Not In The Holiday Spirit (Yet)

This past weekend, on Saturday night, my wife and I got a babysitter to watch our two boys. Instead of a romantic night out (mistake #1), we took a practical route and used the night to catch up on Christmas shopping. We started with a quick meal at Generic Chain Restaurant (mistake #2), because of its proximity to stores we wanted to patronize. The food was actually decent, but the atmosphere was bland. When a group of workers gathered together to sing happy birthday to a customer (Holy restaurant cliche, Batman), I was ready to leave. We stopped at Lame Craft Store to get a few ornaments and other trinkets, then headed to Pretend Your House Is Like The Ones On HGTV Store to get a few gifts, then went to the mall to Cute And Cheap Clothes For Kids Store to pick up a few things, and ended at Very Expensive Toy Store to buy $40 Legos for our 4-year-old. My wife and I agreed that neither of us were properly in the holiday spirit. We couldn't pinpoint why. Job stress? Life stress? General holiday stress? I think maybe it has something to do with Consumption Pressure (not sure why I capitalized Consumption and Pressure, but hey, it's a blog). I made an obvious observation that you never feel like you're done shopping. It always feels like you can buy one more thing. And sometimes you have a sense that what you bought just isn't good enough. And why the hell do we spend so much time buying things that people don't need? Granted, I say this from a middle-class perspective. Our family and friends don't need anything. I know that plenty of people do need lots of things. I also know there are good gifts for people who fortunately don't need things. A nice bottle of wine from France makes a good gift for my brother, and a gift certificate to my mother's favorite salon makes a nice gift for her. But the running around to get STUFF doesn't feel satisfying. Maybe I'm just a grinch.

Sunday felt a little different. We took the kids to a tree farm and picked out a nice little Christmas tree. That baby cost $48, then we spent a few more bucks at the gift shop, then a few more dollars on hot dogs and fresh cut french fries (yum). Later on, when the tree was decorated, I felt a little bit of the holiday spirit.

Then, today, I found a nice surprise in my office mailbox: two candy canes. How cute is this, one was a pink candy cane with Dora the Explorer all over it, the other one green with SpongeBob Squarepants all over it. And no card or note. Just somebody who decided to leave two candy canes in my mailbox. That made me happy. I thought to myself: "This makes more sense to me. Leaving fun little items for people without identifying yourself as the gift giver. This is good. Just thinking of someone, recognizing someone in some small way, and not looking for credit. That seems like the holiday spirit."

Well, hopefully I'll lighten up by Christmas. Having kids is supposed to automatically make you enjoy Christmas. And I am excited for my kids. But consumption has a funny way of making you feel empty inside. Anonymous gifts, however, might generate joy and spark some spirit. In any case, happy holidays. Did I really end with a cliche?

Athletes and Religion: The Case of Tim Tebow

I don't know much about Tim Tebow. I do know that he's a Christian. To use 21st century terminology, that's his brand. My impression is that he is serious and sincere in his religious convictions. And my impression is that media outlets have largely approved his displays of religious beliefs both on and off the football field.

I would love to hear a discussion about this. Maybe the subject has already been discussed at length, but I haven't heard it. If ESPN has covered it, I wouldn't know, because I find it painful to watch ESPN. And national sports talk radio shows strike me as boring and distasteful; for example, Jim Rome. But this does seem like a topic that Rome would delve into during his show.

What interests me about the general topic of athletes and religion is the question of appropriate (or inappropriate) displays of religious beliefs on the football field. Of course, what's considered appropriate or inappropriate is a subjective call. That's what makes it interesting. Over the years, I've listened to media figures talk about athletes who point to the sky after scoring a touchdown in negative ways. I've heard many a media personality condemn teammates who circle in the end zone to join in prayer. Overall, I would say that athletes who demonstrate their religious beliefs on the field of play have encountered disapproval. But with Tim Tebow, I'm not sure that's the case. But I defer to people who watch sports and cover sports for a living. They would know more about the tone and content of coverage with regard to Tebow.

If Tebow has generally received positive (or even neutral) coverage about his on-field displays of religious beliefs, that begs the question Why? If he has in fact been treated with respect for his religious convictions, I'm curious to know why this might be. I emphasize that I'm not exactly sure of how he's been treated, so that's why I'd love to hear more about the matter. I came across one story that describes mixed reactions to Tebow. The story includes a link to the website tebowing.com, which has pictures of people apparently imitating Tebow. Some of it's for laughs, some of it seems staged, so it's hard to tell if it's "all in good fun," or mockery, or something else.

I do want to mention race as a possible factor here. Over the years, athletes who faced criticism for on-field displays of religious beliefs have generally been black players. Is Tebow getting a positive response, in part, because he's a white player? Or because he's a white quarterback? I am posing these questions for discussion, I am not posing them as facts or as my opinion. As I've said, I don't know enough about how Tebow's been handled by media so far. I just wonder if race is part of the issue in this case. So I put all of this out there for contemplation and consideration.

November Fatigue

Awfully tired and unusually so at this point in the semester. The fall semester almost never feels like a grind, but this one does. Maybe it's because I'm always two steps behind. Or maybe it's the work-life juggling act. Chasing around my two boys is fun but it takes a ton of energy! I am usually high energy throughout the fall semester, but I've been relatively low-key this time around. The fact that it rains on most of my teaching days doesn't help!

Today happens to be a beautiful sunny day, and I slept well last night (very rare), so I'm recharging a bit today and hoping to shake off the fatigue. Sabbatical is right around the corner. I have been conscious about not coasting to sabbatical. As much as I am looking forward to my sabbatical in the spring semester, I have worked hard to not act like I'm already on sabbatical! So I've done my best this fall in preparing classes and teaching them, along with advising students with their academic and career affairs, plus meeting my responsibilities as chairperson, and keeping up with research and writing. Still, I wonder if my impending sabbatical has subconsciously slowed me down a bit this semester. I'll do what I can to recover some energy without totally relying on caffeine. Wish me luck!

I close by saying "no complaints." How can anyone complain with a sabbatical approaching? I only wonder if people experience a drop in energy prior to their actual sabbatical?

Using "Otis" by Jay-Z and Kanye West to Talk about Social Class

First, allow me to acknowledge the source of this teaching exercise. Karl Bakeman (tweeting from @wwnsoc at the time) retweeted something from Nikki Jones (@socprofjones). She recently tweeted "Best critique I've seen of Jay-Z and Kanye's 'Otis' - from the Black Youth Project" and included a link to an article.

Having recently heard the "Otis" song on the radio, I was curious to read the critique. I found the criticism to be very interesting and insightful. Basically, it boils down to saying that the song is over-the-top in terms of bragging about money and material goods. If you watch the video, you'll see the standard visuals: expensive cars, watches, sneakers, and beautiful women. In the song, there are references to supermodels, champagne, diamonds, private jets, and money. Kanye sings about his "other, other Benz." All of this, according to the article, is shallow and out of touch. This is no time for such an excessive display of riches, the writer says. In tough economic times with a high unemployment rate, the song and video offer an unnecessary show of a luxurious lifestyle. Furthermore, the writer says, this is not what their audience wants to hear. In essence, it's overkill.

I liked all of the author's points, and went to my Introduction to Sociology class on a Friday morning to discuss the video and the author's viewpoints. I showed the video and asked for reactions. During the discussion I brought up points from the article. I found that students (at least those who spoke out) disagreed with the writer. They didn't find the video to be over-the-top or "in your face." One student described Jay-Z as someone who embodies the "rags-to-riches" story. Another said that Jay-Z and Kayne would be criticized if they were singing about the streets, or being in jail, or glamorizing a criminal style. In other words, he argued, they'd get criticized for singing about the streets or singing about being rich. So they can't win. Another student said that people continue to "drool over" the materialistic lifestyle that is rapped about in the song. So, the student said, people do like to hear this kind of song. None of my students voiced an opinion that was in agreement with the critique.

I came away from the class thinking that people firmly believe in the American Dream. No matter that the economy is stalled and millions of Americans are struggling. People still cling to the Horatio Alger myth (anyone who tries hard enough can get ahead). I suppose that people like to see the outcomes of this hard work (material goods and riches). If it's presented in hyperbolic fashion, so be it.

I'm curious what students at other colleges and universities think about this song and video. Do they relate to it? Find it entertaining? Does anyone find it to be repulsive? Foolish? Or out of touch? In any case, the exercise makes for a good discussion about social class.

Talking occupations with my 4-year-old son

This is a short video of my conversation with my four-year-old son about occupations. He would like to be a teacher, thinks only boys are firefighters, doesn't want to be an "Army guy," and doesn't know what a plumber is. Don't worry, I'll explain that women fight fires too!

It's interesting to think about how children form their ideas about different occupations. My son responded positively to the question about being a garbage collector--I wonder if and when his views will change, considering it's a job that is ranked low in terms of prestige.

Broke and Famous

In the future there will be two categories of people: broke and famous.
79% of the population will be broke, 21% will be famous.
But that’s okay because everybody will have the chance to be famous.
Everyone will be monitored 24/7/365 and every action recorded permanently.
That’s how they will decide who gets to be famous.
It will have the intended benefit of ending crime.
(People will stop committing crime once they realize they will be caught and punished immediately. Even white-collar crime will be punished.)
The streets will also be totally clean because littering will bring immediate punishment.
At first people will bemoan the end of privacy but complaints will stop after people see how nice it is when there is no crime and the streets are clean. Plus there is the chance of being famous.
And it should be said that it won’t be horrible to be broke.
Basically the conditions will be tolerable enough so that nobody minds too much.
Everyone will be able to pay their rent and have enough to eat.
How we gonna eat? Just watch The Jetsons.
They will also require immunizations for everybody, free of charge.
Plus they are going to turn January into Equality Month. Everybody will have exactly the same amount of possessions and money for one month. It will take a lot of maneuvering but they can figure out how to do it.
So everyone will get to taste equality for 31 days.
Why January? Gotta start the New Year out right, right?
People will be rewarded with lots of cash if they demonstrate proficiency in another language.
They finally figured out that two languages are better than one.
Only one news channel will exist and it will be called HOTT News.
All the anchors and reporters and pundits and sportscasters and meteorologists will be models.
There won’t be any hate on HOTT News because it will replace all the other news channels that will lose ratings when they run out of ways to hate. (It turns out that hate has an expiration date.)
People will embrace the change because HOTT News is gonna make tolerance sexy.
Music will be pretty good too because they will ban lyrics.
So there won’t be any violent and misogynist songs.
Don’t worry, there will still be plenty of good music. It’s amazing what they can do with JAZZ.
(If you’re wondering what happens if people listen to songs with lyrics they already have, the answer is they will be punished immediately. Don’t worry, HOTT news will make censorship sexy.)
So there will be broke and famous people, no crime, clean streets, free immunizations, rent and food paid for, more multilingualism, censorship, and tolerance. It won’t be a perfect situation but it will be good enough. They finally figured out that if conditions are good enough and if beautiful people say everything is gonna be alright and people stand a decent chance of being famous then people will shut up.
The end.

Author's note: my attempt to use creative writing to glimpse the future.

I'm HOTT. Except I'm Not.

I got an e-mail yesterday informing me I'm included in an article on a website called hercampus.com. It's a list of the best and worst professors in the U.S. The list is compiled based on reviews from ratemyprofessors.com. It's not news to anyone that ratemyprofessors.com isn't scientific. We know that it's basically a haphazard sample of student opinions. That doesn't mean that the comments are worthless, but it does mean that they aren't representative of the population of students who have taken a professor's classes. I'm on the list of "best professors"--I suppose that's better than being on the list of worst professors. The author of the article boils down my ratings by saying "most of the students say he is 'amazing', 'interesting' and 'HOTT.' For the record, only one student said I'm HOTT. I'm not sure what the extra T means, but I assume it's good. I'm flattered that someone thinks I'm HOTT, but I assure you that I'm not. (Today I look like I'm going to a casting call for a Dockers commercial. Only I wouldn't be hired, because I'm short). I don't think I'm unattractive, I'm only saying that at least 99 out of 100 people in a room wouldn't describe me as HOTT (or HOT).

The writer goes on to say "Beyond being easy on the eyes, it seems that Niagara students also enjoy the ease of his classes and the entertainment value of his lectures." The author correctly points out that most of my reviews come from students in SOC 101. This is no small point. I teach several classes: Social Psychology, Race & Ethnicity, Research Methods, and Introduction to Sociology. The way I teach SOC 101 is very different from how I teach upper-level courses. I do see how my Intro class is perceived as easy (although it might be "easy" because I teach it well--just a thought). However, I certainly don't love being reduced to someone who is "easy on the eyes" and "easy." I doubt that's how a representative sample of my students would describe me.

There are worst things in the world than being characterized as a "talented teacher" who is "totally cute" (those are other phrases in the article). If I may say so, I do think I'm a talented teacher. "Totally cute" is a long stretch. I guess I can't pick and choose adjectives. And I'm not mad at the writer--she's only working with the "data" from ratemyprofessors.com. Furthermore, I sent my picture to a writer for Huffingtonpost.com when she was writing a similar story earlier this year. I figured "why not." As long as she was writing a story, I might as well send a picture. So I sent a picture of me with my son Troy, who inspires me in life.

So I write this not out of frustration or because I'm upset. I write it to reflect on what it means to supposedly be one of the best professors in the nation. And to emphasize what we already know: that a haphazard sample of comments should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Come find me at a conference (or do a Google image search) and you'll agree that I'm not HOTT.

Ultimately, I think this post reflects my concern about not being taken seriously. Who wants to be labeled an "easy professor" who is "entertaining" and "totally cute"? Even if I am entertaining, or cute (debatable), there's more to me than that.