Posts Tagged ‘
Friday, March 1st, 2013
2 years, 3 months.
A really weird news story that has been trending for two weeks now is that Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, announced to her employees that she will be banning them from working remotely, starting in June. This didn’t go over well, especially with moms who have been working from home.
Things got even more interesting when it was revealed that Marissa Mayer paid to have a nursery built in her office, so she could bring her toddler to work with her.
There’s no need to point out the obvious double standard here.
As a Generation Y parent, I am especially intrigued and provoked by this story. It’s because Generation Y parents live by a unique work ethic.
Dr. Randall S. Hansen, founder of Quintessential Careers, published an article called “Perception Vs. Reality: 10 Truths About The Generation Y Workforce.” He helps shed some light on why Marissa Mayer’s decision especially rubs a raw nerve with parents of my generation, born in 1981 and beyond:
“Generation Y is the first generation to expect — from day one — employers to realize there is more to life than work. Just as many Baby Boomers are now discovering later in their careers, Generation Y sees work as a means to enjoy life — and life comes first. They have a strong work ethic — just not in a 9-5 sort of way. Generation Y wants work to be fun and flexible because the line between work and life is seamless. (In other words, there is no such thing as work-life balance because it’s all just one thing.) Generation Y also follows a mantra of working smarter, not harder.
The key for employers is offering flexible work schedules, adjusting the belief that workers need to ‘put in the hours at the desk’ to be effective, and developing a work culture that is pleasant and positive.”
So for any Yahoo employees, this news about no longer being able to work from home is not cool. But it’s especially an insult to those who happen to be parents aged 32 and younger.
Something I have personally observed about Generation Y in the work force, is that we’re not good about keeping our mouths shut when we spot an obvious double standard. We have an (unrealistic?) expectation that our superiors should go by the same restrictions they place on us.
No eating lunch at our desk? No texting during work hours? Fine. Just don’t let us catch our supervisors doing those same things.
Because as Dr. Randall S. Hansen goes on to explain in ”Perception Vs. Reality: 10 Truths About The Generation Y Workforce,” Generation Y has been raised to question authority:
“While some people refer to this cohort of people as Generation Why for a reason, it is not so much an issue of a lack of respect for authority as much as it is that this group has been raised by their parents to question everything and raise questions when they don’t understand something.
This generation is very independent and not afraid to challenge the status-quo. Many in Generation Y want a relationship with their boss like the ones they have with their parents. It’s not that these folks have little respect for authority; on the contrary, they feel employers do not respect them.
The key for employers is realizing that asking questions can often lead to answers and solutions that are actually more efficient and effective. Unlike with any other set of workers in the past, employers must also provide more autonomy — and trust Gen Y workers to complete the work.”
I’m curious to see how my Generation Y mindset will affect you as my son. I am proud to be a Generation Y parent. I think you and I are going to have good, open and honest communication.
As for ever hearing me say, “Do as I say, not as I do,” well forget about it.
Question me as your dad and I will be glad to you give you an answer that is not “just because.” Learn by my lived-out examples, not just my words.
It’s very important to me that I’m a good dad… I associate that with my Generation Y work ethic.
Top image: Letter Y, via Shutterstock.
Bottom image: Work Ethics, via Shutterstock.
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011
I would love to believe that I am not at all judgmental of other people; that I don’t think or act as if I am “better” than any other person in this world. Because to my conscious knowledge, I firmly am convinced that is the case. In fact, I don’t want the responsibility of having to judge others- even down to a performance review of a coworker. If it’s up to me, I just want to stay out of any situation where critiquing someone’s value and worth in society is left up to me.
But it’s obviously not that easy. To think I am so not judgmental is, if anything, conceited: I’m no exception to human nature. Saying that I am not judgmental is almost as much of a paradox as a person bragging about how humble they are.
If I knew I was shaking the hand of a convicted child molester who just got out of prison, despite believing that God’s grace and forgiveness is more powerful than any wrong a person can commit, and despite that because of God’s grace and forgiveness I myself have been forgiven of “much lesser” sins, there would still be something in my subconscious that would judge that man even though I wouldn’t want to.
The reason? Like everyone in this world, I have what’s called “judge of character,” which is a very important and necessary trait to live by.
In general, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when my instincts warn me about a person, I follow them. And I need to instill those particular instincts in my son to serve as a guide in his decision-making processes throughout life.
What I don’t want to teach my son is to think, however, is that he is ever cooler, more physically attractive, richer, or simply “better” than any other kid.
So really, the question is this: What’s the difference between being judgmental and having a good judge of character?
I believe it has a lot to do with whether or not we generalize another person as “good” or “bad,” or if they are “better” or “worse” than we are, in an overall sense.
Recently, as I was pulling my car out out from where I work onto a road with a 35 mile per hour speed limit, I saw that there was another car coming. But based on my learned perception, I wouldn’t have slowed down the other driver at all; if they were going anywhere near the speed limit.
Turns out, the person in the other car was driving somewhere around 55 miles per hour and had to cross a double line to pass me to keep from running in to me. Then the driver did the same thing to the car which was in front of me, which was also going the speed limit. By the time this speedy driver passed that second car, they had to immediately stop; there was a red light.
Whether or not I said it out loud, I know I at least thought it: “What an idiot! This person is so stupid!”.
Right through the red light, just about one block away from where I pulled out from my employer’s parking lot is KinderCare, the exact place I was going to pick up my son. Interestingly enough, the speedy driver had pulled into KinderCare right before me. She got out of the car and walked in. I followed only feet behind, then stood there waiting on her so that I could “clock out” my son on the computer.
I think it was more awkward for her than it was for me, but she mustered up a hello along with a smile, as if her daredevil driving stunt hadn’t just happened.
This same “idiotic” and “stupid” person who had without a doubt put herself and others in some serious danger, only to be stopped by a red light and ultimately only beat me by 7 seconds to KinderCare, is also a wife and mother. The truth is, I’m sure her abilities to raise her child are nothing like her ridiculous driving habits. I’m sure she’s a very decent woman and a wonderful mother.
Yet I labeled her as a stupid and idiotic person, based on just one of her actions.
For a guy who doesn’t want to teach my son to be judgmental of others, I’m sure there are plenty of other examples where I negatively label a person overall because of only one thing I see. Who else do I think is a stupid idiot, and for what reasons am I superior in some minimal way?
I am not ashamed of my “judge of character,” but starting now, I am attempting to make a habit of not generalizing people as good or bad, based on a solitary trait. I want to make a conscious effort to refrain from calling people names; because after all, it’s pretty juvenile. If through my speech habits I teach my son to call other people names, then I want them to be good names.
If I want to set out to be less judgmental of others both consciously and subconsciouly, this is my starting point.
Granted, I’ll never be completely successful at this new “no name calling” campaign. But surely I can improve. I just need to be careful not to begin thinking that I am better than all the people who still call others names. (Insert laugh tracks here.)
Categories: Deep Thoughts, Must Read, People, Spirituality, Storytelling, The Dadabase | Tags: babies, character, daddy blog, ethics, human nature, morals, name calling, paradox, parenting, society, stupid
Sunday, August 14th, 2011
In today’s publication of the New York Times, there is an article entitled The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy. It tells of the growing number of women who are pregnant with twins and choose to abort only one of the fetuses, and allowing the other to survive. In other words, these women are having a “half abortion.”
According to the article, New York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center performed 101 abortions last year; 38 of those pregnancy terminations involved a mother pregnant with twins who decided to only abort one unborn child. And that’s just one medical center in the entire country.
One mother who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, then aborted only one fetus, gives her reasoning for the decision:
“If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
What is it about the idea of a half abortion that somehow seems more difficult to grasp than a “normal” abortion? The immediate thing that comes to mind is that it is an ultimate case of “playing God.” As if a “normal” abortion wasn’t already giving one person the authority to choose another human being’s ability to live, a half abortion gives a person the ability to decide which unborn child deserves to live and which one deserves to die. That’s playing God, times two.
Is there any justification for a half abortion? The article in the New York Times gives several examples of why women made their decision:
1. The mother was 45 years old and already had children. She felt financially insecure, as well as, too old to have twins.
2. The mother was known as a “good parent,” highly devoted to her children. Pregnant with twins, she decided she couldn’t be equally devoted to two more; just one.
3. The mother already had a son. Then she got pregnant with twins; a boy and a girl. She chose to keep the girl.
4. Many of these mothers were in their 2nd marriage and already have kids from their previous marriages. Twins would have been too complicated, compared to only one more addition to the family.
5. Some were single mothers.
6. Some mothers did not want to jeopardize their education.
7. Some did not want to jeopardize their careers.
8. One woman’s husband was an officer in the Army, fighting in Iraq. They already had a few kids. Twins were too much a risk if something happened to her husband.
For those of us unfamiliar with the idea of a half abortion until today, we now make a decision in our own minds of whether it is ethically justifiable or wrong. The fact that The New York Times is doing a story about it says something in and of itself: This is not your typical “gray area” moral dilemma.
This isn’t a discussion about whether abortion is right or wrong, in general. Honestly, “pro-choice vs. pro-life” debates bore me. Polls show that our nation is split 50/50 on abortion. Most of us have already made up our minds on the issue and the truth is, we are not going to convince each other otherwise via comments on a blog post; especially if we ourselves play God by judging other people’s character and life decisions.
I hope it is clear that I am not asking anyone to cast stones, but instead to think with an open mind about a tough issue that has some undeniable ethical questions surrounding it. I enjoy mature, mutually respectable, deep conversations. Therefore, I’m curious to know how other people feel about the “two minus one pregnancy.” What ethical issues does the half abortion raise?
Categories: Deep Thoughts, Recaps, Spirituality | Tags: abortion, controversial, ethics, genocide, good vs evil, gray areas, half abortion, morals, New York Times, playing God, politically incorrect, pregnancy, pro-choice, pro-life, twins, Two-Minus-One Pregnancy