We grow up being told that we can be whatever we want to be, and have whatever we want if we are willing to work hard enough for it. So we work hard all through school and hope that one day, the investment of our time and money will pay off. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't.
Currently I'm experiencing a period where it doesn't seem to be paying off, but just over a year ago I thought it was. I was busting my hump daily at a job I thought was going to be a great opportunity to start building my career. I worked long hours and put in more effort than I've put towards anything else in my life. I was finally making decent money, but when I wasn't working I didn't have the time or energy to spend it. I was tired and frustrated, because no matter how hard I tried my work never seemed to be good enough. My social life dwindled, my marriage suffered, and my house was always a wreck. I had what I thought I wanted, a good job, but I seemed to be losing everything else. After I lost that job my husband told me it was a blessing, because I was back to my old self, the person he liked being around.
I know there are people out there who love their jobs, but I have to wonder if you have to basically give up the rest of your life to have a successful career? Can we really not have everything we want? I've met so many people who hate their jobs and can't find another, or know what job they want but it won't support them. Is it possible that the vast majority of people can only have success in one part of their lives?
I think this is especially troubling for women who want to have a career and a family. I don't even have kids and I felt the strain of working full-time and maintaining a home, and I'm lucky enough to have a husband to cooks most of our meals. Before I started working, I thought women who paid someone to clean their homes were lazy. Now I understand that they want to spend what little time they have at home with their families, not doing housework. I don't blame them anymore; I work only part-time and would hire a housekeeper if I could afford it. I get overwhelmed now, so I can only imagine how much worse it is with kids adding to the mess and occupying a big chunk of your schedule.
Having it all probably requires a very delicate balancing act that most people find difficult, if even possible. I'm going to continue enjoying my relatively stress-free life while I can, and hope that the chaos that awaits me is at least fun. Readers, how do you balance work and the rest of your lives?
Friday, February 22, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Valentine's Wishes!
No one knows exactly the history of Valentine's Day, but the celebration of love in early spring goes back to at least the era of the Roman empire. However, I have noticed that the legacy of Valentine's Day has become somewhat tarnished with excessive consumerism, much like Christmas has.
I have had many people, men and women alike, have come into my store in the past few days desperately looking for a present for their Valentine. They are worried if they're spending enough money, if the restaurant they chose is nice enough, and if they are picking out presents that their significant other will like. Wanting to find the right present for that special someone isn't a bad thing, but the stress that I see these people feeling is not what Valentine's Day is about.
Valentine's Day is about showing your loved one how much they mean to you, and spending a lot of money doesn't necessarily do that. Several women have told me that a card and a simple bouquet are enough, because it is enough that their boyfriends or husbands remembered the holiday and thought of them. There are alternatives to expensive dinners and gifts. My husband and I celebrate by doing something we don't normally do, even if it's something simple like just the two of us going to a movie. If you don't want to go to a restaurant and your spouse usually does the cooking, make him or her a romantic dinner at home and make sure you do the dishes.
Also, it's important for people to show each other how much they care more than just one day a year. If you don't appreciate someone all the time, a few gifts on a holiday aren't going to make up for that. So, celebrate Valentine's Day and make it special, but bring a little Valentine's celebration into every day!
I have had many people, men and women alike, have come into my store in the past few days desperately looking for a present for their Valentine. They are worried if they're spending enough money, if the restaurant they chose is nice enough, and if they are picking out presents that their significant other will like. Wanting to find the right present for that special someone isn't a bad thing, but the stress that I see these people feeling is not what Valentine's Day is about.
Valentine's Day is about showing your loved one how much they mean to you, and spending a lot of money doesn't necessarily do that. Several women have told me that a card and a simple bouquet are enough, because it is enough that their boyfriends or husbands remembered the holiday and thought of them. There are alternatives to expensive dinners and gifts. My husband and I celebrate by doing something we don't normally do, even if it's something simple like just the two of us going to a movie. If you don't want to go to a restaurant and your spouse usually does the cooking, make him or her a romantic dinner at home and make sure you do the dishes.
Also, it's important for people to show each other how much they care more than just one day a year. If you don't appreciate someone all the time, a few gifts on a holiday aren't going to make up for that. So, celebrate Valentine's Day and make it special, but bring a little Valentine's celebration into every day!
Friday, February 8, 2013
Retail Rant
A few months ago I accepted a retail management position out of desperation to find work. This isn't my first job where I have to work with the public, but the unique mixture of dealing with customers, frustrated coworkers, and crappy hours has helped me recognize some of the things that people do that really irritate me. These behaviors are by no means limited to my current field, but here's a short list of pet peeves I've discovered while working in retail:
1. People who can't take a joke
I've been known to say funny things from time to time, and sometimes I manage to make people laugh and sometimes I don't. I especially like to make jokes to dissolve unneeded tension in a room, but I never resort to offensive jokes based on race, religion, or gender stereotypes. My coworkers all know me well enough to know when I'm trying to to cheer someone up or lighten the mood, but sometimes they choose not to take what I say for what it is: a joke. They snap back with a pissed-off response, but then when I tell them I was joking they say, "Oh, I know, but (insert rest of comment here)." THAT is what irritates me. If you know I'm joking and I haven't actually offended you, don't respond like I have, especially when you're just making a point that everyone already knows. You've thwarted my attempt to lessen everyone's discomfort, ruined a perfectly good joke, and made yourself look like a total jerk in one sentence. Congratulations, I hope whatever pissy thing you just had to say was worth it.
2. People who take themselves too seriously
I'm guilty of this, and I think most people probably are from time to time. Everyone has the right to be taken seriously, especially when voicing concerns and ideas, but some people just take themselves too seriously. Someone who can't stand to be teased even a little about whatever helps make them unique is someone who isn't comfortable with themselves. If you have a hobby, belief, personality quirk, or anything else that most people find weird, either don't share with anyone that doesn't have it in common with you or be open to a little good-natured ribbing. How you handle a little teasing is indicative of your personality, so it's important to have a little sense of humor about yourself.
3. People who act like it's your fault they're doing something they don't want to do
This comes from both customers and coworkers. We have customers in the store all the time complaining about the lack of inventory or the price of products. Sometimes they don't want to be there at all, but were dragged in by a friend or have to buy a gift for someone. I'm sympathetic to doing things out of responsibility, but I'm not forcing anyone into the store and keeping them there against their will, and being treated like I am gets very old, very fast. The same treatment comes from my co-workers from time to time (I probably do it too, honestly). Remember that if you are doing something out of a sense of duty, IT IS NO ONE'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN. So, act accordingly.
I know that everyone, including myself, is guilty of each of these behaviors from time to time. After experiencing how annoying it is to be around someone acting this way, I'm going to make more of an effort to act better. But, I'd like to know what my readers' pet peeves are, so leave a comment or send me a message to let me know!
1. People who can't take a joke
I've been known to say funny things from time to time, and sometimes I manage to make people laugh and sometimes I don't. I especially like to make jokes to dissolve unneeded tension in a room, but I never resort to offensive jokes based on race, religion, or gender stereotypes. My coworkers all know me well enough to know when I'm trying to to cheer someone up or lighten the mood, but sometimes they choose not to take what I say for what it is: a joke. They snap back with a pissed-off response, but then when I tell them I was joking they say, "Oh, I know, but (insert rest of comment here)." THAT is what irritates me. If you know I'm joking and I haven't actually offended you, don't respond like I have, especially when you're just making a point that everyone already knows. You've thwarted my attempt to lessen everyone's discomfort, ruined a perfectly good joke, and made yourself look like a total jerk in one sentence. Congratulations, I hope whatever pissy thing you just had to say was worth it.
2. People who take themselves too seriously
I'm guilty of this, and I think most people probably are from time to time. Everyone has the right to be taken seriously, especially when voicing concerns and ideas, but some people just take themselves too seriously. Someone who can't stand to be teased even a little about whatever helps make them unique is someone who isn't comfortable with themselves. If you have a hobby, belief, personality quirk, or anything else that most people find weird, either don't share with anyone that doesn't have it in common with you or be open to a little good-natured ribbing. How you handle a little teasing is indicative of your personality, so it's important to have a little sense of humor about yourself.
3. People who act like it's your fault they're doing something they don't want to do
This comes from both customers and coworkers. We have customers in the store all the time complaining about the lack of inventory or the price of products. Sometimes they don't want to be there at all, but were dragged in by a friend or have to buy a gift for someone. I'm sympathetic to doing things out of responsibility, but I'm not forcing anyone into the store and keeping them there against their will, and being treated like I am gets very old, very fast. The same treatment comes from my co-workers from time to time (I probably do it too, honestly). Remember that if you are doing something out of a sense of duty, IT IS NO ONE'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN. So, act accordingly.
I know that everyone, including myself, is guilty of each of these behaviors from time to time. After experiencing how annoying it is to be around someone acting this way, I'm going to make more of an effort to act better. But, I'd like to know what my readers' pet peeves are, so leave a comment or send me a message to let me know!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
God in Government
Every so often, I hear about some incident that reaffirms my belief that church and state should remain separate. The case of the Saudi imam who raped, tortured, and murdered his five-year-old daughter but was freed after spending a short time in jail and paying "blood money" is a perfect, if extreme, example of why law and religion should not mix. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a legislature or constitution; its government relies solely on sharia to determine crime and punishment. Since sharia permits parents to kill their children, the courts decided that he could not be held in prison after paying restitution to the rest of his daughter's family.
I don't limit my opinion to Muslim law and countries: I firmly believe that all countries should keep religion out of their lawmaking as much as possible. This is not to say that governments should be unethical or immoral, because I think it's important to recognize that moral codes are found in not only in religions. I recently read a book by Brooke Allen entitled "Moral Minority" that explored the religious and philosophical beliefs of the American founding fathers, and Allen determined that many of our iconic founders were not the devout Christians they are so often made out to be.
The U.S. Constitution was written during the Great Enlightenment, and many of the representatives were well-educated freethinkers. This is not to say they weren't religious or practiced religion, but based on their personal and public writing Allen determined that their church dogma came second in their minds to the new science and philosophy developing in Europe and America. This is evident in the fact that delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed not to open the convention with a prayer, which was highly unusual for governmental bodies of the time. It is also notable that religion is mentioned only twice in the Constitution, in Article VI and the First Amendment, and both strictly limit the presence of religion in government and vice versa. Furthermore, the only mention of a deity is the phrases "Our Creator" and "Nature's God," which would appeal not just to Christians, but followers of all religions.
Despite the very intentional absence of Jesus or God in the Constitution, many advocates of religion's presence in government point to religious mottoes placed on currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance. The answer to this is, simply, that the architects of our Constitution didn't invent or implement such mottoes. "In God We Trust," was placed on our currency after the Civil War, when remorse inspired a period of religious rebirth. The phrase "Under God," was added to the Pledge in the 1950's, during Sen. McCarthy's Communist witch hunts, when Americans were experiencing a sense of moral superiority to the rest of the world and feared the influence of new ideas.
Another point religious advocates make is that the American colonies were founded by Christian groups escaping persecution in England. It's true that some colonies were founded as communities for specific denominations, but not all were. Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina were founded as commercial enterprises, and Georgia was a penal colony for English criminals. These colonies, along with Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island established the Anglican Church as their primary religion. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were founded by the Puritan Congregationalists, who were highly intolerant of other religious sects. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island had no established religious order; Rhode Island promised full rights to all Christians and Pennsylvania was considered a Holy Experiment and all Christians were invited to take part.
There was a great deal of religious intolerance in many of the colonies, especially between Anglicans and Congregationalists, and the Founding Fathers knew that it would be impossible to reach an agreement that established any denomination as the state religion. Even maintaining Christianity as the state religion would have been difficult, as each Christian sect declared certain other denominations non-Christian. To avoid this mess and the kind of great religious struggles that plagued European governments for centuries, the architects of the Constitution intentionally laid the groundwork for a religion-free government.
It is true that while the Constitution limits religion in government, it also protects it from government interference. However, many individuals have stretched the idea of religious freedom to include the ability to make laws based on religious dogma, and then cry "Discrimination!" when they are prevented from doing so. But preventing such laws to be passed is not discriminating against and particular religion, it is being fair to all religions by not allowing any single belief system to gain power in the government and thus power over the American people. We should be grateful for this, as the Founding Fathers were completely justified in their belief that religious struggles would continue to affect our country.
We can learn a lot from our Founding Fathers, and I plan to continue reading their writing and exploring their beliefs. Perhaps I will learn something that will change my mind, but I think the authors of the Constitution were incredibly far-sighted and attuned to the way our society would progress. Readers, what do you think of separation of church and state? Leave a comment or send me a personal message!
I don't limit my opinion to Muslim law and countries: I firmly believe that all countries should keep religion out of their lawmaking as much as possible. This is not to say that governments should be unethical or immoral, because I think it's important to recognize that moral codes are found in not only in religions. I recently read a book by Brooke Allen entitled "Moral Minority" that explored the religious and philosophical beliefs of the American founding fathers, and Allen determined that many of our iconic founders were not the devout Christians they are so often made out to be.
The U.S. Constitution was written during the Great Enlightenment, and many of the representatives were well-educated freethinkers. This is not to say they weren't religious or practiced religion, but based on their personal and public writing Allen determined that their church dogma came second in their minds to the new science and philosophy developing in Europe and America. This is evident in the fact that delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed not to open the convention with a prayer, which was highly unusual for governmental bodies of the time. It is also notable that religion is mentioned only twice in the Constitution, in Article VI and the First Amendment, and both strictly limit the presence of religion in government and vice versa. Furthermore, the only mention of a deity is the phrases "Our Creator" and "Nature's God," which would appeal not just to Christians, but followers of all religions.
Despite the very intentional absence of Jesus or God in the Constitution, many advocates of religion's presence in government point to religious mottoes placed on currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance. The answer to this is, simply, that the architects of our Constitution didn't invent or implement such mottoes. "In God We Trust," was placed on our currency after the Civil War, when remorse inspired a period of religious rebirth. The phrase "Under God," was added to the Pledge in the 1950's, during Sen. McCarthy's Communist witch hunts, when Americans were experiencing a sense of moral superiority to the rest of the world and feared the influence of new ideas.
Another point religious advocates make is that the American colonies were founded by Christian groups escaping persecution in England. It's true that some colonies were founded as communities for specific denominations, but not all were. Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina were founded as commercial enterprises, and Georgia was a penal colony for English criminals. These colonies, along with Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island established the Anglican Church as their primary religion. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were founded by the Puritan Congregationalists, who were highly intolerant of other religious sects. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island had no established religious order; Rhode Island promised full rights to all Christians and Pennsylvania was considered a Holy Experiment and all Christians were invited to take part.
There was a great deal of religious intolerance in many of the colonies, especially between Anglicans and Congregationalists, and the Founding Fathers knew that it would be impossible to reach an agreement that established any denomination as the state religion. Even maintaining Christianity as the state religion would have been difficult, as each Christian sect declared certain other denominations non-Christian. To avoid this mess and the kind of great religious struggles that plagued European governments for centuries, the architects of the Constitution intentionally laid the groundwork for a religion-free government.
It is true that while the Constitution limits religion in government, it also protects it from government interference. However, many individuals have stretched the idea of religious freedom to include the ability to make laws based on religious dogma, and then cry "Discrimination!" when they are prevented from doing so. But preventing such laws to be passed is not discriminating against and particular religion, it is being fair to all religions by not allowing any single belief system to gain power in the government and thus power over the American people. We should be grateful for this, as the Founding Fathers were completely justified in their belief that religious struggles would continue to affect our country.
We can learn a lot from our Founding Fathers, and I plan to continue reading their writing and exploring their beliefs. Perhaps I will learn something that will change my mind, but I think the authors of the Constitution were incredibly far-sighted and attuned to the way our society would progress. Readers, what do you think of separation of church and state? Leave a comment or send me a personal message!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)