Yeah....that's a stretch

I've never been a person to pander to bullshit. I don't do things for the sake of doing them, I don't do something just because someone attaches fancy-pants executive names to it, I don't like doing things if "that's how we've always done it and it works". If people ever try to get me to do things because of those reasons, I get mad and I push back. Of course, most people hate that, because all they expect out of someone who works for them is that they listen and they do what they are told. I'm not like that, and I'm sure it's "hurting my career" to a point, but frankly I would rather stuff envelopes at home for 10 bucks an hour than be a "yes ma'am" mindless slave like they expect me to be.

I had the displeasure of having a conversation with someone in my upper management chain (because they like to do this every so often to actually meet and talk to people who allow them to maintain their lavish lifestyles). We talked about where my career was headed, and I really have no idea what I want to do, so we talked about different path options. I had mentioned that I was interested in maybe trying out designing stuff for a while, and I was shocked to hear this person's response, which was: "Well, the successful designers that I know of all have very good people skills...and I think for you that's somewhat of a stretch." WHAT?????? What kind of person says that to another person? And in that manner? Sure, I have my shortcomings. I push back against people who try to get me to swallow bullshit, and I'm immediately labeled as someone with no people skills? And is that even proper "people skills" to tell someone that their having people skills is "a stretch"?

I'm a little annoyed at myself that the only comeback I had was, "Ok..." But I'm not sure what an appropriate response would have been. I realize that not everyone is skilled in the ways of the spoken word and that maybe that person didn't mean it the way it sounded (that's always the case isn't it?), but it really opened my eyes more to what kind of environment I'm working in. Yeah, I know you have to be civil to people you work with, but I don't expect to have to be everyones' best friend. It sounds like the message I'm getting is that it's more important to have people skills than to be good at what you do. I know I've heard this type of thing before, and I think that's basically the problem with Corporate America. I wish I could do something to fix that problem, but I can't since I have no people skills.

Crackpot theories

I've never understood how some people get paid to do some of the idiotic studies or surveys they do. The other day this AP article on Yahoo caught my eye: Some Asian families in US choosing sons. According to the people who did the research, some Asian families with three kids were more likely to have a boy as the third kid if the two previous kids were girls. Which means that they are obviously aborting girls if they found out they were having one and kept trying until they had a boy. Obviously. I mean, how could you NOT come up with that conclusion?

Well, I paid the seriously overpriced 10 bucks to access (for two days only) the measly 1.2 page article from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", and I just have to say, how is it that there are people out there who have no jobs, but there are idiots like this that get paid to do frivolous research like this? I can see why it may be interesting to see that third children with two older girl siblings are more likely to be boys in certain Asian families, but it's unclear to me whether the sampling of data was accurate and actually yields results that you could call a trend. According to the graphs on the overpriced article, only 324 families out of 11,553 Asian families have kids that follow the girl-girl-boy trend. It doesn't sound like a lot to make it a generality. All this data was taken from the 2000 US Census, and chopped down until they came up with a sampling of families that matched their criteria (must be of Chinese, Korean, or Asian Indian descent, must have only children under 12 years old...) I wonder if they didn't narrow down their data pool, how different the results would have been.

What bothered me the most about this alleged study was the theory they came up with to support the high ratio of boy births as the second or third child after girls. They said that this was likely due to the use of pre-natal sex selection, like early ultrasounds or other tests to determine gender and subsequent abortion of a girl fetus in order to have a boy. Where did they come up with this crackpot theory? Do they actually have any evidence at all, maybe even an informal survey among Asian people in those groups to see if they would even consider it? As an Asian-American person myself, I am deeply offended that people would create this illusion that just because there have been things like China's "one child policy" and a fashionable trend of white people adopting babies from Korea and China, that you can immediately assume that people of those races living in the United States would have the same mentality and even think about aborting a kid just because it didn't turn out to be a boy? I mean if that WERE the case and Asians were doing this in the US, why would they have waited for the third kid? You think they would have put it in the hands of chance the first two times around, and the third time, they would say, "aw screw it, let's just abort it and start again." As a third female child after two older female siblings, I am highly offended that someone would even consider the possibility that my parents would have done that sort of thing (obviously they weren't successful, otherwise I would have been a boy).

Now I realize that there are disclaimers in the article mentioning that they had no hard evidence of this "sex selection" practice being done, and that they really weren't suggesting it, but it sounds like to them, it's the only natural explanation. Is it? Why wouldn't they have come up with the natural explanation that maybe these Asian families were highly evolutionarily superior and in order to maintain the normal evolutionary 1:1 sex ratio, their gametes decided after producing two girls, it was time to produce a male? Why would they immediately jump to the conclusion that the only way for this to possibly happen is if they killed off the girl fetuses and just kept trying over and over until they had a boy? It sickens me that people would even write something like that in a scientific journal without having ANY factual basis whatsoever. But it doesn't surprise me at all, the way this world is today.

ETA: Whenever I feel like it, gosh!

There are few times if any where I don't do something I'm supposed to do and people have to nag me to get me to do it. Usually reminding me once is enough and my guilt and terrific work ethic will push me to complete whatever it is I have to do, before the deadline. Ok, I know I do have a problem with things that don't have a real deadline. But when it's something obvious like a deadline for work that I am aware of and I have a short list of things to complete before a certain date, there's no reason to continue asking me when my "ETA" (does that even make sense in this context?) for completion of a task is. I mean, if there is a deadline for completing the task, isn't that deadline the ETA?

I've been working for NINE years. You'd think I would have some sense of responsibility for what I need to do in my job that people wouldn't have to go around and nag me every so often to make sure I'm doing my job. I actually was called "unprofessional" by a management type because I mocked on a call that maybe I needed to send daily status emails to people so they would know that I'm doing my job. I'm only guessing I struck a soft spot because it's probably the way most of my company works, that unless you send at least one or two long emails a day describing what your status is, people just assume you're blogging all day and watching streamed NetFlix movies.

I'm just tired of being treated like a teenager who hasn't taken out the garbage. If people really knew me, they would know that I get things done. I guess maybe I haven't made my message clear enough. I should probably start sending daily status emails. I'll make it like a newsletter. But I'll probably need someone to Photoshop a cheesy tongue-in-cheek header for it.

Hmph

When I was a kid my parents always chided me for crossing my arms. I know I do this often when I'm mad, but sometimes I never really realized I was doing it until someone would say something. Even as I got older, I would catch myself doing it and then undo it because I didn't want people to think I was mad all the time, even if I was. Although, people tended to think I was mad or sad all the time anyway, one time a teacher even asked my cousin why I was always so depressed (not sure why she didn't bother asking me herself, how lame). I attributed it to my natural frown. My mouth just naturally falls downward into a frown. Smiling sometimes takes effort, and if I do it too much, I end up with mouth cramps.

I read in some book that some scientists were conducting studies that suggested that if you forced yourself to smile, your brain would make you happy. And if you forced yourself to frown, your brain would make you unhappy. Maybe I'm just an unhappy person because my mouth just naturally turns down. There's nothing really I can do about it, since smiling often gives me cramps. But I find that the world just isn't forgiving towards unhappy people. I'm sure I could have a much easier time at work if I was super sickly sweet nice to everyone and I smiled at people all the time and I sucked up to everyone instead of being the realist that I am and scoffing at bullshit when I see it and telling people like it is. I guess people just don't want to accept reality for what it is. If they are stupid, they don't want people to tell them they're stupid, they want people to focus on the positives about them and just deal with their stupidity. Well, isn't that great. We can deal with peoples' stupidity, yet people can't deal with my grumpiness.

Why biographies are boring

Think of your life. Think about what you do everyday and think about
any really "defining moments" you've had. Would they be enough to make
a 300 page book? I could probably write a short story or children's
book about the one or two defining life moments, but I know it would
be super boring if I were to try to put my life into a 300 page book.

That's the conversation I wish I could have had before Carly Fiorina
wrote her biography/memoir thing. Ok, so I'm not done reading, I'm not
even halfway, but the book so far reads like a college entrance essay
where the person is trying desperately to describe to the readers "why
I deserve to go to university". If I were her publisher, I would have
told her to focus on one or two really defining moments and describe
those in great detail, rather than writing like 2-4 pages about each
phase of her life, skipping from paragraph to paragraph with no
obvious transitions.

And as for the whole big deal about her going to a strip club to seal
a sales deal with a bunch of men, what is the big deal? I'm sure there
are plenty of business women out there who had to make some sort of
personal moral sacrifice in order to make it in their job...big deal.
I can't believe I got suckered into reading this boring piece of
drivel. I'm not sure what I was expecting though.

Seeing yourself in others

Sometimes when I observe other people, I see a little bit of myself in their actions or words. It scares me because it's mostly bad stuff that I notice, and it makes me wonder if I only notice the bad stuff or if I only have bad qualities. I'd like to think that I am generally a good person so I don't want to accept that I do bad things or have a bad attitude towards everything. Or maybe most people have the same attitudes about certain things and that's why I notice a similarity when I see other people acting a certain way, and it's not because I'm a bad influence or anything, it's just nature. I think if I keep telling myself that, I'll feel better.

Who needs reality TV...

...when you can just go to a public place and listen to peoples' cell phone conversations...