I have caught my housemate in possession of a book. A disagreeable book. One might say, a ridiculous book.
The book is called "Get Married: What Women Can Do To Make It Happen".
I am incensed!
Now, I haven't read this book, but, aside from the title, the cover did nothing to draw me in any further. On opening the book I felt no greater desire to read it when faced with foliage page detail and floaty italic fonts. No, I think it is fair to say that this is not my idea of a good read.
Do you think there will be 10 easy to follow steps? Do 1. followed by 2. followed by 3. etc and by number 10. you will find yourself happily married (do the 2.4 children follow in the sequel?). What makes the author think that the steps that led up to her marriage will be the same as for everyone else? And what if you follow her simple self help steps only to find yourself married 10 years down the line wondering who on earth you are and how you managed to find yourself here? Is not being yourself surely a better way at approaching life than persuing marriage by any means?
The reviews on Amazon do nothing to allay my fears:
"She passed on truth to me that positioned my heart in such a way to truly receive the Lord's fullest blessings."
"In this book, Candice Watters gives us pratical tips and stories from her own life about how to finally reach the altar."
More worryingly though was another similar looking book that I followed a link to on Amazon (and is more popular...) "Getting Serious About Getting Married". About which reviewers said:
"But this book has reminded me of both my Godly responsibilty to be a wife and also the fact that being single is not part of Gods plan for the majority and so no matter how busy and successful we are, nothing else is going to slot into the perfect place made for a husband accept [sic] a husband! "
"This book is sent by God for "such a time as this"."
Oh please. Spare us.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Dog eat dog
I miss Kenya. I have started the job search again and today went to visit a school. It was a quick reminder to me of what it is like to work in England, and all that I think is wrong with the way things are done.
Before I went to the school I already had the application pack, I was quite looking forward to visiting what looked like a nice school to work in. I wasn't disappointed when I arrived, the staff were all friendly and smiling and welcoming even though they have probably already had lots of prospective applicants come looking around. As we went on our tour of the school we stopped off in one of the infant classes and there teaching was one of the girls from my year in college! I said hello and she asked how I was and it was all very brief because she was in the middle of teaching a lesson and I was in the middle of a tour. Then as we stepped back out of the classroom the head teacher said how that teacher (the one that I knew) was on a temporary contract and the job that was advertised was for possibly that class, though if the best teacher that they interview is key stage 2 then there would be a move around and they would go into the juniors and someone else would move down to fill the key stage 1 class. Immediately I went from feeling happy about the place to feeling decidedly uneasy. Who deserves the job? The girl who has been teaching there all year already and is probably very good at what she does, or another teacher to be chosen on the basis of an interview?
The problem as I see it is that there are too many teachers for schools to choose from, as a result, they are able to give a temporary contract one year and then the next year hedge their bets and advertise externally again instead of making permanent the teacher they already have. I lost my job as a result of this way of doing things last year, and I'm reluctant to be party to another school doing the same to someone else this year, particularly when I know the teacher they are doing it to. Is that the kind of school I want to work in? The problem lies in that all schools do it, and that I need a job. Somewhere along the line am I going to be the one that steals a job from someone else who probably should have it over me just because I perform better on interview day? I don't like it.
Is it the best way of employing people? I doubt it. Surely such an approach only serves to keep your workforce unsure of their jobs and forever fretting about losing it to someone more qualified/cheaper/more outgoing/with music skills/with sports skills/add in another level of expertise here.
Will I apply to the school now? Probably not. Will it make the blindest bit of difference to the chances of the girl that I know getting a job that I think she deserves? Probably not.
Before I went to the school I already had the application pack, I was quite looking forward to visiting what looked like a nice school to work in. I wasn't disappointed when I arrived, the staff were all friendly and smiling and welcoming even though they have probably already had lots of prospective applicants come looking around. As we went on our tour of the school we stopped off in one of the infant classes and there teaching was one of the girls from my year in college! I said hello and she asked how I was and it was all very brief because she was in the middle of teaching a lesson and I was in the middle of a tour. Then as we stepped back out of the classroom the head teacher said how that teacher (the one that I knew) was on a temporary contract and the job that was advertised was for possibly that class, though if the best teacher that they interview is key stage 2 then there would be a move around and they would go into the juniors and someone else would move down to fill the key stage 1 class. Immediately I went from feeling happy about the place to feeling decidedly uneasy. Who deserves the job? The girl who has been teaching there all year already and is probably very good at what she does, or another teacher to be chosen on the basis of an interview?
The problem as I see it is that there are too many teachers for schools to choose from, as a result, they are able to give a temporary contract one year and then the next year hedge their bets and advertise externally again instead of making permanent the teacher they already have. I lost my job as a result of this way of doing things last year, and I'm reluctant to be party to another school doing the same to someone else this year, particularly when I know the teacher they are doing it to. Is that the kind of school I want to work in? The problem lies in that all schools do it, and that I need a job. Somewhere along the line am I going to be the one that steals a job from someone else who probably should have it over me just because I perform better on interview day? I don't like it.
Is it the best way of employing people? I doubt it. Surely such an approach only serves to keep your workforce unsure of their jobs and forever fretting about losing it to someone more qualified/cheaper/more outgoing/with music skills/with sports skills/add in another level of expertise here.
Will I apply to the school now? Probably not. Will it make the blindest bit of difference to the chances of the girl that I know getting a job that I think she deserves? Probably not.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Daylight saving?
This article has made me angry today. Mike Rutherford has said that the clocks shouldn't go back because it would be safer for children coming home from school. Sounds good enough at first, almost plausible, then he makes ridiculous statements like:
"Better still, so that they can commute more safely during light mornings AND light afternoons, why not shorten the school day in winter and make up for lost time in the balmy summer months? For heaven's sake, Scotland - with its proud, independent heritage and its very own Parliament - could even have its own time zone if that’s what the majority of its residents want."
Now I don't live in Scotland but that comment really makes me irate. How ridiculously ludicrous to suggest that the school day should alter in length according to the time of year, have an hour or two less in winter and then extend them in summer by the same amount. How is that even vaguely workable? And as for his comments about Scotland, they seem like closeted racism to me, he's saying 'who gives a monkeys about Scotland? If they don't like the dark let them live in the sun-blessed south'. The truth is, changing the day to make it sunnier in the afternoon instead of the morning doesn't mean the sun shines any longer. There are going to be accidents on the roads when there are children about, whether that is in the morning or the afternoon. Besides which, as schools finish at around 3 o'clock now anyway, most children should be home or nearly so before darkness falls. Change that time to the morning and it will certainly be dark when the children are arriving, come December it will only just be light by the beginning of the school day as it is.
Addition -
GreenwichMeanTime.co.uk say this about an experiment in the 60s to do away with daylight saving:
"In 1968 to 1971 Britain tried the experiment of keeping BST - to be called British Standard Time - throughout the year, largely for commercial reasons because Britain would then conform to the time kept by other European Countries. This was not good for the school children of Scotland as it meant they had to always go to School in the dark. The experiment was eventually abandoned in 1972, Britain has kept GMT in winter and BST in summer."
"Better still, so that they can commute more safely during light mornings AND light afternoons, why not shorten the school day in winter and make up for lost time in the balmy summer months? For heaven's sake, Scotland - with its proud, independent heritage and its very own Parliament - could even have its own time zone if that’s what the majority of its residents want."
Now I don't live in Scotland but that comment really makes me irate. How ridiculously ludicrous to suggest that the school day should alter in length according to the time of year, have an hour or two less in winter and then extend them in summer by the same amount. How is that even vaguely workable? And as for his comments about Scotland, they seem like closeted racism to me, he's saying 'who gives a monkeys about Scotland? If they don't like the dark let them live in the sun-blessed south'. The truth is, changing the day to make it sunnier in the afternoon instead of the morning doesn't mean the sun shines any longer. There are going to be accidents on the roads when there are children about, whether that is in the morning or the afternoon. Besides which, as schools finish at around 3 o'clock now anyway, most children should be home or nearly so before darkness falls. Change that time to the morning and it will certainly be dark when the children are arriving, come December it will only just be light by the beginning of the school day as it is.
Addition -
GreenwichMeanTime.co.uk say this about an experiment in the 60s to do away with daylight saving:
"In 1968 to 1971 Britain tried the experiment of keeping BST - to be called British Standard Time - throughout the year, largely for commercial reasons because Britain would then conform to the time kept by other European Countries. This was not good for the school children of Scotland as it meant they had to always go to School in the dark. The experiment was eventually abandoned in 1972, Britain has kept GMT in winter and BST in summer."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
