marker words

The professor who taught my undergraduate Business Communications course offered a free service to review students' resumes and provide recommendations for modifications.  She definitely helped me craft what was the first draft for the resume that I would continue to use for years to come, so for that I am immeasurably grateful.  There was one minor thing that always stuck out to me that I have thought of throughout the ensuing years.  She recommended that I note that I was looking for an environment that offered employee empowerment.

Employee empowerment was a specific concept that she taught in one of the classes I took from her, though I don't remember which  one.  I took three classes from this particular prof.  The idea was simply that a business that espoused this belief allowed employees the leeway to make decisions (and potentially mistakes) because the net result for a good employee would be positive.  It's not a bad concept, but the phrase has always been odd to me.

What seems weird about the phrase is that I don't believe I have ever in my life heard a man use the word "empowerment" or "empowered," even though I have heard several women use it.  It seems like one of those words that I suspect both sexes have that serve as markers for, "A woman said this," or, "A man wrote that."

A few other words that stick out to me as marker words that a woman said it are "blessed", "tacky", "sweet", and "vile."  I may have heard the odd man or two use them, but they show up far more in women's vernacular.

I tried to think of marker words for men, but I must have a natural blind spot to it.  Everything I have been able to think of has too many exceptions to be usable.  As an example, in the past most crass language probably served as marker words for men, but things are different today.

Are there any marker words that you have noticed in your interactions?  Is there a word or phrase that, if you see it in an article or book, you immediately have a guess at what the author's gender is? Do you disagree with any words I mentioned above?

kids and politics

With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids.  Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.).  I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics.  Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.

My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you.  My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity.  The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs.  I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise.  It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though.  I know because I remember thinking that way.  It's just a natural, human inclination.

Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious.  We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion.  It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that.  Alas, many do.  Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.

I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions.  This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives.  I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid.  Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.

All of this just leads back to my original point.  I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.

stepping down

Just short of ten years ago I agreed to be an usher at our church. At the time it wasn't a big deal. I just had to pray for the offering every couple of weeks and manage the collection plate in my aisle.  In the time since the role morphed into more a position of greeting and directing people to empty seats.  This is not at all my forte, and since I'm otherwise very involved, I am backing out of this responsibility after this month.  That I have stayed in the role as long as I have is an example of why I am always hesitant to agree to commit to things, though.

Any time I am in a role of responsibility, even something as small as this, I don't feel the freedom to back out.  I am very well aware that in a lot of cases there will be no one else to step up, and few things make me feel more rotten than leaving someone else holding the bag.  Because of this, I usually view new commitments through a very long-term lens, and hem and haw before committing.

As I noted, I am not suited for the current ushering role in our church.  The job is not mentally difficult in the least, but the responsibilities are a serious chore for someone who is as introverted as I am.  It is not in my nature to approach people I don't know, get information about them, and ask others to make room for them in the row where they're sitting.  When I hear about the reasons visitors do not return to churches I wonder if it was because I was not outgoing enough for some folks to want to return.

Even so, the only reason I feel the freedom to step down from this specific role is that it has interfered with my other responsibilities.  Sometimes the kids are in service, but Golden has to be in the nursery and cannot watch them.  Sometimes someone wants to talk about the lesson after Sunday School and I have to rudely rush out.  There is always the specter of what to do when one of the kids is sick and I have to usher and Golden is on the schedule to help in the nursery.  Without those conflicts of interest I'd probably stay in the role out of a sense of duty or guilt, which is every bit as pathetic as it sounds.

So, I guess that means that it's time for someone a bit more extroverted than I am to step up.  I hope they do.