Politeness Chicken - the "other" PC

Some months back, my dear hubby gave me quite a chuckle (and subsequent blog material; he's handy that way). It was a spectacular Saturday morning in early fall and we decided to explore some new hiking ground. On our way out we arrived at an all-way stop in our neighborhood at the same time as 2 other vehicles. As we all know in this scenario, sometimes there's a lot of staring at the other drivers, everyone trying to decide who got there first and thus, who is entitled to go on his or her merry way first.

So we all stared at each other, eyes darting from car to car like a bizarre 3-way tennis match, no one willing to be the one to go for it. The staring and eye-darting continued for what seemed like minutes until even I was annoyed...and I'm the patient one. It's at this point that Hubby proposed the Politeness Chicken theory: who would be the one to hit the gas? That's when he got the "I lose!" look in his eye and proceeded through the intersection...first. *sigh*

The reality is that this is our neighborhood and there's a high probability of seeing these people again. Who really wants to be the one at the pool this summer, the subject of raised-noses and sideways glances? The Stop-Sign Hog, tsk tsk! (Not that we couldn't have a lot of fun with that but we must consider the children.) So there goes the pool this summer, but at least we got to hike before the day was half gone.

The whole event got me thinking though... (You may want to brace yourself, this segue way might hurt a bit.) The politeness chicken theory has so many varied and practical applications! Everything from door-holding to the last gloriously oil-soaked garlic roll in the bottom of the basket. A rating system is definitely in order. So I propose the PC Score or PCS.

I think it should go something like this:

1. The Enabler: Also known as the sucker, i.e. lets so many cars pull in front of them that they totally screw the people stuck behind them.
2. The Wimp: This one wants to be more assertive but ends up deferring anyway, i.e. they really want the last muffin at the morning meeting but still asks if anyone wants it, secretly hoping nobody will, and then gets snubbed by the oinker who figures they might as well have one more.
3. The Fair-meister: Not too selfish, not too giving....juuuust right, i.e. not afraid to take the last roll but will happily split it with any other takers.
4. The Stickler: Doesn't play the "By all means, after you" game, i.e. will agreeably allow you in front of them in line if you arrive at the same time but be sure not to waver, if you return the offer, they'll take you up on it.
5. The Nimrod: you hope they step in gum sometime today, i.e. first person to jump into the cashiers newly opened line even though they're the last one in the old line, they've barely been waiting a nanosecond, and there's 10 people in front of them. They proceed to argue with the cashier about their coupons for another store that expired a year ago and insist upon speaking with the manager. And then they proceed to pay with a check.

So there you go, the PCS rating system. Might need some tweaking yet but his could be a new national phenomenon. Everyone will be commiserating with their friends who fall victims to social slights, "Oh man, that was soooo 5. Da-yam!" Or alternatively, "Man, that was cool. Totally 3."

So what do you think your PCS is? If you're 1-2, grow some ca hones for cryin' out loud. If you fall in the 3-4 range you've found a good balance and you can be my new friend. If you are a 5, you'll be banished to Jerktopia where you can cause no further harm to society.

But think of the possibilities of the PCS. I can see the ad campaign now: "Politeness Chicken, it's not just for 4-way stops anymore!"; "What's your PCS?"; maybe we could even knock the dust off of Eric Estrada's career for the new game show sensation "P! C! S!" [APPLAUSE] You nominate your friends who are followed by hidden cameras. Then embarrassing footage is aired on national TV at which point they are assigned their official PCS. The board game and t-shirts are just the tip of the merchandising iceberg! Someone call CBS, I'm a genius!!!

"What's that you say?" Uh huh. "Yes, the sky IS purple in my world. How did you know?"

(Home)school is cool!

I went on a little adventure today. Inspired by our ongoing troubles with the local education system, I thought it might be worthwhile to explore alternatives.

Enter our long-lost friend who we recently reconnected with on Facebook (Shout out to Facebook!). She's been homeschooling her daughter (now 11) since the early years and has been a valuable resource in our charting of the homeschool territory. So today I ventured out to visit the group to get a feel for the culture and make some headway in deciding if it's a viable option for us.

I've always considered myself pretty traditional when it comes to education so this is a big leap for me to even be considering homeschooling. And you know what? It's really cool. It totally speaks to my inner hippie. It appeals to my don't-fence-me-in attitude and is stirring up the mommy ideals most of us have as we were first approaching parenthood. You know, before you become jaded and exhausted and reality sets in.

The people I met today were fantastic. Nope, I have no witty remarks, no snark. They were great, welcoming, forthcoming, honest. There were families there for lots of different reasons and they were valid reasons. Whatever preconceived notions you have about homeschoolers, I can certainly attest these particular parents are just doing what makes sense for their families. And they have every right to do it without reproach or skepticism. I can also vouch for the fact that their children are getting a lot more education than mine are right now.

The irony of this little situation of ours is that the group is actually near our old neighborhood; the one we left because the schools were so bad. We moved to our current area, largely due to the strong school system...which is now failing to deliver the real deal. Count that as a lesson learned the hard (and expensive) way. So we're closet hippies stuck in the suburbs in a recession. Awesome!

Now that we've come to the realization that we've been trying to fit our round pegs into the square hole of a traditional public school system, do we have the chutzpah do actually to actually make the change? I hope so, because when your child doesn't fit the mold, the cookie cutter school is a recipe for disaster.

Excuse me, is this the 21st century?

Enjoying a lazy Saturday grocery shopping trip, I was caught quite unaware by a reality check the size of Donald Trump's ego. You see, I had the urge for some new reading material and was feeling adventurous. Being a magazine junkie, I thought it wouldn't be difficult to pick up something, even in Kroger's limited selection, that was new to me.

So I wandered down an otherwise useless aisle and made my way past the initial offerings of paperbacks and coloring books. The first magazine to catch my eye was my beloved National Geographic. Of course, I already had a copy so I refrained from caressing it lest I attract too much attention to myself. Nearby however, I saw some promising titles...Archaeoloy, Discover, that kind of thing. Right up my alley and yet, not ones I usually pick up. But as I reached up to grab a copy of Archaeology that was beckoning, something caught my eye. (Cue suspense music.)

I'm sure you can imagine the emotional whiplash that occurred when my mood was slammed from happy-go-lucky to indignant with the full force of a reality check issued by the Bank of Ignorance. The pleasant-looking, subtle-toned header over the section read "Men's Interest." Now, in the past, my response to this type of affront would have simply been a little head-shaking with or without rolling eyes depending upon the situation. Unfortunately, I've had an awakening of sorts recently and I'm becoming less inclined to accept large, steaming piles of BS with a shrug of the shoulders and "people can be so silly" attitude.

Sure enough, as I investigated the "Men's Interest" section further I saw the likes of Maxim and GQ. Ok, certainly these other publications are tailored toward the male audience and that's absolutely fine. There's no fault in having periodicals that target certain audiences. But why, in the 21st century, the science and nature-oriented materials are the domain of men is simply beyond my comprehension. Add to that, the presence of other titles regarding electronics and digital photography and it becomes downright offensive.

Further perusal of the magazines revealed the perfectly reasonable auto, sports and the ever-generic "lifestyles" categories. But because there was Men's Interest, you know there had to be the lovely "Women's General" section. Apparently, women interests include the likes of weddings, decorating, parenting, and hairstyles.

Now, this conundrum can obviously be approached from both sides. Really, both men and women should be dismayed at the level of stereotyping involved here. That men are only interested in scantily-clad women is equally offensive as the implication that women aren't interested in science and nature, rather only babies and pillow shams. The last time I checked, men were parents, have homes that needed decorating, and got haircuts. And to turn that around, certainly there are plenty of women who could give a big fig about decorating and celebrities, this woman being one of them. So why must these publications be categorized in such a way as to make implications and judgments. It's completely unnecessary.

So in between fits of indignation, the thought kept occurring to me that in 3 days we would be inaugurating our first African-American president. We've come so far and yet the aisles of Kroger revealed, with painful clarity, how much there still is to accomplish. To help that process along I urge magazine retailers to hear the call of the 21st Century....let's categorize by subjects, not out-dated stereotypes. Just in case you need some help, here are some suggestions: sports, home improvement, automotive, computers & electronics, parenting....you get the idea. Let's label them by the subject matter, not who you presume might wish to read them. Agreed?

Now, the lingering question to me that may help me gain some closure is this: Is happening only in the south or in other regions as well? No, no, don't answer that. I'm not sure either scenario will provide consolation, but I may have to conduct additional inquiries at local retail stores to see how pervasive this problem is and determine who will be getting an introduction to The World According to Spacebudgie.

UPDATE (1/23/09): Took my dear hubby down the mag aisle for a "Do You See What I See" experiment. Sure enough came a "Huh, isn't that interesting?" He was puzzled by the scene but, ever the pragmatist, began compiling scenarios that could have resulted in this travesty: they just didn't have time to rearrange after some new titles came in so they just stuck them where there was space, maybe they forgot to put the Geographic (etc.) in both sections, maybe the display headers were old and they hadn't gotten around to replacing them yet.... So either they're lazy, the store display is 50 years old, or they're just plain ____. (I'll let you fill in the blank.)