"Life's Not Fair" = a defense of the status quo?

[Lissa]

@Beware of Doug

I guess I appreciate your pragmatism, but only on a very basic level. You seem to be convinced that changing the world one person at a time isn’t either a. possible or b. a good idea.

Well, not practical, let’s say. Considering there are about four billion people on the planet, it would take a long time to do each one individually.

@Salt Seller

This just backs up Beware of Doug’s OP. Things remain unfair because we refuse to treat each other fairly. “That’s just the way it is” may be accurate regarding how our society operates, but it doesn’t change the fact that we need to work towards equity and justice.

<snip>

A person with green hair (or a woman, or a gay person, or any outsider) may not be able to easily find a job, but that’s because we as a culture decide that it’s easier to perpetuate bias and discrimination than do something about it.

“Life’s not fair” is descriptive; it shouldn’t be proscriptive.

I admire your ideals, but what you’re suggesting is contrary to human nature. Human social structure requires “rejects.” If we can’t readily point to a visible attribute on which to discriminate, we’ll turn to race or nationality, or eye color, or something.

Fighting against prejudice and discrimination are noble causes which I support, but I realize we’ll never be able to eradicate them. Someday, we may come to a point where there is no prejudice based on skin color, but that prejudice will simply switch to focusing on another attribute, such as weight or educational accomplishments. Humans will always have the urge to discriminate; all you can do is focus it on other areas.

As for your example, yes, that is exactly the sort of thing we should encourage. Rules like that, at least from my experiences in high school, serve no purpose other than to exercise power. What it teaches is that there is no right or wrong, there is only obedience.

Why is a rule designed simply to exercise power innately a bad thing? Shouldn’t we teach young people that they are subject to rules and authority whether they like it or not? (As citizens, we don’t have the option of just refusing to obey a rule if we don’t agree with it.) Pragmatically speaking, since they’re going to be exposed to these when they’re adults, isn’t it a small mercy to get them used to it while they’re young?

It serves no concrete purpose that my workplace forbids the wearing of blue jeans. I can get pretty dirty in the course of a day’s work, and it’d be nice to have the tough, durable denim between me and the brick floor I’m crawling over, but them’s the rules. The Powers That Be have decided that jeans do not look professional to the public, and so I can’t wear them. Should I sue? Or, as a intelligent, rational adult, should I just shut the fuck up and do what my boss says to do, then go home where I can where whatever I choose?

For that matter, why do I have to wear a shirt? On a hot day like this, he ladies in the Amazon would probably pity me like we pity the ladies in purdah. It serves no meaningful purpose to have laws requiring women to wear shirts. I’m sure many men in America would support me if I chose to sue over that one.

[Salt_Seller]

@Lissa

It serves no concrete purpose that my workplace forbids the wearing of blue jeans. I can get pretty dirty in the course of a day’s work, and it’d be nice to have the tough, durable denim between me and the brick floor I’m crawling over, but them’s the rules. The Powers That Be have decided that jeans do not look professional to the public, and so I can’t wear them. Should I sue? Or, as a intelligent, rational adult, should I just shut the fuck up and do what my boss says to do, then go home where I can where whatever I choose?

For that matter, why do I have to wear a shirt? On a hot day like this, he ladies in the Amazon would probably pity me like we pity the ladies in purdah. It serves no meaningful purpose to have laws requiring women to wear shirts. I’m sure many men in America would support me if I chose to sue over that one.

I would totally support you on that.

Again, these are examples of dumbassery on the part of the person in power. Just because you have the power doesn’t make it right. And, no, you may not get them changed, but it definately won’t get changed if you just give in to the status quo.

[Salt_Seller]

@Lissa

Why is a rule designed simply to exercise power innately a bad thing? Shouldn’t we teach young people that they are subject to rules and authority whether they like it or not?

Shouldn’t we teach them to question the reasoning of authority? Power for power’s sake is always a bad thing.

[Lissa]

@Beware of Doug

Now to Lissa again, and the idea of “specialness.”

You’re using (maybe unintentionally) facile language. “Special” can mean superior to others, more deserving, feeling super-extra entitled. That’s destructive. It can also mean individual, autonomous, deserving of dignity and worth. I hope you don’t mean to suggest that’s destructive.

No, I’m not saying it’s bad to teach human dignity. What I’m saying is that some people internalize the “I’m special” message to mean that they should get extra consideration for their situations.

Either/or, I note…Are the two PsOV pretty much incompatible?

I’m all for encouraging values of community and commonweal in young people. People of all political stripes agree we need them. But just calling it “a society, a network which requires all of us to work together” is, I think, liable to instill complacency.

I don’t worry that new outlooks could instill complacency because I don’t think it’s possible to get much more complacent than we are already.

What I think people need is a broader view of the place they occupy in the grand social web. They need to see that their actions, no matter where they are on the social/economic ladder have implications both upwards and down the chain. (I.E if you don’t do your job, the parts you’re making cause the next person to be late, etc., or if you’re nasty to one person, they may spread that nastiness on to others, or criticize your organization costing you business.)

In otherwords, rather than focusing on individual success stories, show how a community came together to revitalize. Encourage kids not only to run for class president, but to find ways they can be on committees and the like. Celebrate the basketball team, not just star players.

What are we working together for? What kind of society is it to be? We need to ask these questions, even if we can’t answer them neatly and tidily.

We’re not necessarily working “for” anything other than a smooth day-to-day interaction with one another.

[Lissa]

@Salt Seller

Again, these are examples of dumbassery on the part of the person in power. Just because you have the power doesn’t make it right. And, no, you may not get them changed, but it definately won’t get changed if you just give in to the status quo.

The question that comes to my mind is: does it really need to be changed? I am not materially harmed by having to eschew blue jeans or goth makeup during the day.

This organization hired me to do tasks for them wearing certain kinds of clothes, for which they give me money. I agreed to these conditions when I took the job. If I found them particularly onerous, I would have refused it.

I went to a funeral a few months back and I was utterly appalled at the way I saw people dressed. The young woman in line in front of me was wearing a bright orange sundress. At least two dozen attendees were in jeans and T-shirts, and one young lady apparently was on her way to go clubbing when she stopped in to pay her respects. (I was always taught you weren’t supposed to wear red to a funeral unless you wanted to make a show of being glad the deceased had kicked the bucket.)

The reason I was offended was because I felt that such casual clothing was grossly inappropriate for the occasion. Yes, the dead person doesn’t care, but it’s disrespectful of the solemnity of the occasion. If you can’t bring yourself to put on nice clothing for an hour or so, stay home. I would have the same reaction seeing people dressed that way at a wedding unless casual dress had been specified beforehand.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing for society to have rules about appropriate dress and behavior, nor do I object to any employer having dress codes. There is nothing wrong with it.

Isn’t it a restriction of my freedom of speech to forbid me to say, “Welcome to the fuckin’ museum, bitch. I’m going to lead your ass around and show you the old shit. Shut the fuck up while I’m talking and keep your goddam hands off the cases.”

Isn’t it a restriction of my freedoms to frown on me if I belch loudly, or scratch my crotch, or fart, or get drunk in church? Why can’t I have sex in public? Why must I brush my hair?

Every society has rules of behavior, taboos and rejects. You can’t get away from these concepts. They exist only to put people in classifications and to control human behavior, and while the rules may change, they will never completely dissapear.

[Der_Trihs]

@Weirddave

The author’s conclution that somehow more government intervention in our daily lives could somehow make life more “fair” is as laughable as it is ludicrous.

Historically, government has been the most effective solution. It was a war and an Amendment by the eeevuuul government that ended slavery, not libertarian self righteousness.

@Weirddave

See also the paragraphs disparaging libertarianism, which by definition means less government interference in our lives, and it’s pretty clear that to this idiot the “values and skills of a democratic society” means having someone in a position of authority mediate every aspect of our lives to keep things “fair”.

Libertarionism means more interference - and exploitation - by those in power in your life, because there won’t be any way to stop them. What’s worse, sexual harassment laws or being told to spread your legs for the boss or starve ?

@Lissa

“Endorse” isn’t the right word. There will always be unpopular kids in any environment. Children will always single out a certain percentage of the group to be outcasts. They will search for a trait which allows for discrimination. That’s just the nature of children and their social sturcture.

That doesn’t mean we need to tolerate far worse behavior than adults need to put with - and some teachers/administrators do endorse bullying, I assure you. I and others I’ve talked to have noted how the bullying drops off when the kids get old enough to sue; if the kids I had trouble with in school had been adults, most would have been in jail or sued into poverty. You can call expecting fairness unrealistic all you want, but your bigger cooworkers aren’t allowed to beat you up, they can’t walk over and steal your purse or the hypothetical computer off your desk, and they can’t get aware with throwing rocks and spitting on you. Just because adult life isn’t a paradise doesn’t mean we should let the kids prey on one another and shrug, saying “life isn’t fair”. As well, don’t tell them that they are having the best years of their life and life as an adult is harder; I was told that alot, and it nearly convinced me to suicide, besides being untrue.

@Lissa

The question that comes to my mind is: does it really need to be changed? I am not materially harmed by having to eschew blue jeans or goth makeup during the day.

This organization hired me to do tasks for them wearing certain kinds of clothes, for which they give me money. I agreed to these conditions when I took the job. If I found them particularly onerous, I would have refused it.

A willingness to mindlessly obey your employer isn’t healthy. You should always resent unfair rules and strive to change them, minor or not. It’s perfectly possible to lose your freedom and independence one small rule at a time, instead of having your employer declare himself God-Boss and demanding worship.

[Lissa]

@Der Trihs

A willingness to mindlessly obey your employer isn’t healthy. You should always resent unfair rules and strive to change them, minor or not. It’s perfectly possible to lose your freedom and independence one small rule at a time, instead of having your employer declare himself God-Boss and demanding worship.

Christ on the crapper, Trihs, telling me not to wear jeans and telling me to go get the mail is not demanding worship. Nor do I think it’s in any way “unfair” to have a dress code or standards of conduct.

[Lissa]

Sorry-- hit “Submit” too soon.

I don’t “mindlessly obey” my boss. If he asked me to do anything illegal or dangerous, I’d refuse.

If he tells me to do a task that’s within my job, I will do it, regardless of my opinions on whether it needs done or if it’s stupid or futile. I might make suggestions, but his is the final say.

[Der_Trihs]

@Lissa

Christ on the crapper, Trihs, telling me not to wear jeans and telling me to go get the mail is not demanding worship. Nor do I think it’s in any way “unfair” to have a dress code or standards of conduct.

I didn’t say it was. It is unfair if the dress code causes discomfort, is solely for the employers gratification ( like requiring women to wear hose ), or impractical ( like forcing people not to wear denim when that would be better. As well, plenty of codes of conduct are unfair or outright unethical.

Just because something is a rule doesn’t make it right.

[Lissa]

@Der Trihs

I didn’t say it was. It is unfair if the dress code causes discomfort, is solely for the employers gratification ( like requiring women to wear hose ), or impractical ( like forcing people not to wear denim when that would be better. As well, plenty of codes of conduct are unfair or outright unethical.

Just because something is a rule doesn’t make it right.

But, conversely, just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong, either. How are you being harmed by a dress code, even if the clothing is not what you’d have chosen? I thank Og I don’t have to wear pantyhose, but if my boss decreed that I did, I’d wear it. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I wouldn’t be outraged by it. He’s the boss. It’s his company. He does not have to justify himself and his decisions to me. If I don’t like it, I can leave.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

To complain about fair or not fair is an act of arrogance. You are a flea in a huge world and do not matter. To believe the world is unfair to you implies that you are entitled to some kind of special treatment. You are not.
School is a vain attempt to civilize our children. You can see how well it works. But it makes sharing the world possible.
Fair and unfair are terms you are applying to something which pays no notice.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Lissa

Why is a rule designed simply to exercise power innately a bad thing?Shouldn’t we teach young people that they are subject to rules and authority whether they like it or not?

Certain rules, Lissa. CERTAIN rules. You’re coming very close to teaching that there is no such thing as a bad rule, or unreasonable authority. You don’t want to leave that door open.

@Lissa

Pragmatically speaking, since they’re going to be exposed to these when they’re adults, isn’t it a small mercy to get them used to it while they’re young?

It’s a small mercy to get them used to it in small ways. You CAN go to jail for not paying those traffic fines. Insistence on green hair WILL effectively bar you from many lines of work. Hell, even I’ll admit “that’s just how things are sometimes.” I get the feeling you would teach out and out passivity: they say jump, you ask how high.

[Rilchiam]

@Lissa

Another destructive notion that we acquire in kindergarten is that we’re “special.” I have a pet theory that this leads to a good deal of our social friction. Everyone thinks that they’re different, that the rules don’t apply to them because they have special circumstances. But we’re not special. There are 200 million Americans just like you, who have the same wants, goals and passions. Yes, your genetic code may be unique, but you’re really just part of society like everyone else. Instead of focusing on encouraging kids to think of themselves as unique individuals, I think we should focus on how each of us is part of a society, a network which requires all of us to work together.

There was a Pit thread a while back, that I can’t find, but anyway, the OP was talking about trying to find the exactly. right. no. deviations. allowed. supplies for his kid’s school project. Later, another poster chimed in that it was the same at their kids’ school: every kid had to have identical notebooks, sets of markers and crayons, and so forth, because, a teacher said, “We don’t want anyone to feel special or different.”

Which sounds totally counterproductive to me. Kids will establish a pecking order, and they will find reasons to justify that. No, it’s not right, but creating artificial equality is just going to force them to go further afield, trying to find reasons to say “You’re not one of US!” If no one feels “special or different”, then no one can feel proud of himself either. Why try to improve oneself when there’s no competition? Better to squash outright meannness when it happens, and otherwise, concentrate on the underlined phrase in your post.

Actually, I’d forget the “Everything should be fair” campaign, and change it to “Don’t be a dick.”

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Lissa

What I think people need is a broader view of the place they occupy in the grand social web. They need to see that their actions, no matter where they are on the social/economic ladder have implications both upwards and down the chain. (I.E if you don’t do your job, the parts you’re making cause the next person to be late, etc., or if you’re nasty to one person, they may spread that nastiness on to others, or criticize your organization costing you business.)

In otherwords, rather than focusing on individual success stories, show how a community came together to revitalize. Encourage kids not only to run for class president, but to find ways they can be on committees and the like. Celebrate the basketball team, not just star players.
[…]
We’re not necessarily working “for” anything other than a smooth day-to-day interaction with one another.

Damn. :dubious: Just when I think you’re in full I-for-one-welcome-our-new-[fill in the blank]-overlords mode, you come out with plain sweet common sense.

What the hell were you holding out for all this time?

[msmith537]

@Der Trihs

A willingness to mindlessly obey your employer isn’t healthy. You should always resent unfair rules and strive to change them, minor or not. It’s perfectly possible to lose your freedom and independence one small rule at a time, instead of having your employer declare himself God-Boss and demanding worship.

As your employment is voluntary, you always have the power to leave and find new employment. You also have the power to stay and do the bare minimum. There are employers out there who do believe in empowering their employees and treating them fairly as possible.

I’m always amazed by employers who display a “lifes not fair” and “it’s just business” attitude and then get surprised when a significant number of employees “unfairly” leave to go to their competitors.

I do not agree with the OP that the statement “life isn’t fair” is a defense of the status quo. If anything it’s the opposite. It is a call to personal responsibility and accountability.

It’s kind of like that business classic “Who Moved My Cheese?”. There are many people who read it and think it’s stupid or filled with platitudes or whatever. They miss the simple point of the book that life is unfair, but YOU are the one who still need to do something about it when something unfair happens to you. You can’t just sit there bitching until someone comes to save you, cause sometimes they don’t come.

You can do a search through the SDMB and read tons of posts with people complaing about all kinds of shit - lost their job, girlfriend dumped them, can’t relate to people, hate the government, lost their dog, whatever. Now it’s fine to vent, but at the end of day, you can’t control your boss, the economy, other people or anything other than yourself. Eventually you have to send out a resume, ask a girl out, dump that jerk, punch a dude in the face, talk to your boss or whatever makes sense to work towards your desired outcome.
I agree with a lot of what Lissa said. It’s one thing to feel “special”, but I think we set up all these unrealistic expectations that every child will grow up to be millionares and rock-gods. People think the entire world revolves around them. I work with people who think that in a professional job, it’s ok to come and go as they please and that work is some favor they are doing me and they’ll get to it if it doesn’t interrupt their waiting for the cable guy or picking their dry cleaning up. They have no consideration that there is an entire team of people that may be waiting for them to complete some task for clients who are paying a lot of money.

[Lissa]

@Beware of Doug

Damn. :dubious: Just when I think you’re in full I-for-one-welcome-our-new-[fill in the blank]-overlords mode, you come out with plain sweet common sense.

What the hell were you holding out for all this time?

I’m categorically incapable of verbal economy and my points are always reached via a tortuous, circuitous route.

[PBear42]

As is my wont when I’m late to the party, I’m just going to relate my reaction to the OP without trying to step into the subsequent discussion. IMHO, Life Is Unfair is neither a defense of the status quo nor a call for authoritarianism. It is, first a foremost, a simple statement of fact, and a true one. In the context complained of in the essay linked, it’s saying that unrealistic expectations will only make you (teenager) unhappy. I think that’s a fair point. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to make life more fair, not that we should neglect to be fair ourselves. There are rewards to both. But stuff happens and accepting that is a big part of entering adulthood. Or, at least, so it seems to me.

[Steve_MB]

@Beware of Doug

Are you saying “the responsibility (the personalresponsibility…not even governmental) to learn, practice, and teach the values and skills of a democratic society” just means indoctrinating the dogma of the Nanny State into every person?

Dave isn’t, but the author of the linked article implicitly is (by repeatedly conflating freedom with license in his denunciations of “libertarian culture”, whatever that’s supposed to be).

[Steve_MB]

@Der Trihs

Historically, government has been the most effective solution. It was a war and an Amendment by the eeevuuul government that ended slavery

The notion that government as an institution should get some sort of moral credit for ceasing to maintain an evil that could never have continued to exist without it is preposterous. It’s like not only forgiving a retired criminal, but giving him a pat on the back for giving up a life of crime.

[Shodan]

@Steve MB

The notion that government as an institution should get some sort of moral credit for ceasing to maintain an evil that could never have continued to exist without it is preposterous. It’s like not only forgiving a retired criminal, but giving him a pat on the back for giving up a life of crime.

And I take great delight in pointing out to our friend Der Trihs that the primary motives behind the abolitionist movement, especially in Great Britain (which did not fight a war over slavery) were religious, especially Christian.

Although antislavery sentiment had existed during the American Revolution, and abolitionist Benjamin Lundy began his work early in the 19th cent., the abolition movement did not reach crusading proportions until the 1830s. One of its mainsprings was the growing influence of evangelical religion, with its religious fervor, its moral urgency to end sinful practices, and its vision of human perfection. The preaching of Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor in New England and the religious revivals that began in W New York state in 1824 under Charles G. Finney and swept much of the North, created a powerful impulse toward social reform—emancipation of the slaves as well as temperance, foreign missions, and women’s rights. Outstanding among Charles Finney’s converts were Theodore D. Weld and the brothers Arthur Tappan and Lewis Tappan .

The year 2007 marks the 200 th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by the British Parliament. The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism.

…the Second Great Awakening inspired a reform spirit in the North. The revivalists argued that America was in need of moral regeneration by dedicated Christians. They channeled their fervor into a series of reforms designed to eliminate evils in American society. These reforms included women’s rights, temperance, educational improvements, humane treatment for the mentally ill, and the abolition of slavery.

Regards,
Shodan