Matthew Dicks

The Golden Rule: Complete and total nonsense

I recently made the assertion that the Golden Rule, the Biblical admonition to do onto others as you would have done onto you, is an ineffective and nonsensical means by which one should live his or her life.

I was in a conversation with a group of educational leaders at the time, and I am relatively certain that their reactions to this statement fell along one of three distinct lines:

1. Matt is an idiot.
2. Matt likes to say things to make people angry.
3. Matt is an idiot who likes to say things that make people angry.

Suffice it to say that whatever their reaction was, no one initially agreed with me.

And yes, I may be an idiot who likes to make people angry at times, but my assertion in regards to The Golden Rule is correct. “The foundation of Christianity and most major religions” (as one person described the Golden Rule) possesses a flaw that makes it utterly useless.

The flaw is this: 

In reality, we do not treat people as we would want to be treated. We treat people as we perceive they want to be treated, and this is is often entirely different than the way we actually want to be treated.

For example, I know that when my wife has a problem, she would like me to listen intently and empathize with her plight. She is like most women in this respect. She wants to be heard. She wants to know that I am on her side. She wants to believe that I understand how she feels.

She may ultimately want me to help her solve the problem, but I know that any proposed solution is secondary and possibly not required at all. Sometimes a problem has no solution, yet she will still want to talk about it with me. As long as she knows that I am listening and care, she is content.

My response to a problem is entirely different. If I have chosen to discuss a problem with my wife or one of my friends, it is because I have reached the point where I need help in finding a solution. If a problem has no solution, I am unlikely to ever mention it to anyone.

Most men handle problems similarly. If my male friend calls me to discuss a problem, I know that he is not looking to be heard. He is not seeking empathy. He is calling me with the expectation that I will offer an immediate array of possible solutions. In most cases, I do not need to empathize or even care about my friend’s problem. I need not think that the problem is worthy of discussion, just as long as I have a solution to offer.

If I were to apply The Golden Rule to the way in which I discuss my wife’s problems with her, my response would not be well received. In this case, I cannot treat my wife as I would want to be treated, because our needs, like the needs of most men and women, are entirely divergent.

Situations like this happen all the time. In fact, if The Golden Rule was actually a valid moral code, human beings would be required to treat every person in their lives in only one way:

The way they would want to be treated.

Allowances would no longer need to be made for differences in personality, sensitivity, sex, age or personal background. In a world in which we treat people in a way that we would want to be treated, everyone would be equal in our eyes in every respect.

Everyone would be us.

Admittedly, it would make for a significantly simpler world. The need for nuance, grace and  sensitivity would be gone. Every decision would be based solely upon our own personal preference. You would simply ask yourself what you might want in a given situation and make that your modus operandi, regardless of who you were dealing with or the context of the situation.     

For example, I like to be spoken to in a direct and honest manner. My closest friends know this and are able to say things to me that might hurt the feelings of others. But this is how I prefer to be treated. I find this method most effective for me.  

In a world that demanded adherence to The Golden Rule, I would be required to speak to people similarly, even if I knew that doing so would  hurt some people’s feelings and cause them to feel uncomfortable around me.

I am quite certain of this because there was a time in my life when I practiced The Golden Rule in this regard, and it resulted in a great deal of animosity toward me. I was stupid and arrogant and lacking in nuance, and the results were not good.

The Golden Rule caused me a lot of trouble in my youth.

The actual Golden Rule should read like this:

Treat others in a way that they would want to be treated.

Thankfully, this is how most of us live our lives, even as we espouse our belief in this flawed, archaic rule.

Storm troopers with iPhones

Want a convenient, simple want to charge your iPhone on the go?

How about this? 

It’s called AIRE. It’s a device that allows the user to utilize the force of his or her breath to charge an iPhone.

Yes, it requires you to look like a Storm Trooper, but hey, at least you’ll still be able to text your friends when you can’t find an available electrical outlet. 

Not that you’ll have many friends if you start wearing one of these.

And it would be perfect in an apocalypse. While fleeing from zombies, you could simultaneously be charging your iPhone.  

 

He ruined my iPhone.

A friend, Tony, was asking about apps for his new iPad. I asked if he finally got rid of his featureless phone and purchased an iPhone as well.

His response made it difficult for me to continue to love my iPhone:

Whenever making a purchasing decision, I try to look at the long range cost, or in this case, how much additional savings I would have by NOT doing it. In this case, $720 (the yearly cost of an iPhone data plan) at 5% return (conservative 10.1% long term market) for 20 years is $24,000. There are just too many purchases with long tails, which is why I own Verizon stock (5.17% dividend) but not the service. Just a basic phone.

I hate when my friends start sounding like grownups. 

When it comes to a pregnant woman’s size, ladies, please just shut the hell up.

New rule:

No more commenting on a pregnant woman's physical appearance.

If my wife comes home with one more story of some idiot woman (and yes, it is always a woman) commenting on her size, I’m going to personally hunt that woman down and compose a treatise on every one of her physical imperfections.

Most recent was the woman in Starbucks who asked Elysha how many weeks along she was and then remarked that even when she was pregnant with twins, she didn’t think she was ever that big.

The woman should be forbidden from ever entering a Starbucks again. She probably shouldn’t be allowed in public anymore. 

But there have been plenty of others.

There was the woman who asked Elysha if she is much larger during this pregnancy than her previous one.

There are the hordes of attention-seeking narcissists who love to tell pregnant women about how little weight they gained during their own pregnancies and how quickly and easily they shed those extra few pounds after the delivery.

There are the women who mistake pregnant women for walking, talking carnival games, trying to guess how far along they are and always guessing too far.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Elysha averages about one insensitive comment per week, and these can come from friends, coworkers, family members and even complete strangers, who for reasons that escape me see a pregnant woman and feel the need to immediately engage in conversation.

My advice:

Just shut the hell up. All of you. Stop commenting on a pregnant woman’s physical appearance completely. I’d like to say that compliments are still permitted, but I feel like you’ve exercised such poor judgment already that you cannot be trusted to offer a compliment without accidentally insulting the woman at the same time. 

So just shut up completely.

And yes, I am certain that in all of human history, men have made these type of dumbass comments as well, but of the eight recently pregnant women who I polled over the past two days, all reported that comments like these, while entirely too frequent, are never made by men.

Men learned a long time ago to never comment on a woman’s size.

Take a page from our playbook, ladies, and shut the hell up.

Seriously.

You can’t take back slut.

This week’s Slate DoubleX Gabfest discussed how Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student who was called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh, might be “the new standard bearer for sex-positive feminism.”

In the podcast, the notion of taking back the word slut is mentioned, much the same way the homosexual community has taken back the word queer or parts of the African American community have taken back the N word.

But this line of reasoning is flawed and stupid. I can’t tell you how much it annoyed me.  

The homosexual community was able to take back queer because at worst, queer means “odd or different.” The definition of the word is not a problem for the gay community because it does not possess any strong negative connotations. In many ways, the actual definition of the word has ceased to matter to the gay community. The word queer had become a signifier for gay (this definition can actually be found in the dictionary), so taking it back merely meant stripping the word of its negativity without any need to change the word’s actual meaning.   

Taking back the N word was similar. Though it is so vile that I hesitate to use it on this blog, the word, by pure definition, is a derogatory signifier for a specific race of race of people. It is hateful and offensive, but it has no other meaning other than to signify African Americans.  Taking back the word did not require the African American community to change the definition of the word. They only needed to strip the word of its negative connotation.

But the word slut has a definition, and it is not a good one.  A slut is “a slovenly or promiscuous woman.”

Synonyms for the word include trollop, strumpet, harlot and streetwalker.

This is not a mere signifier of the word woman, nor does it describe a woman who uses birth control regularly (as Limbaugh implied) or engages in regular sex. Instead, it describes a person (usually a woman but not always) who lacks discrimination and/or judgment when choosing sexual partners. It speaks to a person’s standards for choosing a sexual partner and the number of sexual partners. Taking back the word slut not only means stripping the word of a negative connotation but also changing the definition as well.

Doing so would be akin to bald men taking back the word bald or short women taking back the word short. These words have have actual definitions. They describe a specific type of person in the same way that the word slut describes a specific type of behavior.

Slut is a word that possesses negative connotations because it describes behavior that is generally considered less than admirable. No one stole the word for nefarious purposes. It is and always has been a signifier for a person who has sex with a large number of people absent any thought or consideration.

In this way, it is actually a rather useful word. It effectively describes a type of person. Though it is often used pejoratively, that does not make the word vile or offensive, unless you are an idiot like Rush Limbaugh.    

As the father of a three-year old girl, I would prefer that she grow up in a world where slut has not been taken back for the sake of feminism.

Seriously. We don’t need it.

Jessica Gross, one of the podcast hosts, describes a time in middle school when she and her friends would jokingly refer to one another as sluts, unaware of what the word even meant.

I’d prefer that my daughter grow up without anyone calling her a slut, in jest or otherwise.

Times Square: The place that New Yorkers love to hate

I get annoyed when I hear New Yorkers complain about Times Square, which they seem to do a lot.

Yes, it’s crowded, and yes, tragically, many of the people crowding the streets are not New Yorkers, so they are not nearly as enlightened as the rest of you. They look up a lot. They pose for photographs in front of things that you find benign and commonplace. They crowd street corners and fail to act quickly when the light changes. They wear colors other than gray and black.

I know. It’s terrible. Inexcusable, really.

But three things:

1. You have chosen to live in the most densely populated location on planet Earth. Complaining about the crowds in Times Square just makes you sound stupid and pretentious.

2. All of those people are bringing dollars to your city. They support your vibrant theater district and fill your hotel rooms and eat in your restaurants and buy your hats and tee shirts. Cities would kill for the kind of tourism that Times Square promotes.

3. It’s not nearly as bad as you want us to think you think it is. Not even close. 

Get over yourselves. 

Does the television weatherman serve any useful purpose anymore? I think not.

“Is this the end to the mild weather? Find out at 11:00.”

This is what I heard tonight on television during an exceptionally rare viewing of live, non-sports related television.

Actually, that’s not even true. We were watching The Office, but it had actually aired about an hour earlier. But this is as close as Elysha and I get to live TV these days, so the weatherman’s words at least made sense for once. They actually matched the weather outside. 

When I heard the guy, who looked about seventeen years old, I thought:

Really, dude? You think that tease that works anymore? Find out at 11:00? How about, “Find out in 11 seconds by checking the app on my phone or on the Internet?” Does anyone actually wait until 11:00 PM to listen to a weatherman read the weather to you when you have the forecast at your fingertips at all times?

I hope not. I’d hate to think anyone is encouraging him.

Mindy Kaling’s 13 Rules for Guys

Elysha and I are listening to Mindy Kaling’s IS EVERYONE HANGING OUT WITHOUT ME and enjoying it a lot.

Recently we listened to the chapter that lists and explains Kaling’s 13 Rules for Guys.

I liked the list immediately because of its number.  Thirteen. Not ten. Not a dozen. Not twenty. The decidedly un-round number thirteen.  I never trust a list that contains a round number of items. It’s too damn convenient. It probably means that one or two quality items were left off the list or one or two less-than-worthy items were added to the list to achieve the round number. 

Thirteen is a great list number. Ten is the worst.

As for Kaling’s recommendations, I currently adhere to or would be willing to adopt to most but have serious objections to a few.

For the record, Elysha supports every item on the list without reservation. She and Mindy Kaling could easily be best friends.

________________________________________

1. Buy a well-fitting pea coat from J. Crew (and get it cleaned once a year).

I could do this. I kind of like a pea coat.

2. Have a signature drink.

Does Diet Coke count?

Actually, if I’m drinking a cocktail, I like a kamikaze a lot, but this sounds like a drink for someone celebrating their twenty-first birthday. Almost never drinking alcohol makes this a tough rule to follow.

3. Own several pairs of dark-wash straight-leg jeans.

I used to know several pairs of these jeans, and then I took six inches off my waist, so I have been slowly restocking my wardrobe. Emphasis on slowly. I currently own two pairs, though only one pair is actually my size.

4. Wait until all women have gotten on or off an elevator before you get on or off.

I follow this rule unless it makes things exceedingly awkward.

5. When you think a girl looks pretty, say it and make it about her (i.e., “You look so sexy in those boots,” not “Those boots are really cool.”)

I think I do this as well, though I rarely compliment the physical appearance of anyone except my wife. This is partly because I think my wife is prettier than everyone else and partly because I am not a very visual person and fail to notice appearance. I also refrain from commenting on a student’s physical appearance, and this policy tends to bleed into the rest of my life as well.

6. Avoid asking if someone needs help in a kitchen or at a party–just start helping.

I am often the first person at the sink, ready to clean the dishes. While I’d like people to think that this is an act of kindness and politeness, it is probably the result of my years of working in a restaurant and my need to clean as I go.

7. Have one great cologne that’s not from the drugstore.

Really? I smell fine already.

8. Your girlfriend’s sibling or parents might be totally nuts, but always defend them.

Elysha feels that I do an adequate job in this regard. I was not as convinced. I tend to come down on the side of logic and reason rather than loyalty or obligation, but I’ll take her word for it.

9. Keihl’s for your skin, Bumble and Bumble for your hair.

Apparently Elysha gave me a bottle of Keihl’s when we started dating. I have no recollection of this. Nor do I think I need this product. Or any product.

I don’t even use shaving cream. Old fashioned soap works just fine.

I have no idea what Bumble and Bumble is, but I have not put anything in my hair other than shampoo for more than a decade. I don’t think I need to start now.

10. Guys only need two pairs of shoes: a nice pair of black shoes and a pair of Chuck Taylors.

I own two nice pairs of black shoes but no Chuck Taylors. I didn’t even know what a Chuck Taylor was. I own sneakers, which I wear almost every day to work simply because of the nature of my job, but I can’t see myself wearing these things.

They don’t seem to have any support and look like they would last about four seconds before falling apart. When I was a teenager, I owned an actual pair of Converse sneakers that looked a lot like these, so why would I want to start wearing a sneaker that is an imitation of something I actually wore as a kid?

11. Bring wine or chocolate to everything.

I’m more than willing to begin doing this, but wouldn’t it begin to seem a little like pandering after a while?

12. Get a little jealous now and again, even if you’re not strictly a jealous guy.

I don’t understand the purpose of this.

13. Don’t shave your chest hair.

The vanity required in order to do something like this is beyond me.

Why learning to write well matters.

There is a policy in my classroom that requests submitted in writing receive greater consideration than those that are not.  Also, the quality of the writing has a direct impact on the likelihood of a request being granted.

As a result, I receive some very serious letters from very serious students with  very serious requests, and in most cases, I try to at least meet these students halfway. 

I have adopted this policy for several reasons, but primarily, I want my students to understand that regardless of the future that they envision for themselves, they will need to be able to write effectively, and that writing effectively can be a tremendous asset to a person regardless of his or her career choice.

Conversely, the inability to write effectively can be a great determent to a person and his or her career.

Case in point:

Here is a response that my wife received from a local museum that recently changed its policy in regards to member benefits.

__________________________________________

Mrs. Dicks,

My apologies for the email response to your phone call.  As you can imagine, you’re not the only member with questions, and responding by email gives me the opportunity to give you more details.

Of all the problems with this response, this paragraph annoys me the most because it makes no sense. Why is responding via email any more conducive to providing a customer with details than a phone conversation? Is the writer implying that the mere act of writing confers special powers of information dissemination that a phone call cannot?

Thank your for valuing your membership with The Children’s Museum, apart from of the additional benefits.  We will automatically place you in our new membership program, at the level for your family size (the Scientist $125 level), and send a new card and materials in approximate six weeks.  In the meantime, you can use your current card to visit the museum.  We are also adding a benefit package of vouchers and discounts with the new membership program, a $35 value which is the same amount you paid for the Plus upgrade.  I would be happy to send that to you, if you like.

I had to read this paragraph three times in order to understand what was being said, and I’m still not entirely sure. There are obvious problems with the words your and approximate (which I have highlighted), and I am not sure what “apart from of the additional benefits” is supposed to mean, even if I remove the word of. It makes no sense. Regardless, three typos in a single paragraph are not acceptable.

You can still use the reciprocal admission at science centers and museums that participate in the ASTC program. (As always, call ahead if you are visiting an organization within 90 miles of The Children’s Museum, to see if they will accept your membership.)  We are enforcing the 90 mile rule, which, for the most part, we hadn’t previously, but the decision on whether or not to enforce the rule is optional, and it is made by each organization.

I’m not a fan of the clunky way that the writer uses parenthesis when they really aren’t necessary, but it’s the last sentence that is the worst.  It contains a total of 35 words and five commas. FIVE.

We understand the confusion and concern this is causing, but it was a necessary financial decision, and one that was made very recently.

I have more confusion and concern over the quality of the writing in this email than any change made to the museum’s benefit package. If the museum is actually receiving as many inquires in regards to this policy change as they claim (and I believe they probably are, since the changes are considerable), you would expect them to have some kind of form letter ready that could be tweaked if needed. Or even better, perhaps someone with a modicum of writing ability could be placed in charge of responding to the flurry of inquiries that this change has generated, because this response is unprofessional and reprehensible.

I’ll be showing it to my students next week.  They’ll do a little editing and hopefully receive some reinforcement regarding the importance of writing well.

The problem with karma and my proposed solution

This is the problem with karma:

It offers no confirmation that the people who have wronged you in the past have been paid back sufficiently.

There are people in the world who deserve exceedingly harsh treatment from karma based upon actions they took against me in the past, and even though karma may have punished them already, I have no way of knowing. 

Instead, I am left hoping that they were punished while I continue to plot my revenge.

I am a very patient man. 

In addition, my oppressors have no way of connecting karma’s punishment to the crime. When their house burns down or they inexplicably gain 90 pounds, they have no way of knowing that these unfortunate occurrences are the result of their past treatment of me.

This kind of satisfaction is essential when getting even with someone, yet karma offers no mechanism for this to take place.  

What we need is a machine in every household that issues a receipt when karma has evened a score.  A slip of paper with the date, time, reason, and description of the punishment.

My receipt would let me know that karma has gotten even for me.  It would be something tangible that I could stick on my refrigerator and enjoy every time I reach in for a glass of milk or a piece of fruit.

My oppressors’ receipt would let them know that their suffering had been handed down by me via proxy. It would serve as a tangible reminder of their cowardly, underhanded and despicable actions and would make that all-important punishment-crime connection clear.

That would be the kind of karma that I could support.