I've been ranting on Twitter. This is usually a good sign that I ought to write something more considered, where my view can be expanded more fully.
The Moral Maze on radio 4 often provides interesting food for thought on controversial issues, but today's programme on the issue of sex selective abortion was, on occasion making me want to throw things at the radio. The problem is I already know a reasonable amount about the issue, having read a book* about it and having had several in depth discussions about it with Mike, who is a renowned troll and forces me to justify even reasonable viewpoints. The discussion on the Moral Maze didn't cover half of the issues that the selective abortion of female foetuses presents.
I feel I ought to start by explaining my view on abortion prior to becoming aware of this issue. I have long thought of myself as politically pro-choice, while personally pro-life. In other words, I think a woman has a right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy, but I doubt I could ever -choose- to abort a child myself. Obviously there's no way I can really know unless I'm put in those circumstances. I do have a problem with aborting late, when its possible a foetus could survive outside the womb. I am slightly more fuzzy on when that cut-off should be.
I find attempts by fundamentalist religious organisations to deprive women of the right to autonomy over their bodies very worrying. It sets a dangerous precedent that women are basically baby-making factories with no right to choose when or how to have a child if they have the audacity to want a sex-life. Yes it would be nice if contraception was universally available, affordable and 100% effective, but life isn't like that. I am very lucky that I live in a country where the contraceptive pill is available on the NHS for free, and condoms are readily available in supermarkets. It's not like this everywhere.
If most of the present Republican candidates had their way (as I understand it) women's rights to contraception, let alone abortion in the US would be significantly reduced. I'm not going to get into that because this was not the purpose of this post, but suffice it to say that I fear a Republican president this time round would be detrimental to women and women's rights all around the world.
This somewhat simplified view of mine would be fine if it weren't for the pesky tendency of real life to be more complicated than that. Women don't just have abortions for reasons my moral framework sees as justifiable - rape, poverty, inability to support a child, and, to a lesser degree, the desire for a career before having children. Women sometimes have abortions for reasons that I find truly upsetting. If the technology were readily available, I believe there are women (or indeed couples) who would abort (or use fertility techniques to select against) foetuses on grounds as frivolous as hair or eye colour, IQ etc. There's a 1997 film called Gattaca about where that might lead, and it's not a world I like the look of.
The issue I wish to discuss today is women aborting foetuses on the basis of gender. It is, of course, not unheard of for a woman to abort a foetus because it is male, but it is far more likely in most countries that if a foetus is aborted because of its gender, it will be because it is female.
Girls can be aborted for various and complicated reasons, many having to do with the low status of women in developing countries and boys being prized for their ability to support their parents in later years, and to carry on the family name. Boys can be a status symbol in many countries. In parts of China it is considered so important to have a boy that, in combination with the One Child Policy it causes women to abort foetus after foetus until finally they produce one of the right gender. This has led to a sex ratio (boys per 100 girls at birth) of in the region of 150 in some areas.
Perhaps the most worrying reason, because it is, on the face of it, so reasonable, is the concept of 'family balancing'. This is where couples, having had one child, will abort pregnancies of the same gender because they want both a boy and a girl. The problem with this (apart from the obvious frivolity of the reasoning) is that all boy families are apparently less of a problem than all girl ones, so that families starting with a boy baby are less likely to abort future male foetuses than families starting with a girl baby are to abort future female foetuses. Within a family it might seem as though the gender balance is being maintained, but across a population vastly more girls are being aborted than boys.
So what?
Well a society with notably more boys than girls in it can have many negative effects. For starters when the generation reaches adulthood you get a generation of surplus men. There aren't enough women to go around, and so, with the increased demand, prostitution rises, female trafficking rises, and men who can afford to are more likely marry younger women or to go abroad and buy a wife. None of this is conducive to improving the status of women.
You might think that it would be self-correcting, that a lack of women in one generation might increase their value and make them less likely to be aborted in future generations, but for the aforementioned reasons, the trend in this situation is for relatively wealthy men to pair up with poorer women, so the increased demand is for lower status women, thus low status families may keep girls for what they might bring monetarily through their sale, while wealthy families continue to prize boys. The net effect is for women to become poorer.
Another effect is that those young men who cannot afford to buy a bride and whose female peers are marrying older men often become angry and disenfranchised. There is scientific research that shows that marriage and parenthood can reduce testosterone levels in men, and, combined with the gradual decline of testosterone levels from a man's early 20s means that this generation of young unmarried frustrated men are also at the peak of their lifetime testosterone levels. A society overflowing with angry young testosterone fuelled single men has a propensity towards conflict and unrest (see the wild west in the USA). Perhaps it's a Malthusian thing. Excess men make a society more likely to go to war and get those young men killed. That's probably an oversimplification, but the point stands. A society with too many men is not a very nice place to live.
If you accept that aborting girls leads to too many men, and that badness ensues, then the question becomes how can this be prevented? You could just ban all abortion, but as mentioned I am pro-choice, and this doesn't sit well with me. Besides, a ban would just drive abortion underground and put women at greater risk.
You could ban abortion on the basis of gender, but how do you police that? Even if you could ensure that abortion providers didn't knowingly carry out sex selective abortion (which would be tricky), what's to stop a woman finding out the sex from one doctor and then going to another doctor for an abortion with a made up reason?
You could ban the medical profession from revealing the gender of the foetus, but there a number of obstacles to this. Firstly, if there is a demand for it, someone will make it available at a price. People will take bribes. Secondly, technology is increasingly available that can identify the sex by sending off a blood sample, also ultrasound is getting so clear that not telling the sex is moot because it is obvious to a layperson on the screen. Thirdly, many couples just want to know whether they're having a boy or a girl, with no ulterior motive. Is it fair to deny them that information just because some people might misuse it?
You could campaign to improve the perception of girls and women so that people are less likely to abort them. While it would be lovely for this to be the entire solution, I don't believe that it is effective enough. Generations of prejudice aren't going to go away because of a poster campaign.
I don't know what the answer is. I am beginning to think it might be necessary to prohibit abortion after the point at which gender is identifiable, but the feminist in me revolts against this.
My position on abortion has changed subtly since looking into this subject. As I tweeted at the end of my rant earlier, basically I am pro-choice if the decision is based on the woman's circumstances. While she knows nothing about the foetus it is up to her if she keeps it, but the moment any (non health related) characteristic of the unborn child becomes a deciding factor in an abortion I don't think it should be allowed. That way be be eugenicsey dragons.
As gynaecologist Puneet Bedi is quoted as saying in the book I've been reading:
"You can choose whether to be a parent. But once you choose to be a parent you cannot choose whether it's a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short."
*The book I mentioned is called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, by Mara Hvistendahl. It's a very interesting, well researched book, and I recommend it.
04 March 2012
22 August 2011
Sunset plus
When I got home from work this evening, the sky was looking kind of promising, so I went for a little walk.
Notice all the wispy clouds? They got good later on...
These were taken facing North. I was rather surprised when all the clouds in the sky started glowing pink (after the sun had vanished from the sky).
This was to the West.
And Just before I went back in the house (rather reluctantly).
I don't know if any of these count as noctilucent, but they were stunning.
11 August 2011
When riots and boyfriends collide...
I know I don't have many readers, and this doesn't especially bother me. I don't broadcast my blog's existence so it isn't surprising. However I think I'm fairly safe saying that most of my readers will agree with me that the riots going on recently are not a good thing.
The brazen opportunism, thuggery and wanton destruction are appalling, frightening, tragic and.... just a little bit exciting. I come from a generation that has never really experienced this kind of social unrest in this country. For the first time I am in a position to grasp a little of how my parents must have felt as they muddled on with their lives while the country was convulsing around them.
Granted, this time its different. The rage doesn't seem to have a well defined direction. People just seem to be venting their frustration with their situation in general. They might think they have a reason, but in the majority of cases its an excuse to have some fun making other peoples lives miserable, because they've realised the police can't currently stop them. That bothers me rather... we cant even do rioting as nobly as the previous generation. They at least generally seem to have rioted for a reason. I don't pretend to have well researched justification for that statement, its just a feeling that I get, and any rioting in our moderate country is pretty inexcusable.
But I digress. You've probably read sentiments like the above, better written, all over the internet and heard it on the news repeatedly. What I wanted to talk about was the way the riots have made me think.
I live in the depths of wild Suffolk, far far away from any unrest, yet I have naturally been following the riots with a kind of morbid fascination.
My boyfriend however, lives in Woolwich. Just a short walk from where the rioting happened on Monday night. Thankfully he was away that night and his block of flats remained unaffected (though I was rather worried that as a fairly obvious rich persons' building in the middle of poor underprivileged Woolwich it might have become a target).
When he got home from his trip the following day, he had a wander through what was left of Woolwich on a quest to get groceries. He took a couple of photos of the destruction, and got the bug. This was -real- life, happening just on his doorstep. The urge to witness it first hand began to rise. When he spoke to me that evening he told me he was contemplating going out with his camera and taking photos if any rioting happened in Woolwich again.
I can understand this urge. Like I said, its kind of exciting if you've never witnessed it before. The desire to be involved in history in the making is natural. Yet my first reaction to this was the desire to talk him out of it if at all possible. I love my boyfriend, and the idea of him putting himself in such a dangerous situation willingly, expensive camera in hand while 'surreptitiously' taking pictures of these yobs going about their malicious business filled me with fear. He might get mugged (or worse)! I'd heard the stories of how anyone not taking part in the riots could be a target, and how anyone taking pictures or otherwise recording the events were particularly turned upon. I'd really rather my boyfriend remained nice and un-maimed.
But this got me thinking. How much of a say do I really have? What responsibilities does my boyfriend have to me at this stage in our relationship? He's his own person and, if I'm honest I think I'd love him less if he let me boss him around. At the same time, if he had ignored my anxiety and insisted on going out anyway (he didn't), how annoyed, upset or angry do I have the right to be?
It seems to be a sort of grey area at the moment. If for example a few years down the line, we were married and had kids and a similar situation arose. I'd feel a lot more justified in that situation putting my foot down and saying it wasn't fair of him to do it. He'd have made a commitment to me and have responsibilities to the kids and myself. I still don't think I would feel comfortable forbidding him from putting himself in a dangerous situation, but I'd feel justified in being angry if I weren't consulted and involved in the decision. I would also expect that if he were to be in that situation with kids, he wouldn't need me to point out his responsibilities. He'd probably not seriously consider taking such a risk.
Now suppose we were married but there weren't any kids? What say do I get as a wife? How responsible is he to me? I think we should still make such decisions together, even if he has the final say in -his- life.
When does the transition happen? How do my rights to a say in how my boyfriend lives his life evolve with the development of the relationship?
I think the answer is probably that if we got into a situation where it came up... where he wanted to do something that I -really- didn't want him to do, and he didn't consult me, or ignored my worries without talking them out fully with me and assuaging my fears, then there's something wrong with the relationship at any stage.
I may not have the right to put my foot down yet, but I shouldn't need to either. If he loves me he won't do that to me.
I am very lucky. My boyfriend doesn't have to include me in his decisions, but he does anyway. He wants to involve me, and that makes me feel quite good about our prospects. It also means that the contents of this post have been almost entirely hypothetical.
tl;dr: My boyfriend considered going to photograph the riots, but he loves me so he didn't. (it's a Mini adventure)
The brazen opportunism, thuggery and wanton destruction are appalling, frightening, tragic and.... just a little bit exciting. I come from a generation that has never really experienced this kind of social unrest in this country. For the first time I am in a position to grasp a little of how my parents must have felt as they muddled on with their lives while the country was convulsing around them.
Granted, this time its different. The rage doesn't seem to have a well defined direction. People just seem to be venting their frustration with their situation in general. They might think they have a reason, but in the majority of cases its an excuse to have some fun making other peoples lives miserable, because they've realised the police can't currently stop them. That bothers me rather... we cant even do rioting as nobly as the previous generation. They at least generally seem to have rioted for a reason. I don't pretend to have well researched justification for that statement, its just a feeling that I get, and any rioting in our moderate country is pretty inexcusable.
But I digress. You've probably read sentiments like the above, better written, all over the internet and heard it on the news repeatedly. What I wanted to talk about was the way the riots have made me think.
I live in the depths of wild Suffolk, far far away from any unrest, yet I have naturally been following the riots with a kind of morbid fascination.
My boyfriend however, lives in Woolwich. Just a short walk from where the rioting happened on Monday night. Thankfully he was away that night and his block of flats remained unaffected (though I was rather worried that as a fairly obvious rich persons' building in the middle of poor underprivileged Woolwich it might have become a target).
When he got home from his trip the following day, he had a wander through what was left of Woolwich on a quest to get groceries. He took a couple of photos of the destruction, and got the bug. This was -real- life, happening just on his doorstep. The urge to witness it first hand began to rise. When he spoke to me that evening he told me he was contemplating going out with his camera and taking photos if any rioting happened in Woolwich again.
I can understand this urge. Like I said, its kind of exciting if you've never witnessed it before. The desire to be involved in history in the making is natural. Yet my first reaction to this was the desire to talk him out of it if at all possible. I love my boyfriend, and the idea of him putting himself in such a dangerous situation willingly, expensive camera in hand while 'surreptitiously' taking pictures of these yobs going about their malicious business filled me with fear. He might get mugged (or worse)! I'd heard the stories of how anyone not taking part in the riots could be a target, and how anyone taking pictures or otherwise recording the events were particularly turned upon. I'd really rather my boyfriend remained nice and un-maimed.
But this got me thinking. How much of a say do I really have? What responsibilities does my boyfriend have to me at this stage in our relationship? He's his own person and, if I'm honest I think I'd love him less if he let me boss him around. At the same time, if he had ignored my anxiety and insisted on going out anyway (he didn't), how annoyed, upset or angry do I have the right to be?
It seems to be a sort of grey area at the moment. If for example a few years down the line, we were married and had kids and a similar situation arose. I'd feel a lot more justified in that situation putting my foot down and saying it wasn't fair of him to do it. He'd have made a commitment to me and have responsibilities to the kids and myself. I still don't think I would feel comfortable forbidding him from putting himself in a dangerous situation, but I'd feel justified in being angry if I weren't consulted and involved in the decision. I would also expect that if he were to be in that situation with kids, he wouldn't need me to point out his responsibilities. He'd probably not seriously consider taking such a risk.
Now suppose we were married but there weren't any kids? What say do I get as a wife? How responsible is he to me? I think we should still make such decisions together, even if he has the final say in -his- life.
When does the transition happen? How do my rights to a say in how my boyfriend lives his life evolve with the development of the relationship?
I think the answer is probably that if we got into a situation where it came up... where he wanted to do something that I -really- didn't want him to do, and he didn't consult me, or ignored my worries without talking them out fully with me and assuaging my fears, then there's something wrong with the relationship at any stage.
I may not have the right to put my foot down yet, but I shouldn't need to either. If he loves me he won't do that to me.
I am very lucky. My boyfriend doesn't have to include me in his decisions, but he does anyway. He wants to involve me, and that makes me feel quite good about our prospects. It also means that the contents of this post have been almost entirely hypothetical.
tl;dr: My boyfriend considered going to photograph the riots, but he loves me so he didn't. (it's a Mini adventure)
10 July 2011
Seaside
*Listens to Seaside by the Ordinary Boys*
Reminds me of Wednesday. I went to the seaside at Southwold with Mike.
Southwold is such a lovely place, and with good company you can't really beat it. Even if you are getting extremely sand-burnt by high long-shore winds. I'm still finding sand in my car and on my person.
We set off about lunchtime, and had a very picturesque drive over, down the little country roads that Suffolk has in abundance. Lots of really pretty old houses that we were both somewhat drooling over. Managed to confuse the sat-nav a bit, but eventually we got there. Parked to the south of the town, behind the dunes, and walked along the seafront to the pier for chips.
I could probably fill a whole post just talking about the awesomeness that is Southwold Pier. It has several quirky little shops, cafes and exhibits. The best of which being the room full of unique hand made arcade machines that do amazingly unlikely things. If we'd had the money, Mike and I would probably have been in there some time. Contraptions like the Autofrisk machine, Gene Forecaster, Rent-a-dog, and Whack A Banker. You can see more of them here.
After exploring the pier, we walked back along the beach, stopping to buy a super-duper spade from a stall on the way, and picked a spot to build our fortifications. We laid out the blanket we'd brought with some difficulty (wind), and had to weigh it down on the upwind side with sand so it didn't blow away. Within very little time it had acquired a thin layer of sand across the whole thing. We were worried we'd end up losing it! After a lesson from Mike on skimming stones with mixed success, we got to work.
We initially wanted to try and build a maze, with trenches and walls, and an epic entrance with bridges and archways, however after I'd been trying to build the maze itself for a bit, we realised that the first bits I'd done were already being eroded and filled in by the strong sand-burning wind . Since Mike had got some way with the entrance we decided to change plan and build a hill fort.
Contractor Mike reports works complete. Given the working conditions I feel he has achieved quite impressive results. He gets points.... then runs off with them.
Next time... and we hope there will be a next time... I think we'll allow more time for fortification building and try to find a less windy day. That way our castle might not look pebble dashed, and the blanket wouldn't be lost in sand.
The journey home was, if anything more scenic than the outward journey, as the sun was getting low in the sky and drizzling everything in treacle coloured light. I love that time of day. Everything seems just that little bit more magical. If I hadn't been driving, I might have taken more pictures.
Anyway, I think this makes a change from my usual job/angst related burblings. I hope you enjoyed it anywhere near as much as I enjoyed the day itself.
Reminds me of Wednesday. I went to the seaside at Southwold with Mike.
Southwold is such a lovely place, and with good company you can't really beat it. Even if you are getting extremely sand-burnt by high long-shore winds. I'm still finding sand in my car and on my person.
We set off about lunchtime, and had a very picturesque drive over, down the little country roads that Suffolk has in abundance. Lots of really pretty old houses that we were both somewhat drooling over. Managed to confuse the sat-nav a bit, but eventually we got there. Parked to the south of the town, behind the dunes, and walked along the seafront to the pier for chips.
I could probably fill a whole post just talking about the awesomeness that is Southwold Pier. It has several quirky little shops, cafes and exhibits. The best of which being the room full of unique hand made arcade machines that do amazingly unlikely things. If we'd had the money, Mike and I would probably have been in there some time. Contraptions like the Autofrisk machine, Gene Forecaster, Rent-a-dog, and Whack A Banker. You can see more of them here.
After exploring the pier, we walked back along the beach, stopping to buy a super-duper spade from a stall on the way, and picked a spot to build our fortifications. We laid out the blanket we'd brought with some difficulty (wind), and had to weigh it down on the upwind side with sand so it didn't blow away. Within very little time it had acquired a thin layer of sand across the whole thing. We were worried we'd end up losing it! After a lesson from Mike on skimming stones with mixed success, we got to work.
Contractor Mike reports works complete. Given the working conditions I feel he has achieved quite impressive results. He gets points.... then runs off with them. 
The journey home was, if anything more scenic than the outward journey, as the sun was getting low in the sky and drizzling everything in treacle coloured light. I love that time of day. Everything seems just that little bit more magical. If I hadn't been driving, I might have taken more pictures.
Anyway, I think this makes a change from my usual job/angst related burblings. I hope you enjoyed it anywhere near as much as I enjoyed the day itself.
04 July 2011
A less cryptic event
I said I'd update on the latest interview after I'd had it, so here goes.
I'm quite glad I waited, because my opinion of it is rather different than it was when I set off. It was with a complete start-up in Essex, that are trying to find suitable sites for pumped storage in the UK. It's very low paid, and if I got/took it, I'd be living on a shoestring for the duration, but a bit of me is thinking it might be worth it.
The work looks really interesting to me. It would be a chance to combine my sustainability interest with my surveying skills. The office, while currently unfurnished, seems like it'll be a fairly nice place to be once it's up and running. The guy who interviewed me was a lot younger and less cynical than I had expected, and in general it seems like it'll be a young and exciting company. There might be a better paid position for me at the end of it if I show potential.
The location is Witham, which is pretty much half way between home and London. This would put some (much needed) distance between me and the family home without putting it completely out of reach, and it would be fairly easy to get into London to see people.
My interviewer mentioned, without prompting, that he knew the pay was low, and that given my suitability for the job, they might try to increase the offer to me, though he didnt mention any figures. To me this seems a pretty strong indication that he'd quite like to employ me.
I still think a London job would be preferable for a year or two at least, but I haven't yet heard from either of the London interviews, and don't want to make any assumptions. The waiting is starting to get to me.
I'm quite glad I waited, because my opinion of it is rather different than it was when I set off. It was with a complete start-up in Essex, that are trying to find suitable sites for pumped storage in the UK. It's very low paid, and if I got/took it, I'd be living on a shoestring for the duration, but a bit of me is thinking it might be worth it.
The work looks really interesting to me. It would be a chance to combine my sustainability interest with my surveying skills. The office, while currently unfurnished, seems like it'll be a fairly nice place to be once it's up and running. The guy who interviewed me was a lot younger and less cynical than I had expected, and in general it seems like it'll be a young and exciting company. There might be a better paid position for me at the end of it if I show potential.
The location is Witham, which is pretty much half way between home and London. This would put some (much needed) distance between me and the family home without putting it completely out of reach, and it would be fairly easy to get into London to see people.
My interviewer mentioned, without prompting, that he knew the pay was low, and that given my suitability for the job, they might try to increase the offer to me, though he didnt mention any figures. To me this seems a pretty strong indication that he'd quite like to employ me.
I still think a London job would be preferable for a year or two at least, but I haven't yet heard from either of the London interviews, and don't want to make any assumptions. The waiting is starting to get to me.
28 June 2011
Events
Blogging always seems to fall by the wayside when the main stuff going on in one's life is stuff that one can't talk about. In my case there are at least three potentially life changing things that I havent been able to talk about recently. Even now I probably shouldnt talk openly about two of them.
Event number 1 was this: Chris and I broke up. I wont go into it much, but it was mutual (at least at the time), amicable (similarly), and the right thing for both of us. Things hadn't been right for a while, and it needed to happen.
Event number 2 was revealed to me two days after Event number 1, and floored me completely. Nothing had prepared me for this Event. The fallout is still very much ongoing and I have no idea how it will turn out. Needing to talk to someone about Event number 2 probably ultimately catalysed Event number 3.
The day after Event number 2 I received a job offer. From the interview I had had just before Event number 1. "Hurrah!" I hear you say.... well. I am in a bit of a quandry about it for various reasons, but its one of the few things in my life I can actually talk about, which I suppose is in its favour. The money is good, it is in a nice part of the country, and I could potentially find it interesting and be good at it. The downsides are; firstly, it's not London, which is where a lot of people I'd like to be near are based; secondly, It wouldn't aid me in getting into the career I'd really ultimately like to end up in; and thirdly, I'd be selling my soul somewhat. I guess it's a choice many people have to make.
Event number 3 occurred some time after Event number 2, and as mentioned was probably catalysed by this Event. I use catalysed deliberately. Event number 3 was probably going to happen eventually anyway, and Event number 2 is broadly unaffected by its effects on Event number 3. Nobody involved in it expected Event number 3 to occur as quickly as it did, least of all me. And while Event number 3 is positive, and exciting, it's also scary and likely to upset some people. I feel bad that it happened like this, but I dont feel bad that it happened.
In between all these Events, I have also had two other interviews. As always, its near enough impossible to tell how they went, but I can relate my thoughts. The first company was very interesting. The work they do is right up my street, and I think I could do it. Theres plenty of scope for learning more, getting more responsibility and generally getting job satisfaction. It's in a nice part of London, and the office atmosphere is relaxed and light and airy. I would really like this job. Sods law says this means I wont get it.
The second company also has potential. The work is something I'm interested in (though not to the same extent as the first place), I'd learn a lot, and be fairly challenged. The people seemed nice, and it was in another nice part of London. My main reservations are these; the office - its a cramped room in an old office block. I could cope with this, but it doesnt count in its favour. Secondly the work is likely to be a little frustrating from time to time, given that I will often be fighting for clients to have to do the bare minimum rather than the best job possible. Still, if I got offered this job, and not the first one, I would almost certainly take it.
I have another interview tomorrow. I'll let you know what I think of that after it's happened.
Event number 1 was this: Chris and I broke up. I wont go into it much, but it was mutual (at least at the time), amicable (similarly), and the right thing for both of us. Things hadn't been right for a while, and it needed to happen.
Event number 2 was revealed to me two days after Event number 1, and floored me completely. Nothing had prepared me for this Event. The fallout is still very much ongoing and I have no idea how it will turn out. Needing to talk to someone about Event number 2 probably ultimately catalysed Event number 3.
The day after Event number 2 I received a job offer. From the interview I had had just before Event number 1. "Hurrah!" I hear you say.... well. I am in a bit of a quandry about it for various reasons, but its one of the few things in my life I can actually talk about, which I suppose is in its favour. The money is good, it is in a nice part of the country, and I could potentially find it interesting and be good at it. The downsides are; firstly, it's not London, which is where a lot of people I'd like to be near are based; secondly, It wouldn't aid me in getting into the career I'd really ultimately like to end up in; and thirdly, I'd be selling my soul somewhat. I guess it's a choice many people have to make.
Event number 3 occurred some time after Event number 2, and as mentioned was probably catalysed by this Event. I use catalysed deliberately. Event number 3 was probably going to happen eventually anyway, and Event number 2 is broadly unaffected by its effects on Event number 3. Nobody involved in it expected Event number 3 to occur as quickly as it did, least of all me. And while Event number 3 is positive, and exciting, it's also scary and likely to upset some people. I feel bad that it happened like this, but I dont feel bad that it happened.
In between all these Events, I have also had two other interviews. As always, its near enough impossible to tell how they went, but I can relate my thoughts. The first company was very interesting. The work they do is right up my street, and I think I could do it. Theres plenty of scope for learning more, getting more responsibility and generally getting job satisfaction. It's in a nice part of London, and the office atmosphere is relaxed and light and airy. I would really like this job. Sods law says this means I wont get it.
The second company also has potential. The work is something I'm interested in (though not to the same extent as the first place), I'd learn a lot, and be fairly challenged. The people seemed nice, and it was in another nice part of London. My main reservations are these; the office - its a cramped room in an old office block. I could cope with this, but it doesnt count in its favour. Secondly the work is likely to be a little frustrating from time to time, given that I will often be fighting for clients to have to do the bare minimum rather than the best job possible. Still, if I got offered this job, and not the first one, I would almost certainly take it.
I have another interview tomorrow. I'll let you know what I think of that after it's happened.
09 June 2011
Jobs 2.0
Today has been an eventful day on the job hunt front. I applied to two jobs, and had responses from both of them. The first wanted me to tell them when I'd be available for interview over the next few weeks, the second asked if I'd be available for a quick phone call tomorrow. I blame Mike's CV advice. Who'd have thought putting a bit in the start pointing out exactly what you've done that'd be useful to them would be so effective?
Shhh!!!! I know that ought to be obvious, but never mind.
Still the phone call tomorrow is a little scary. Don't want to be completely unprepared, but don't want to be up all night cramming either. Especially as I don't know what they'll want to talk to me about. It's a cool sounding job and I don't want to blow it.
Also got invited to an assessment day for a role as an 'analyst' doing something involving catastrophe modelling, which happens in a weeks time. No idea if its something I'll enjoy. Got called up by a recruitment company 5 minutes after posting my CV on a website. They thought I might be suited to it, and apparently the company agree enough to want to meet me.
All in all, things seem to be looking reasonably positive. I really hope one of them works out, as I'm getting rather tired of unemployment.
Shhh!!!! I know that ought to be obvious, but never mind.
Still the phone call tomorrow is a little scary. Don't want to be completely unprepared, but don't want to be up all night cramming either. Especially as I don't know what they'll want to talk to me about. It's a cool sounding job and I don't want to blow it.
Also got invited to an assessment day for a role as an 'analyst' doing something involving catastrophe modelling, which happens in a weeks time. No idea if its something I'll enjoy. Got called up by a recruitment company 5 minutes after posting my CV on a website. They thought I might be suited to it, and apparently the company agree enough to want to meet me.
All in all, things seem to be looking reasonably positive. I really hope one of them works out, as I'm getting rather tired of unemployment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)