"I am not paid for this"

I recall one of the worst experiences in my past student life. It was when one visiting lecturer who gave a course got the question from one student in the class on whether it would be possible to arrange a separate tutorial session for those who wanted to learn material more in-depth.

"I am not paid for this, sorry", was his answer. In front of around 100-150 students present in that class.

Another similar experience comes from a corporate world. I asked one person who was going off to (unpaid) vacation whether he would occasionally be checking his email while being out of the office.

"No, I am not paid for this", was his answer. This person was coming back from vacation to his working place after a while.

What is my problem with that kind of answers? They had totally right - they were not paid for doing the things they were asked for, did they?

However, such answers immediately indicate that a person is doing the job only for money, he does not have an interest in you (as a student/client/co-worker) whatsoever. A person puts himself in a position of a reflective employee who is given orders and thereafter gets a carrot if he fulfils the order. No proactivity. No initiative. No dedication.

I must admit that certain degree of "you-pay-me-and-only-then-I-will-give-you-a-service-
mentality" is beneficial in a capitalist society. But it can at least be communicated in a more gentle manner.

P.S. I am not paid to write this blog. Hmmm...

Seven arguments against gay marriage

1. Being homosexual is not natural. Hence, the gay marriage should not be allowed either.

2. Allowing gays to marry? Who's next? Dogs with other dogs? Cats with other cats? Paedophiles with minors?

3. A gay marriage is a bad, bad example for children. Promoting homosexuality in that way will turn more children to be gays.

4. Marriage has traditionally been one of the very sacred symbols of society and its cultural/spiritual values. We cannot allow these values to be ruined by legalizing the acts of sodomy.

5. Homosexuality is basically a sickness. We cannot allow sick people to marry because they are sick.

6. People claiming to be gay make it out of fashion or because they want to be different or because they had gotten a child trauma. These are no valid reasons to allow them to get married.

7. Gay couple cannot give a birth to a child. This is the main point for having the very institution of marriage. Why bother then?

--

I have just summed up the arguments that I have been hearing from many people throughout many years. And I still keep on hearing them.

Let me be clear on few things. First, I'm a heterosexual man and I am very happy about it. I've always liked girls, I've always been attracted to beautiful women.

Second, I know a lot of people who are gays.

Third, I support the legal ability of gay people to sign a partnership agreement, in case it allows them to be legally treated as people closely related to each other (it's important for the cases such as inheritance, having common property, and so on). I don't necessarily think it should be called "marriage" - rather a "partnership" in legal terms like in Norway.

Fourth, I don't necessarily enjoy watching two men passionately kissing - I don't want to be exposed to it when I choose not to. I wouldn't be participating in a gay parade (although I have nothing against it taking place). I think that the union between a man and a woman has to bear its primary meaning in the society and has to be promoted so - otherwise, we as humankind will die out. But what I am talking here about are the fundamental human rights of people that differ in their sexual orientation from the majority.

--

I decided to write about it after having attended a celebration party of two gay men who had signed a partnership agreement in Norway. They organised a party without calling it a wedding, although many elements of a traditional wedding were there. It was a great event. I enjoyed seeing people having chance to express their happiness without being feared that they will be prosecuted or terrorised for that

--

Now back to the most common arguments against the gay marriage.


1. Being homosexual is not natural. Hence, the gay marriage should not be allowed either.

Homosexuality has existed in humankind since we know it documented. Homosexuality has been reported numerous times among other species. A different type of sexuality is coined by nature. How can it be called "not natural" then?


2. Allowing gays to marry? Who's next? Dogs with other dogs? Cats with other cats? Paedophiles with minors?

Those who are making such comparisons miss one important point: unlike minors and animals, gay people have consciousness and are able to be responsible for their intentions and acts. Two adults who are mostly contributing to the wealth, development and creativity of society decide for themselves, being fully aware of the consequences of such act.


3. A gay marriage is a bad, bad example for children. Promoting homosexuality in that way will turn more children to be gays.

As I wrote earlier, there is no scientific proof that you can switch between a different type of sexuality, because you were told to do so. But there is a proof that a certain percentage of population is gay by default.

On the other hand, however exposed I would be to being a gay - no, thanks - I will not exchange my natural desire for women for anything else. I clearly remember my music teacher in the kindergarten. I was 5. She was around 30. I was in love and... wanted her to be my second mum (how else should have I imagined her to be in that age?). I don't think that my sentiment towards the music teacher would have somehow be influenced by the knowledge that there are two men or two women living together somewhere in a happy family.


4. Marriage has traditionally been one of the symbols of society and its cultural/spiritual values. We cannot allow these values to be ruined by legalizing the acts of sodomy.

It's funny to hear about the family values when, according to statistics, almost half of the marriages in the Western world end with divorce (I believe the percentage is smaller elsewhere primarily due to the strong social stigma related to a divorce). On the other hand, so many children are born into the families where parents are not married. Or - worse - into the situation when they get raised without a father. There have been cheating wives and alcoholic husbands for as long as we know human society. I don't believe the act of legalisation of gay marriage would somehow make the situation even worse...


5. Homosexuality is basically a sickness. We cannot allow sick people to marry because they are sick.

That's essentially the same as "naturalness" argument. It's a well-known rhetorical tactics - to call something you don't like "sick". And even if it is "sickness", shall we prohibit all other "sick" people to get married? HIV-positives, asthmatics - should they be doomed to stay single?


6. People claiming to be gay make it out of fashion or because they want to be different or because they had gotten a child trauma. These are no valid reasons to allow them to get married.

Once again - I don't know anyone who has chosen his or her sexuality. The people usually discover their sexuality, not choose it. A girl kissing another girl in a night club for fun doesn't equal with choosing your sexuality.

And if someone has turned to be a gay due to a child trauma? Well, that's the same as "sickness" argument - I don't think it's right to prohibit people to get married because they had traumatic childhood.


7. Gay couple cannot give a birth to a child. This is the main point for having the very institution of marriage. Why bother then?

Gays can't have children - that's true (in some places they can adopt children - and I'm not going to argue for or against this - that's another topic). However, as I mentioned earlier, there are more and more children being born into families where parents are not married. Thus, I don't see a clear correlation between marriage and having children.

Working with mediocrity

After the last few years of working with mainly young enthusiastic AIESECers, I am in a somewhat different situation now. AIESEC members I worked with were there because they wanted to learn, to develop, and to do something useful. They may have lacked knowledge or experience due to their youth, but they had passion and willingness to do things in a good way (not all , but at least, majority of them).

Lately, I have been involved in the work for certain projects where I had to deal with people who did nothing more and nothing less than mediocre work. I clearly understand now that mediocrity is something I want to avoid dealing with as much as possible.

What does a mediocre person do (from my experience):

This person performs his/her task just up to the level what is said to be done, never more! No creativity whatsoever, just blind following of guidelines.

Real example from a meeting:
- Ohh, I was waiting for this meeting, good we have it.
I ask:
- So, why did you wait for this meeting? What do you think the purpose of this meeting is anyway?
Reply:
- Ehhh... because we need to have it.

This person claims that he/she "has not seen my email in the mailbox for last two days and has discovered it just now".

The rule of mediocrity: never take initiative, try to escape any tasks as much as possible. After most of the work is done by someone else, ask for face-saving: "Is there anything else I could help with?"

Real, but modified example of me asking:
- Why would you like to make a project in the food industry? Why are you interested in it?
Reply:
- Well, because I really like to eat! For example, I cooked a nice dinner yesterday.

...

Mediocrity is even worse than working with people with bad intentions. Bad people don't hide their bad intentions and it is therefore easy to get rid of them. But you can never say that mediocre person has been bad, because he/she has actually fulfilled the very minimum requirements or at least found good-sounding excuse not to have done it, which you are forced to believe.

I remember the days when I was a leader of different teams in AIESEC. I discovered that one of the best rules of management is focusing attention on those who are above mediocrity. I did not care much about the rest, although they were also the members of my teams. It brought results.

I actually made a rule for myself that I would eliminate mediocrity from my life. I simply try to get to environments and try to create my own environment where there is little space for that. I know it all may sound too harsh, but I just believe that I can spend my time and energy doing something good and useful for the people who put a real effort, who strive and want to learn.

Luckily, I have enough people like that in my life.

The best promotion for Estonia

In Almaty me and other AIESECers have organized nice tradition - since about 6-7 months ago we are meeting virtually every Sunday evening at my place and having "Cinema Club". We are watching art-house and just good non-mainstream movies.

Last Sunday, when Jaan was still there, we were watching Estonian movie "Klass" ("Class") from Ilmar Raag. The movie is about school violence. It is dynamic, aggressive and scary movie. Definitely the best Estonian movie I have seen since we got independence back in 1991. Actually, it was one of the best movies I have seen during these past 6-7 months of having "Cinema Club" every Sunday.

None of my Kazakhstani friends left untouched by this movie. It was shocking, it was hard, but it was excellent!

Later on, out of curiosity, I spoke to some other people, read some materials in Internet and discovered that it actually became quite popular among many people in several countries, including Russia, which Estonia does not have good relations with. I've heard and read opinions like "I don't know anything about Estonia except that they removed this monument, but after this movie I got interested in this small country".

"Klass" is not shiny out-of-tourist-magazine-welcome-to-Estonia-movie. It is not meant to be PR for Estonia. But it definitely is. And it has brought more fame for our small country than much of what has been done with intention to do so.

Conclusion: Estonia's biggest asset is talented people like Eri Klas, Neeme Järvi and Ilmar Raag. And we need to continue to create environment, where such people can create and be recognized. I know Ilmar Raag personally from the times when he gave lectures at my alma mater in Tartu. After this movie I started to respect him even more. Thanks to people like him it is a good feeling to represent Estonia abroad.