About this Journal
Current Month
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
May. 20th, 2012 @ 07:57 am Getting married
All packed. Social media statuses updated. Getting dressed and leaving for wedding, marriage in two hours!

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/757042.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 17th, 2012 @ 05:06 pm Wedding is Awesome
Tags: ,
Reasons why I'm incredibly pleased I'm able to have the wedding we're having:

* Ceilidh
* The groom gets to wear exciting clothes as well as the bride (who gets to wear a corset dress)
* Officiated by people who know and like us
* Music by people who know and like us
* Awesome cake by people who know and like us
* Illuminated manuscript contract! We have an illuminated manuscript about how we love each other! (Seriously, "how" is quite detailed.)
* Marriage in one of the biggest, most impressive buildings in Cambridge, which most people don't get to do
* All the little details of the ceremony seem to have found a perfect optimum that feel both "us", and "reasonably appropriate to a wedding" and ""
* Awesome people coming from all over the world to celebrate us
* Awesome vows
* The ability to throw out all of the stupid sexist traditions we didn't want!
* Reception in beautiful garden

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/756745.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 17th, 2012 @ 04:36 pm DPD
Tags:
Gah! I did it AGAIN. I know that every time I ever have anything delivered, it turns into a diatribe of "people without stay-at-home spouses or servants are scum who don't deserve to exist in modern society". But every time, I go back, and think "maybe this time I can have a parcel delivered without angst".

I stupidly ordered a replacement without noticing that the delivery address automatically defaulted to the billing address, not the delivery address used for ever previous order.

The courier company, DPD, have a very impressive website. They claim you can reschedule delivery, change the delivery address, arrange to have the parcel left in a "safe place", etc, etc. In fact, everything you could want. They claim you can do so with either the parcel tracking number, or the calling card number left after a failed delivery.

But the website only actually has a form field for the calling card number.

And the customer service website and phone number give you a list of options. But what they DON'T give you is the option to change the delivery address. The website simply grays out the form and says "follow this link" to the one that only works after it's already too late. The phone simply says "You need to have the seller change the delivery address" and then instantly hangs up on you. No suggestion that the website claims you CAN change the delivery address, but only within the same street, or that if you CAN'T change the delivery address the best option might not be "give up, eat cost of goods" but something like "arrange safe space instead" or god forbid "talk to someone who can help". Yes, I realise that for most people your website is completely perfect and only people who are grossly mistaken might even think about needing an option other than the ones you give there. But I still feel ridiculous that the message isn't admitting "if you have a problem we can't resolve, sorry, the money you paid isn't enough for us to cater for you" but is instead "just act like that everything is ok, hang up, and pretend nothing happened".

I will be able to work it out somehow. (I've contacted the seller. I may be able to run home or reschedule delivery tomorrow when I have more information.)

Apart from this, everything is incredibly wonderful. But why do I keep doing this to myself?

Edit: Hat website were ever so helpful and able to change delivery address to work. Apparently they give you a one-hour window, which is pretty good, though it doesn't matter at work (unless I'm setting myself up for another disappointment).

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/756711.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 17th, 2012 @ 11:22 am Disestablishmentarianism and Antidisestablishmentarianism
Sometimes I feel like the Church of England should either disestablish or bite the bullet and actually represent everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I like having a comparatively fluffy national church, but when I saw it did do things I disagreed with, I suddenly felt uncomfortable having it enshrined in the constitutions.

The first is the obvious choice. But the second has some attraction for me. In many ways, couldn't you say that the right to have services and get married in churches, have "moral" representatives in the house of lords, choose the sexual orientation of bishops, etc, etc, are the equal legacy of everyone English, not just the faction which is currently identified as 'chruch of England'? I realise that's likely to be controvertial to both anti-disestablishment and disestablishment opinions :)

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/756343.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 17th, 2012 @ 11:19 am Mobile Welder
Tags: , ,
Jack's life advice: a mobile welder sounds awesome, but if you're a mobile welder, don't paint a sign telling people "rob the mobile welder" on the side of your van :)

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/756062.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 16th, 2012 @ 06:26 pm Sports news
Tags:
So, apparently Manchester City won the Premier League. And the Red Sox won the, um, baseball thing! Twice!

What other sports news have I missed from the last fifteen years..? :)

I remember I only found out about the Red Sox when all the online comics I followed all suddenly showed hell filled with snow and I didn't know why :)

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/755812.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 16th, 2012 @ 10:46 am Relative and absolute levels of privelege
I recently read another essay looking for a way of explaining that "Straight white males on average acquire more/better opportunities than non-straight non-white non-males in similar situations" without raising the defensiveness many people experience when talking about privilege.

It used the metaphor of "Some people are playing life on 'hard' difficulty and some on 'easy', but we didn't get the choose the difficulty level". Link:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

However, I was reminded of another of Scalzi's essays that I found very moving, on being poor. I found it very effective, and it also seemed to attract much much less defensiveness. It was a list of things that people experience, starting something like:

"Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV"
"Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away"
Etc, etc

But I wondered, would it have been better if it had started by saying:

"Not being poor is not panicing when your kids for ask for all the crap they see on TV"
"Not being poor is being able to go to the dentist when you have toothache"
Etc, etc

I think that would make people MORE defensive.

It seems like most explanations of privilege start out by telling people "you can get on a train without wondering if you'll be groped/harassed by police/unable to get up the steps" and leave it implied that other people can't, but I think it's perhaps the second half that needs to be emphasised. Most men already KNOW they can get on a tube train without worrying about being groped -- the relevant piece of information they're missing is that half of the human population can't. And yes, everyone SHOULD know, so it's fair to vent that some people just don't get it. But if I'm genuinely trying to get someone to "get it", might it be advantageous to put the thing they're missing up front in every paragraph, in big letters, spelled out in words of one syllable?

It seems to me "privilege" can be absolute or relative. You can say "people whose parents are landed gentry are privileged" or "people who live in the UK are privileged compared to many other people". So saying someone is privileged because they're white is implicitly making two assertions:

(a) that they have some opportunities that would be harder or impossible if they weren't
(b) that people who don't have those priveleges are the correct "baseline" to measure privilege against.

Now, people assuming that straight white males are the "baseline" default sort of person and everyone else falls short is indeed a systematic problem in society. But if you're trying to get someone who isn't familiar with the ideas to "get it", it seems like presenting them with the fairly objective facts about (a), as in the "Being Poor" essay, and inviting their humanity to empathise, is likely to be more effective than saying "OK, humans have a natural tendency to think of themselves as 'baseline' but that tendency is WRONG WRONG WRONG and you should think of someone without any 'privileges' as the baseline for comparison", even if that makes sense.

I notice that the same problem can occur even between two people who DO know the terms. If person from non-straight-white-male-group-A is talking to person from non-straight-white-male-group-B and avers to something that B has easier than A, people instinctively take that as saying that B has it easier in general (and get very cross if that's obviously not true). Even thought according to the literal definition of the concept of privilege, it's just as correct to say there is a (quite small) amount of "Black Privilege" of things black people can do that white people find a lot harder, even if "White Privilege" is thousands of times bigger.

Conclusions

My questions are, is the distinction between "you are privileged" making me defensive and "you are privileged compared to most people" making my empathetic one that only applicable to me, or am I right that most people react the same way?

Secondly, do you think it would work if more "what it's like to have white/straight/male privilege" essays instead focused on telling people what it would be like if they didn't? Do you think it's harmful if postponse the question of the baseline and just start by establishing the large relative difference?

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/755508.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 12th, 2012 @ 06:14 pm Wedding -- transport to ceilidh
Tags:
For people coming to our wedding ceilidh, it's in Harston village hall (about 5 miles from Cambridge, CB22 7PX). Unfortunately there isn't any good public transport and we haven't been able to arrange anything sensible, but it makes sense for people to arrange to share taxis or lifts. If you want to do so, you can fill out a poll on Liv's dreamwidth http://liv.dreamwidth.org/370573.html or comment there.

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/755388.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 10th, 2012 @ 10:45 am Mark 2:14
Tags:
"As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him"

One of the little facts everyone hears when someone first starts to "explain" the new testament is that "tax collector" isn't just annoying. Honestly, nowadays, most middle class UK people I know just have money disappear from their paycheck. I understand it may be a lot more annoying in America, where apparently it's a lot more common to have to guess badly and then have to make a massive payment at the end of the year, or discover you've been overpaying all year. But apparently, all this land was _occupied_. So anyone collecting tax was working for the government, ie. the one imposed from Rome, that most people didn't want.

In fact, a quick google says (unsurprisingly in retrospect), everyone didn't give a scrupulously accurate 22% to the government. Rather, tax collectors paid the government up front, and then strode around seeing how much they could extract from people as a return on their investment. I don't know how specifically accurate that is, but it's easy to forget that without modern records and communications, taxes can often be a lot more of an ad-hoc thing.

For that matter, what is this "booth"? Is this where people came to pay taxes? Or is it somewhere people are supposed to pay tolls? Why is it next to a lake -- are we in a town at this point?

Also, why did everyone have two names?

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/755072.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry
May. 10th, 2012 @ 10:45 am Mark 2:13
Tags:
"Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them"

Once again, a single verse that could contain a whole story. If you're skimming, it's just "Jesus preached". But if you were making a film, you can imagine a whole scene here.

Maybe someone happened along, and spoke to Jesus, and Jesus replied, and someone else overhead, and said that was interesting, and they began to debate. And then a couple of other people saw something going on, and one of them came over, and the other ran back to get a friend, and ran into a bunch of other people, and told them that preacher they'd heard about was just getting into an argument about theology, and they rushed over. And Jesus is just looking around for something to stand on, when you get a montage sequence of people leaping up, kicking over chairs, scuffing stones with sandles, rushing along the beach... A crowd has gathered, Jesus straining to retain some sanity in the discussion...

Wow, now I want to make a humorous but pro-Jesus film of the gospels. Wow, that would be controvertial :)

You can also comment at http://jack.dreamwidth.org/754842.html using OpenID. comment count unavailable comments so far.
About this Entry