Perhaps I've always been rather adverse to short-term debts like credit cards, that I don't have much experience at all of carrying balance on credit cards from month on month. I must confess too, that I can't quite comprehend the thinking behind those who would willingly to do, even with full knowledge of how much they are going to pay interests on credit cards, given the exorbitant interest rate on card balance. With all these, I always find it oddly interesting reading articles on how people pile up debts that seem to be beyond their power to pay back, then complain about how they get buried by the debts.
It's true that everyone's situation is different. For those who have lost their jobs and who have exhausted all other income source, credit cards could become the only way to pay for even just food, let alone anything else. But for those who have the ways and means, and supposedly the intelligence to gauge the appropriateness of whether they should put purchases on their cards, they should know better. I have no sympathy to those in the latter category.
Such is the case in the no-sympathy-from-me category, for the woman who racks up debts of $46,000 with her now-divorced husband on things like golf trip, all while they have comfortable jobs and feel that they have deserved it. Sure, we all work hard and we deserve a pat on the shoulder (even by ourselves) for working so damn hard. But going on a $10,000 trip to golf resort on credit card, without a worry in the world of how one would pay for it when the monthly card statement comes, is total reckless. And then, for this woman's attempt to pay down all those debts in four long years, we are supposed to congratulate her? I'm sorry, but I can't do that. If she can do that (racking up big, unnecessary debts) once in such reckless way, she can do it again. Being debt-free for six months is nothing to boost about. For all we know, she could very well do that again, since she has worked so hard to pay down those debts, right? She could easily go on another spending spree, because, guess what, she deserves it!
One thing is for sure: This woman says she works for an "international consulting company." I, for one, would not hire such consultants under any circumstance, given how reckless she has been and how she can't even get her own house in order. What kind of confidence does that exult, on any advice that she's going to provide for her clients?
My husband has always said, I'm a liberal conservative. It's an oxy-moron, in Washington's parlour, but is one that makes total sense to me. While I might be liberal in quite some social issues (but not to the extent of gay marriage), I'm much more fiscally conservative that most of those self-proclaimed fiscal hawks in GOP or Tea Party (if we can indeed find one in these parties). The trend these days, of celebrating those like the woman mentioned above, is totally beyond me. In the more civil, prudent days (perhaps before the advent of the web), one would quietly toll away to get oneself back on one's feet. With the web, everyone wants their 15-minute worth of fame, even if it means showing the world one's own dirty laundry. It's a complete turn-off to me that would never fly.
Monday, January 31, 2011
On supermodels and breast-feeding...
A lot of people find it incomprehensible, of why there are so many haters towards the breast-feeding picture of supermodel Miranda Kerr, the new mother. There's equal strong emotion against another supermodel rank of Gisele Bundchen in calling for breast-feeding law recently.
One should realize that, child birth, breast feeding and child rearing are highly personal subjects; as such, the subjects can become very emotional charged. For most mothers like myself, we know that what works for others does not necessarily mean that it works for ourselves. Like myself, I pumped breast milk for my kids, because neither of my kids was able to latch on to my breasts. So, like I said, whatever works, will work for me. If that means I need to pump breast milk, so be it.
I know of other mothers who are highly opinionated and feel strongly towards one approach or the other. Some women insist natural child birth (not even painkillers). Some women insist breast-feeding even long after the kids should have outgrown the needs for the comfort of a mother's breast, let alone the real need for the supposed benefits of breast milk to boost the kids' immune system. Most mothers know what works and what doesn't for their kids.
That's why there's so much criticism about Amy Chua on her suppposed recipe of successful parenting style (ridiculous). There's why there's so much haters towards these supermodels telling others that everyone should breast-feed (equally ridiculous).
What these clueless women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen fail to understand is that, what might work for them or in one situation does not translate well to others. Their own approach is hardly a case for generatlization to cover the rest of the women on earth. The undertone of their advocation is that, since their approach works (for them), it must be the best and right approach; hence, any other approach must be wrong or inappropriate.
But of course we know that's not true. Every kid is different. Every mother is different. Every child birth is different. Sometimes a mother can't even do the exact same thing from one child to another within the same family. For much the same reason, I normally ignore most so-called conventional wisdom, because most of them simply are not true - or rather, not true when applied to my kids.
So, for those other mothers who get upset about these silly women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen, I'd say, the best approach is to ignore them. Don't buy their books; don't blog on the web in response to them. That's because the web works in a perverse way. When we comment on them on other blogs, even to blast them with criticism, we would be inadvertently helping to build their fame (or notoriety). To that end, the web does not distinguish between fame or notoriety, because it all perversely translates into "popularity," as measured by google's algorithm of search hits.
Naturally, that's hard to do, because when one feels strong for or against a subject, it's hard not to voice one's opinion. Afterall, I write about my displeasure to these women in my own journal here. But I've made a point not to write in any comments to any news or blogs. I hope others would take heed too.
One should realize that, child birth, breast feeding and child rearing are highly personal subjects; as such, the subjects can become very emotional charged. For most mothers like myself, we know that what works for others does not necessarily mean that it works for ourselves. Like myself, I pumped breast milk for my kids, because neither of my kids was able to latch on to my breasts. So, like I said, whatever works, will work for me. If that means I need to pump breast milk, so be it.
I know of other mothers who are highly opinionated and feel strongly towards one approach or the other. Some women insist natural child birth (not even painkillers). Some women insist breast-feeding even long after the kids should have outgrown the needs for the comfort of a mother's breast, let alone the real need for the supposed benefits of breast milk to boost the kids' immune system. Most mothers know what works and what doesn't for their kids.
That's why there's so much criticism about Amy Chua on her suppposed recipe of successful parenting style (ridiculous). There's why there's so much haters towards these supermodels telling others that everyone should breast-feed (equally ridiculous).
What these clueless women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen fail to understand is that, what might work for them or in one situation does not translate well to others. Their own approach is hardly a case for generatlization to cover the rest of the women on earth. The undertone of their advocation is that, since their approach works (for them), it must be the best and right approach; hence, any other approach must be wrong or inappropriate.
But of course we know that's not true. Every kid is different. Every mother is different. Every child birth is different. Sometimes a mother can't even do the exact same thing from one child to another within the same family. For much the same reason, I normally ignore most so-called conventional wisdom, because most of them simply are not true - or rather, not true when applied to my kids.
So, for those other mothers who get upset about these silly women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen, I'd say, the best approach is to ignore them. Don't buy their books; don't blog on the web in response to them. That's because the web works in a perverse way. When we comment on them on other blogs, even to blast them with criticism, we would be inadvertently helping to build their fame (or notoriety). To that end, the web does not distinguish between fame or notoriety, because it all perversely translates into "popularity," as measured by google's algorithm of search hits.
Naturally, that's hard to do, because when one feels strong for or against a subject, it's hard not to voice one's opinion. Afterall, I write about my displeasure to these women in my own journal here. But I've made a point not to write in any comments to any news or blogs. I hope others would take heed too.
On Google and philanthropy...
Whenever the goliath of google is mentioned, people tend to have this apprehension and notion that whenever google steps in a field, it's going to dominate the field and crowd out everyone else. Failed projects after failed projects like google wave litter the field. After a decade of dominance in search and advertising, google can demonstrate otherwise, that this one-trick-pony can do its one trick very well, but not much else.
To its credit, it has touched and bettered our life. I've come to enjoy and rely on gmail since its inception. I use google docs from time to time. Google map is one of its pioneers, though I don't find much use in google earth. I'm even use google's blogger for keeping my journal. I guess my life is simple enough that I don't find use much real use of anything else. And with its financial strength, google can afford to throw money away. When its one trick is still working, Wall Street will tolerate; when its growth slows, investors won't be so tolerant.
When the google's philanthropy initiative was first announced, I must say, I wish it successes. I have high hopes that its philanthropic success would translate into much human good. Afterall, one rarely finds for-profit organizations to commit as much resources to philanthropic causes. Surely it must do some good, isn't it? It's sad to see how its half-hearted approach results in so little results. Perhaps, like its motto of Don't be evil, it's more for show than anything else. Its shot-gun approach to try to find and fund ideas, and its equally lightning fast approach in dropping projects that don't deem to be success, could be its ultimate downfall. Why would anyone doubt its gradual decline in morale (and exodus of prized engineers to other startups) when google's successes is far and few in between.
In one word, disppointing.
To its credit, it has touched and bettered our life. I've come to enjoy and rely on gmail since its inception. I use google docs from time to time. Google map is one of its pioneers, though I don't find much use in google earth. I'm even use google's blogger for keeping my journal. I guess my life is simple enough that I don't find use much real use of anything else. And with its financial strength, google can afford to throw money away. When its one trick is still working, Wall Street will tolerate; when its growth slows, investors won't be so tolerant.
When the google's philanthropy initiative was first announced, I must say, I wish it successes. I have high hopes that its philanthropic success would translate into much human good. Afterall, one rarely finds for-profit organizations to commit as much resources to philanthropic causes. Surely it must do some good, isn't it? It's sad to see how its half-hearted approach results in so little results. Perhaps, like its motto of Don't be evil, it's more for show than anything else. Its shot-gun approach to try to find and fund ideas, and its equally lightning fast approach in dropping projects that don't deem to be success, could be its ultimate downfall. Why would anyone doubt its gradual decline in morale (and exodus of prized engineers to other startups) when google's successes is far and few in between.
In one word, disppointing.
Friday, January 28, 2011
On Chinese dining etiquette...
With the Chinese ascent in economic might and all the talk that the coming decades will be all red rising, so it seems that everything Chinese are in vogue. First, there's this rage about why Chinese mothers are superior (I'll write more on that, and its absurdity), and now gwei-lo wants to learn manners at a Chinese dining table.
Which is all well and good. Afterall, it's always good to be cross-cultural and understand more from other cultures. I'm all for it. What irks me sometimes, is how people (particularly people like Amy Chua and some such) who would abuse the obvious lack of understanding on everything Chinese by the other countries, snap some outrageous headline-wrapping titles with the word "Chinese" in it, and call themselves an expert. These people not only cheapens the Chinese culture, but have done a huge disservice for fellow Chinese (not the least, keeping alive stereotypes that others have tried to hard to shatter).
Compared to Chua, the article on the five Chinese dining etiquette I read today seems almost harmless. Afterall, if you're a gwei-lo, Chinese would not mind it at all if you flip the fish on the plate. But perhaps one thing that is missing is that, nowhere does it mention, that these etiquette universal in China at all. Much as the vast cultural difference even within the yanks and the deep south in America, so too is the food, culture and even etiquette from across China. What is mentioned in that article should be labeled as southern China - or more appropriately, Hong Kong Chinese - dining manner. Hong Kong started out as a fishing port more than a century ago, that's why the etiquette on eating fish (and treating it right, even as they're sitting on the plate to serve as your food) is so important. So are the fingers knocking during tea pouring, and others.
But, would anyone care to add clarification to that? Probably not. Afterall, Hong Kong is now part of China, and everything is supposed to be under one big auspice of Chinese style. But to think that there is one universal style that is Chinese, it's totally naive and ignorant.
Which is exactly what Chua has done. Hers is arguably worse, because she's not even born in the East. She's just a freaking hypocrite who writes in a loud way to get attention, and once she succeeds in that, she wants to backpedal for her own self-image.
There is a colloquial saying in Cantonese (ie. Hong Kong, to be exact), that one can do loud things to get attention. The exact wordings are, to be "out of steps" (or stepping out from others' steps). Chua most certainly did that, but with all of my despise, as a mother, as a Chinese born and raised in Hong Kong, and swim in the Chinese culture.
PS: I can't believe I morph from talking about dining etiquette to Chua again. :)
Which is all well and good. Afterall, it's always good to be cross-cultural and understand more from other cultures. I'm all for it. What irks me sometimes, is how people (particularly people like Amy Chua and some such) who would abuse the obvious lack of understanding on everything Chinese by the other countries, snap some outrageous headline-wrapping titles with the word "Chinese" in it, and call themselves an expert. These people not only cheapens the Chinese culture, but have done a huge disservice for fellow Chinese (not the least, keeping alive stereotypes that others have tried to hard to shatter).
Compared to Chua, the article on the five Chinese dining etiquette I read today seems almost harmless. Afterall, if you're a gwei-lo, Chinese would not mind it at all if you flip the fish on the plate. But perhaps one thing that is missing is that, nowhere does it mention, that these etiquette universal in China at all. Much as the vast cultural difference even within the yanks and the deep south in America, so too is the food, culture and even etiquette from across China. What is mentioned in that article should be labeled as southern China - or more appropriately, Hong Kong Chinese - dining manner. Hong Kong started out as a fishing port more than a century ago, that's why the etiquette on eating fish (and treating it right, even as they're sitting on the plate to serve as your food) is so important. So are the fingers knocking during tea pouring, and others.
But, would anyone care to add clarification to that? Probably not. Afterall, Hong Kong is now part of China, and everything is supposed to be under one big auspice of Chinese style. But to think that there is one universal style that is Chinese, it's totally naive and ignorant.
Which is exactly what Chua has done. Hers is arguably worse, because she's not even born in the East. She's just a freaking hypocrite who writes in a loud way to get attention, and once she succeeds in that, she wants to backpedal for her own self-image.
There is a colloquial saying in Cantonese (ie. Hong Kong, to be exact), that one can do loud things to get attention. The exact wordings are, to be "out of steps" (or stepping out from others' steps). Chua most certainly did that, but with all of my despise, as a mother, as a Chinese born and raised in Hong Kong, and swim in the Chinese culture.
PS: I can't believe I morph from talking about dining etiquette to Chua again. :)
Sunday, January 23, 2011
On "princess phase", Cinderella, and development of little girls...
There's a very well-established conventional wisdom, that the "princess phase," as it's called, is part of the inevitable developmental phase of all little girls. It's understood that little girls, from 3 to tweens, will cling to the "princess phase" and all things pink, as an almost self-evident, reinforcing their own identity as a girl. No one seems to dispute that notion, whether you like it or not.
It's only today, during my short visit with my aging parents, when I was talking to my mother about everything that is conventional wisdom. When I was young, I was told that it's conventional wisdom that most women would experience abdominal pain during menstrual period; I was told that it would go away when I get married (no true); I was then told it would go away when I get pregnant (not sure). My menstrual pain can become so intense that, for the first couple of days, I would curl up in bed, popping painkillers every few hours to control the cramps. I was told that it's normal. It's only until I found out from cat-scan that I have a sizable cyst in my ovary, and only after the cyst is removed, when my period cramps go away - completely. And, there goes my respect for everything that is conventional wisdom, because there can be so much misconception, false truth, and outright lies in it.
And so, when I look at the so-called princess phase and the conventional wisdom that all girls have to go through it, then move onto American Girl and Bratz dolls, with a very critical eye. I look at it from the development of my own daughter.
She's almost 9 now, so it's a high time to take a look back at how she has fared, in this "unavoidable" princess phase. She has experienced that urge for everything pink (and purple) for, maybe, less than 6 months in total, when she was about 4. That year, she asked for a princess Halloween costume. I see all these as rather harmless, so I let her be. Honestly, I think she asks for all these pink and princess stuffs, not really out of her own liking, but mostly it's because most of her friends and classmates have or want them. It's more peer pressure than anything else.
And then, without any warning, she declares to me she doesn't like pink or purple anymore, before she turns 5. That's about the time when she learns her real independence, really even long chapter books (and all seven Harry Potter books) all by herself. Perhaps it could also be attributed to the fact that, being her mother, I'm not a very girly-girl type of person. I remember she uses to ask me what colors I like, and I tell her, I like dark colors - black, navy blue, dark green, brown, and so on. Not that I dislike light or bring colors - in fact, I like white alot - but I prefer darker colors. And I like men's and military style clothings. Around the same time, my husband starts teaching her martial arts (much at around the same age when he starts teaching our son martial arts). She uses to ask me what it means by "sexy," because she hears someone talking about it. We explains to her the best we can, without the discussions of the topic of sex itself (since she would not be able to comprehend that at the age of 5 and its implications). So now, she attributes all those girly-girl talks, clothing, and all, as silly stuffs. Not that she dislikes all things feminine. Much as I have advocated to her, it's more important to hear something comfortable than inappropriate (eg. too little clothes; exposing body parts; etc). She has come to appreciate and love wearing cargo pants (the hand-me-downs from her bigger brother) than skinny jeans. I think she looks much smarter in the cargo pants than skinny ones.
Albeit what the media and commercial corporations have advocated, I do think that girls look to have skipped this princess phase much earlier than the conventional wisdom would have us believed otherwise. Even my daughter's friends and classmates have started to claim the mantle that they are tom-boy (!!!). But of course, my daughter would come home and tell me, saying with pride, no less, that so-and-so says she's tom-boy, but she dosn't think so, since so-and-so is still wearing pink and girly clothes. What I haven't been sure of, is whether my daughter has been spreading the trend and leading the pack, to let everyone knows that, it's cool to look tom-boy too, or whether it's a general trend among girls her age.
To tell the truth, I think how young girls perceive themselves and the world are, in large parts, shaped by the belief and value systems of their parents. If their parents push the conventional wisdom on them, buying everything pink and purple for them, if their mothers are themselves silly girls who can't go out without make-up on, then it's likely that their daughters would go through the same value systems and footstep. Bottomline is, I do not believe that this "princess phase" is at all an unavoidable phase that all young girls have to go through. Afterall, I myself am one case in point, because I never went through that, and I grow up just fine. :)
It's only today, during my short visit with my aging parents, when I was talking to my mother about everything that is conventional wisdom. When I was young, I was told that it's conventional wisdom that most women would experience abdominal pain during menstrual period; I was told that it would go away when I get married (no true); I was then told it would go away when I get pregnant (not sure). My menstrual pain can become so intense that, for the first couple of days, I would curl up in bed, popping painkillers every few hours to control the cramps. I was told that it's normal. It's only until I found out from cat-scan that I have a sizable cyst in my ovary, and only after the cyst is removed, when my period cramps go away - completely. And, there goes my respect for everything that is conventional wisdom, because there can be so much misconception, false truth, and outright lies in it.
And so, when I look at the so-called princess phase and the conventional wisdom that all girls have to go through it, then move onto American Girl and Bratz dolls, with a very critical eye. I look at it from the development of my own daughter.
She's almost 9 now, so it's a high time to take a look back at how she has fared, in this "unavoidable" princess phase. She has experienced that urge for everything pink (and purple) for, maybe, less than 6 months in total, when she was about 4. That year, she asked for a princess Halloween costume. I see all these as rather harmless, so I let her be. Honestly, I think she asks for all these pink and princess stuffs, not really out of her own liking, but mostly it's because most of her friends and classmates have or want them. It's more peer pressure than anything else.
And then, without any warning, she declares to me she doesn't like pink or purple anymore, before she turns 5. That's about the time when she learns her real independence, really even long chapter books (and all seven Harry Potter books) all by herself. Perhaps it could also be attributed to the fact that, being her mother, I'm not a very girly-girl type of person. I remember she uses to ask me what colors I like, and I tell her, I like dark colors - black, navy blue, dark green, brown, and so on. Not that I dislike light or bring colors - in fact, I like white alot - but I prefer darker colors. And I like men's and military style clothings. Around the same time, my husband starts teaching her martial arts (much at around the same age when he starts teaching our son martial arts). She uses to ask me what it means by "sexy," because she hears someone talking about it. We explains to her the best we can, without the discussions of the topic of sex itself (since she would not be able to comprehend that at the age of 5 and its implications). So now, she attributes all those girly-girl talks, clothing, and all, as silly stuffs. Not that she dislikes all things feminine. Much as I have advocated to her, it's more important to hear something comfortable than inappropriate (eg. too little clothes; exposing body parts; etc). She has come to appreciate and love wearing cargo pants (the hand-me-downs from her bigger brother) than skinny jeans. I think she looks much smarter in the cargo pants than skinny ones.
Albeit what the media and commercial corporations have advocated, I do think that girls look to have skipped this princess phase much earlier than the conventional wisdom would have us believed otherwise. Even my daughter's friends and classmates have started to claim the mantle that they are tom-boy (!!!). But of course, my daughter would come home and tell me, saying with pride, no less, that so-and-so says she's tom-boy, but she dosn't think so, since so-and-so is still wearing pink and girly clothes. What I haven't been sure of, is whether my daughter has been spreading the trend and leading the pack, to let everyone knows that, it's cool to look tom-boy too, or whether it's a general trend among girls her age.
To tell the truth, I think how young girls perceive themselves and the world are, in large parts, shaped by the belief and value systems of their parents. If their parents push the conventional wisdom on them, buying everything pink and purple for them, if their mothers are themselves silly girls who can't go out without make-up on, then it's likely that their daughters would go through the same value systems and footstep. Bottomline is, I do not believe that this "princess phase" is at all an unavoidable phase that all young girls have to go through. Afterall, I myself am one case in point, because I never went through that, and I grow up just fine. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)