Song of Ice and Fire. Most recently, I've been re-reading and continuing to read Earth's Children by Jean M. Auel.  While at times boring with multiple descriptions of the ice age setting, I know of no other author who writes about that time period, particularly with so much archeological accuracy.  This isn't limited to adult books: I find beauty in the classic Peter Pan, in the thoughtful but almost universally accessible Harry Potter.  I love Diana Wynne Jones for her artful characters and the bizzare circumstances she crafted to bring them together.  Yet at the same time, I've made it through Twilight (only the first and before it was popular, I was unimpressed), a number of Sarah Dessen books, The Princess Diaries, and many others. I'm not including Tamora Pierce, as her books are 'comfort food for my brain' and probably affected my ideology more than I'd care to admit. But in retrospect, many of the other books weren't particularly good in any way that usually matters.  But the plot, and the character's naive and simplistic problems...these things are like a catchy tune. They draw you in against your better judgement (or mine, anyway).  Granted, when I do get hooked on one of these books, I finish it in a matter of hours and feel good. Relaxed. Sastisfied that I found out what happened; most of the satisfaction of finishing a book in 1/4 the time! So maybe not such a waste of time after all.


So the point of all this? I think definitions of good or bad are very screwy in categories like the above.  They can simply be satisfying in different ways. And ultimately, it is prudent...no, convenient to live the middle ground and experience everything available.  You are not restricted by "OMG I can never eat that!" or "This is dumb!" but instead are able to find good things about every experience.  Now, I say convenient because as I read once, "You can like what you choose, but you can't choose what you like."* Some kinds of food, or music, or literature may grate on your nerves or make you fall asleep. I hate beans, squashes and eggplant. I fall asleep to most classical music. I can't stand movie sets that look marginally fake (Edward Scissorhands comes to mind) as opposed to very realistic or even obviously fake (e.g. Peter Pan, 2003).  I did not like reading Thomas Hardy, or Shakesperean tragedies, or any Russian classics I've tried.  I'm a huge supporter of "you can't choose what you like."

I guess that's my ultimate point: we don't choose what we like.  We have to make peace with our likes and dislikes, figure out and accept the value they are providing to us.  And of course, in spite of all my jesting to the contrary, no judging others based on these things, either!

23.5 miles: The Survival Motivator

I've been coming up with a post regarding motivation, depression, and our role in society, but it kept turning out all-encompassing and too big, so here's the smallest part of it....it's about something I call the survival motivator.

The crux of it is this: my generation* (myself included), generally lacks the strong drive and work ethic that was present in previous generations, because we don't need to develop it to survive**. We have the luxury of wondering if we're doing the right thing with our lives, because we're not cranking through 12 hour jobs just to stay afloat. We have choices. And ironically enough, having those options (along with expectations and pressure to choose the right ones) is ultimately getting us down, getting in the way of us building stable, developed careers and lives. We either wonder if we're doing the right thing, or push off doing it, and in the process, nothing gets done!

[*and by "my generation" I really mean 'middle class, developed world']

[**and by "survive" I really mean, maintain a personally acceptable standard of living]

Exhibit A: a student in the 1970's didn't have the internet. To write a 5 page paper on [insert subject], he or she would have had to go to the library to look up the material in books and articles. Perhaps, the correct material would not be available, then a book would need to be ordered from another library. Furthermore, typing their paper up would require several drafts, each of which would have to be retyped. A student in the 1970's did not have the option of procrastinating on his/her paper until the night before and downloading a dozen articles from the online database. Or at least, I imagine this is how it was, seeing as I know no one who went to school back then in the US. Maybe research papers were shorter, or less thorough results were required, but I seriously doubt the difference was as significant as the advantage technology gives us today. So the crux of it is: in order to survive (pass), the student would have to put in a much greater degree of effort and organization than we have to today. Which is baloney, and part of grade inflation. But I won't get into that now...but why is it that with so many more tools at our disposal we are not producing work at a significantly higher standard?

Exhibit B: An immigrant worker who works 16 hour days probably does not do it for enjoyment. I would bet it s a matter of survival. I also doubt he spends lots of time lamenting the situation of having to do this work to survive. Perhaps passively envying those that don't, like, "Hey, that would be nice," but not actively going "Why am I here? Is this the right career move? Am I happy with what this job is giving me?" It's just cut and dry in that situation.

Exhibit C: I feel like I was much more motivated before I got my greencard. It's bizzare. Unfathomable. It actually makes sense from the survival standpoint. For me in undergrad, survival meant, being able to stay in the US where all my friends were and not living in a box. To accomplish both, I needed to excel academically and build a work history to make myself extremely employable in spite of my international status when I got out of college. Being a girl helped. Being in engineering helped (always need engineers!). But good grades and extracurriculars and research and tutoring were all of tantamount importance as well (or at least, such was my perception). No one can fault you if you're the best; no one can deny you if you're the best. Someone has to give you a chance.

Then in senior year I got my greencard. It was great. I was excited. Then things went back to normal; I applied to graduate schools, did homework, designed design projects, went to work...but a strange thing started happening. I didn't want to work on making myself more employable after college. I wanted to go to summer camp and relaxwork and explore another side of myself and work on my health...all sorts of BS. I had that luxury now. I could try a job outside my field. I could explore. I could waste a little time. I didn't have to be the most employable engineer out there (especially going into grad school...).

I've never quite shaken that feeling...that it's not crucial anymore. That nothing is the end of the world. That things can be allowed to slide. Which is great and all, but leaves me grasping for a new way to motivate myself to do things besides overwhelming guilt that I should, because I'm capable of it and I have the resources, etc.

It's a type of focus that I end up lacking; the sense that I'm on a path and it's a good path and it's the only path and I need to stay on it. There's so many other paths available maybe one of them is better! I know for a fact I'm not the only one; I hear similar problems from my friends every day. But I know there are people out there who don't have this problem. People who are fighting for survival, taking what they can get, and finding joy in the simple things. Sure they have ups and downs, but they don't fill their heads with existential nonsense. "Why am I this person? Why do I have these flaws?" has about as much value in that setting as "Why does the universe exist? Why are its laws such as they are?" Even if you determine an answer, there's not much you can do to change it.

As Strugatzkie once said, "Трудно быть богом." [It's hard to be a god.]

{Disclaimer: I can see it coming "I'm sure the person hiding in a ditch, staring up at the guerrilla mobster who just shot their wife and children is very satisfied with their life." Which is really not what I'm getting at. I'm getting at Pioneers, who worked their asses off, but probably still had fun and less existential crises because everyone was a farmer and they couldn't just quit and get a new job any ole time because their families had to eat. I'm getting at people who moved their families to another country, and had to succeed because they'd already put everything they had into this move. I guess ultimately I'm saying we should all be grateful for the easy lives we have, get our collective noses back to the grindstone, and see if we can't further revolutionize our world. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to Facebook while I Google, and then get 3 hours of sleep.}