You can see several posts in English in this document.
Therefore, to maintain the correct understanding of my writings, in spite the big help the virtual translators give us, they have some special difficulties as you all know. So, I decided to put my posts also in English, that is a universal language, so that I could get closer to much more people and achieve the goals of this blog, which are described in my first post: Why this blog?
As I told you before, my English in general, is poor, and I need the cooperation of other people: my husband lived in USA for many years to study and become a PHD in Sciences in the Purdue University, where he was awarded the title of "Honoris Doctor Causas" too; my mother (she was a good English teacher for long time) and, specially my sister-in-law Mrs. Flávia Lobo Samuda. She is a professional translator and English teacher having lived in several countries around the world and helps me always. How you can see, I have had a great collaboration and I want to thank them so much.
The texts, for technical reasons, are in chronological sequence, because we couldn't link each Portuguese text to the correspondent English one. So, I had to number every post so that everyone could know which had been translated. I chose, in the first moment, the more generic texts which would interest a greater number of people.
I intend to continue posting all my texts in Portuguese and translate everyone into English and I hope to improve my English to be able to write my articles and answer the commentaries in English simultaneously (this will take several decades…lol!) So, please, enjoy them and be patient!
In a near future, in this space, I will open a forum so we can discuss together those posted subjects. This will take a little more time, but I sure I'll get there!
Hugs to all and happy 2012 and thank you a lot for your participation and support!
Brazilian, married, 1 son, born in 1962.
Graduated in Psychology by the University of Mogi das Cruzes – São Paulo, Brazil and post-graduated in University Administration by the University of Florida – USA/ Federal University of Alagoas – Paraíba, Brazil.
She was head of Planning and Evaluation and Pedagogical Director at the University of Fortaleza – Ceará, Brazil; and Vice-Rector and Rector-in-Office at the University of Mogi das Cruzes. Currently she is Partner-Director of Lobo & Associados Consultoria (note: Consulting Company in Education, Science and Technology), and Vice-President of Instituto Lobo (Note: Institution no profit for development of education, science and technology does research in this areas).
For a long time I have wished to document ideas, thoughts and opinions about many issues that I have accumulated throughout life, fruit of my own experiences, my formal and informal learning, and especially the observation about everyday life and people behavior.
After all, it is my passion to understand human relationships. It was this desire that drove much of my actions and even the choice of my training (Psychology) and my work (education and management).
I want to use this space to share with friends and the general public who wish to "travel" with me through different approaches to common issues, but that can be deepened, or think of other reasons or solutions to certain problems, to know my views on the more recurrent events whether social, professional, familiar, relationships, political or those with prominence in the media.
I want to take this powerful communication tool to release some thoughts, concerns and even my views on various aspects of life always as a person and citizen (I do not want to use theories of references, since I am not writing invoking my professional or social status). I got to name my blog "Critical Miscellany," but then thought it would be difficult to find a blog with this name, but deep down that is what it is, for sure!
I would like to help fuel the debate of ideas and, moreover, contribute so that the people who read what I write may receive (and send) a different perspective on issues that are not always dealt with, rationally organized, or even following a logic based on the facts, no touch of mysticism, religion, self-help etc., but what you see and you do not see, but you can still understand.
With that I open opportunities for exchanges, mutual learning and reciprocity that appeal and challenge me.
I hope you enjoy what I will be posting here and I wish that you feel. … At home? In which house? In yours, or mine? In our! Welcome!
Separation: divorce turning into hell?
A few weeks ago I met a couple on the beach and, in a pleasant chat livened by a "caipirinha" (note: a typical drink from Brazil), I learned that he (separated a little over 3 years) suffered from being away from his children who (in his opinion) kept a distance due to his former wife's attitude. She seems to use every kind of blackmail, emotional and material, to keep the children away from their father and from the new woman he has chosen to live with.
This is the kind of problem I can say I not only know, have studied and have seen by the dozen, but also have experienced myself as I was separated and married someone who was also separated. What the couple told us on the beach is an everyday occurrence, and not only in relation to the former wife!
Well, until material questions have to be dealt with, and/or a new partner for either party, and, especially, problems with the children. Then everything seems to change! It becomes hell on earth!!!!
I do not wish to consider any particular case, but only say that nearly always, independent of who asks for the separation (and of who never thought life could change so much!), the children are the ones who suffer most.
Attention parents! The children should not be forced to choose a side (as if it really were a game in which the other side must be defeated!), or share in the perceptions of only one of the two parties (according to which one is always the victim and the other the villain, so only one can be right and/or supported).
What the children need is guidance among other things in order to act in a way not to encourage even more discord, and not think only of themselves as if that was all that matters.
Because the children very often act in the separation thinking and according to their own immediate interests, with no conviction of right or wrong, without thinking of analyzing the situation from the point of view of the couple (when they are old enough for that) and the situation eventually brings about the worst of evils: children of different ages, some even adults, using the separation to demand rights, or prerogatives – never duties – that are only possible thanks to the vulnerability of the parents.
Then parents often, with an enormous guilty feeling, lose completely their common sense and can no longer say NO! Or else one puts the children against the other, using as arguments proofs of their situation as victim (nothing better than using the children to pressure the other, right?). This is the win-lose game where one side only wins and the other only loses.
Friends of the couple frequently also behave like the children, or as children, choosing sides and stirring up whims and scandals.
None of this contributes to the understanding of the situation, to the patience necessary in this phase that must be o transition and with the happiness of both parties and of the children mainly.
I want to finish saying that yes, there are many couples that succeed in dealing well (as far as possible) with a separation (independently of the motivation that caused it).
This mostly happens when one of the parties proceeds to present the rules in a fair way and explains the situation from the point of view of truth and not opportunism, and is also able to admit his/her own shortcomings, those of the other party and of the children (who are certainly not always angels!).
Thus the situation is better handled and take all to a good point, but this does not mean that a peaceful and even constructive relationship does not depend as well on all those involved at different levels.
In other words, if those who separate manage to have a good relationship with each other and the new partners, if the children manage to accept and establish a pleasant and appropriate way of relating to the parents, their new partners and even their children, the family has decided to preserve its dignity and make truth prevail.
The winner is the one that decided to see the family collectively, opting for the view point that welfare and honesty must be values shared by all of the circle, and that succeeds in showing that this is more important and greater than any material good, or if this one or that one was right in doing or not doing whatever.
It is the win-win game, for one wins only if all win. Believe me, it is possible and worth it!
Just because I knew you were coming my day was happier!
In September I will have been married for 14 years. After all this time I still feel my heart beating faster just by hearing his voice on the phone!
I grew up hearing my mother say, and believing, that true and eternal love existed. In time I came to think that you cannot have everything, so you had to choose, or accept that certain gaps, incompatibilities, disaffections and even serious misunderstandings could be bartered for positive aspects of the partner: if he is a good husband, a good father, a good provider – then it would be worthwhile to forget other aspects, be it romance, passion and even happiness, and be contented with those so called happy moments.
I would like you to know that I have suffered a lot, that I tried everything, that I made right and wrong choices, but after living for 35 years I discovered that love in which I had always believed does exist, and how!
It is not bragging, it is not luck (it demands a lot from both sides), it is not fantasy, nor is it making fun of others' sadness. It is a word of hope for those who thought that we can only live searching for crumbs of happiness.
True love is quotidian and happy in routine (not at the party, with a new dress, dancing and a glass of Prosecco).
When we are happy with someone, simply being together is the reason for happiness. The day changes, life changes and all is worthwhile because nothing is more important.
I heard the sentence in the title from my husband and we talk everyday about the love that fills our life.
Love is an intransitive verb, but it demands intelligent, good humored companionship, much affinity and that the joy and happiness of the other be really prioritized. Because if the other is happy and prioritizes your happiness, then…!!!
"OS LIVRO" WHAT ABOUT THIS PLURAL FORM BE CONSIDERED AS CORRECT PORTUGUESE?
I´ve thought I would start my blog talking about some subjects connected to my life experiences, but I was run down by the news that MEC has maintained as reference book the one presented by "Fantástico" (TV show).
This show emphasizes the fact that many people make agreement mistakes, but to say "os livro" is correct, if the user is careful not to suffer "linguistic discrimination". (obs: The term "Os livro" is analogous in English to use "many book" as correct).
I've been informed, though newspapers that there are several opinions (some favorable, most against) and I want just to contribute toward the debate, saying that in Brazil, in order to be "politically correct" many people have at least curious viewpoints about what they call "social inclusion".
Thinking about standing up for those who speak badly, they say they want to increase "social inclusion", but we must agree that including those who criticize speeches that offend cult norm in the "discriminators roll" is too much.
They try to demonstrate, through examples, that since very old times, societies have found specific forms of communication something different from those belonging to the formal language. Dealing with this matter is good not to "include" half-alphabetized people in the intellectualized society.
I think that many examples of current languages (not only the spoken ones) may be used, when they characterize the language of some populations, "tribe" or a whole of people who adopt copes and symbols (even neologisms) of their own, even variations of the officially recognized good speaking, since we are not limiting to "agreement mistakes" our dispute".
What I repute a real scandal is the accurate demonstration of the direction the Brazilian education is following long ago and is increasing ideologically since 2002. It is the defense presented in the quoted book, of the incorrect form, and, what is worse, to think it has to be taught in schools, in the name of "social inclusion".
School role is to recognize the real world, without laying aside the identification and transmition of truth, that is what society generally adopts as pattern or norm, or as acquired and recognized knowledge as correct and this goes for languages, sciences, laws, everything after all. This idea that says everybody has his own concept about everything and that all arguments are valid, because "the discourse is important not the search for truth" is, in my opinion a retrocession, that hasn't, at all, helped our country and the education of our young people.
We should illustrate forms used in oral communication but it should be forbidden to any teacher to consider and teach as correct something defined and accepted as wrong.
Look at this example: the form people communicate by internet: one lecture may show, merely to exemplify, how the "signs" attack cult language in spite of the fact that everybody knows they will be accepted in similar situations, but the school must be obliged to explain them, and teach that the form one writes through internet (with all the abbreviations and other terms related to the way you speak and not write) is not accepted and should not be used when the cult norm is required, because it is considered the correct Portuguese.
To know the specific forms of communication, accept their application (as we accept slang) is very different from considering them correct in the educational context whose only goal isn't the inclusion of people who have had deficient formation, its principal aim is to transmit values, norms, knowledge, attitudes, that are considered correct, studied and admitted as valid according to the rules defined by a bigger assemblage than those of a group, a school, or part of the population.
Many people speak that way, it is true, but school must explain that to say "os livro" is wrong and the wrong forms may be accepted under certain circumstances, even if they are wrong. Being accepted, however, isn't being correct. This must the commitment of a country, a society, a school, and of education. If not, everything is valid.
Why can many parents no longer set limits for their children?
One of the most sensitive issues, and at the same time present in the everyday of families, I feel, is related to the way children are being brought up and to the feeling that, in many aspects, our young (from childhood and young children included) seem to have "derailed".
I know it is controversial and that nobody enjoys having others speak of our children, let alone of how we bring them up, but I cannot keep silent in face of the almost general omission that I see in the most varied types of families – young or not so young couples, rich and poor, educated or not, with rare and honorable exceptions.
In order that everyone can follow me to where I want to get, I need to point out a reference: I am nearly 50 (will be 50 in April 2012) and see myself as one of the "sandwich" generation. We did not experience the strictness (considered by many as authoritarian) of our parents upbringing, but we also did not to learn to fight for an ideal, or stand for values that oppose individualism, materialism and immediacy that we witness today.
It seems that those who lived during the height of the dictatorship and fought for freedom of expression thought they should follow the opposite of their upbringing in the matter of embracing values and putting them into practice when it came to raising their own children.
A denial of the past, an attempt to break up with what could be bad, but moving radically to the other extreme: I am not bringing up my child as I was brought up and I want to be his/her friend!!!
This is what I heard frequently and even thought it might be a great advance, although I did not feel the same need as looking back I see that I would change very little in my upbringing. Looking at the result and realizing how I feel and am seen nowadays, I believe I could (without false modesty) say that there is much more of my parents in me and in my son than I imagined and I am very proud of that!
When I say I will never be a "friend" of my only son (shocking many educators and against the tide that thinks this is the tops!) I try to explain that being friends with someone (and I have a pleasant and wholesome friendship and admiration for him) does not mean that I relate to him as if he were my friend simply because he is my son! Being a friend signifies necessarily giving up a relationship of authority (not of authoritarianism, to be sure), as friends are on the same level, with the same conditions, same rules, same rights and so on.
I was (until his 21st birthday) and still feel responsible for many aspects of his life and of his upbringing/education, and in order to exercise this responsibility, talking whenever possible and determining when there is no other way, I never resigned or would resign my motherly authority.
Parents are responsible not only for providing for and giving unconditional love to their children (even if to find out later with sadness that the reciprocality is not true), but for sharing their values and their view of the world so that the children ca, better prepared and older, analyze and decide whether they want, accept or reject those values.
While they cannot, on their own, build or adopt their own values, it is up to the parents to ensure (or at least try and never omit themselves) that everything of real importance – for the molding of the personality, for guidance of behavior and for the very shaping of body and character – goes through the sieve of your opinion and, yes, of your decision also.
Going back to my generation (and the following ones), we were brought up experiencing the freedom of requiring an explanation for everything, of disagreeing or not doing without suffering the consequences and of expecting much and demanding it without reciprocality.
We had everything, much more than most of our parents could attain, and we evolved as a society in many aspects, especially in relation to equal rights, freedom of choice and greater opportunities.
Even so, I do not sincerely believe that we made good use of these advances, and I see many and important regressions, because while enjoying the freedom of choice (or necessity) to work, for example, many parents decided to compensate their absences with material goods, to quiet down the screams and tantrums with the TV, the electronic babysitter, and to lessen the tiredness at the end of the day by saying yes to everything that is insistently requested by the little big tyrants which our young have become.
We now call smart and healthy the misbehaved and impatient, we see as kids with personality those who answer back and are rude, as independent the withdrawn and insubordinate. Who will raise a hand (of conscience, of course) and be able say that they have a well brought up son/daughter, as someone should be? If we are as demanding with them as we are with other people's children, few can say yes.
And the main reason is that today it is socially unacceptable for a father or a mother to take a stand and defend it. Those who do look around and feel alone, like a "rare animal".
After all, how to say no when they bring forth the irrefutable argument "all my friends have it", or "why can't I go if the parents of all my friends let them go?", and then we become hostages of our fears and self-indulgence and cannot say: you are not going because it is not adequate for your age, I am not giving it because I do not have the same situation as your friend's father (or more difficult, because even though I can I think I should not) or I will not allow it because I disagree with what is happening and so on.
Bringing up children is not only a responsibility, it is also a commitment to ourselves (something like "I did it for myself"), to what we stand for, to them and to society. A never ending commitment! It is not easy to say no and set limits, especially when we know that few people, not to say nearly nobody, has the courage to support those that try to do it with an effort, good intentions facing all the embarrassment that it represents daily.
For bringing up is not to say no today and give in tomorrow in order "not to be always quarreling," because we have our convictions. Haven't we?
How often we criticize others and do not realize that if the "super nanny" visited our home she most probably would tell us we need to take some lessons!
Is this something that only we experience? Is the whole world going the same way? We will consider these questions next time.
Where are our values: am I out of it?
I must begin this text by giving credit to the author of this sentence, a dear friend who has been for a long time my aesthetician, someone I respect for her professionalism, simplicity and common sense. We talk a lot, about almost everything, during our sessions, just as it happens with other professionals who look after me with whom I have a friendly relationship and long chats.
Today, once more, we asked ourselves: what is happening to the world? Not the whole world, our world, our country, our people, the society that surrounds us, our own environment! (note – talking about Brazil).
We do not recognize ourselves in all this, she and I and many more people I talk to – the staff at work, clients, friends, ordinary people I know like taxi drivers, salesclerks, in other words, more people than imagined – who are profoundly worried, disappointed, amazed, feeling helpless and indignant with the paths that are being followed, with the lack of values around us.
Everything we stood for seems to have become anachronistic…out of date, as if we were and idiotic minority because we uphold obvious things (and which are indeed values not mere modishness or empty discourse), we that are and want to continue being correct because incapable and even unable to be different. The truth is that being honest, being ethical is not an option for those who are, it is a permanent way of behaving and seeing life and dealing with it and with people, which springs from the character itself!
Why are we seen as autocratic, conservative caricatures, which seems to be a label stamped on people who work and defend values such as honesty, ethics, work, collectivity, education, respect for others, that is to say, everything that is being reviled in our everyday life and what we see on TV, in the papers and in the behavior of so many?
My friend even said that sometimes she wonders whether we are the ones in the wrong, because she finds very few people who stand for the values we believe in, and told me that she ends up wanting to know if she is not the one who is out of it, out of fashion, out of the pattern.
I tell her that she is not out of it, but a great part of our society is, but that I think that a small parcel appears to be awakening or beginning to be exasperated with the situation in which we find ourselves.
We are not the rule, we are the exception, which is treated almost as an aberration or with the cynicism of those who think that money, status or power can everything and buy everything.
We do not need great references and studies to see that our society is in the evening soap opera where everyone is cheating (or trying to) everyone else and where the few pathetic honest characters come out as hysterical, boring, or both, and also stupid figures to the point of falling into all the tricks prepared by the majority who are capable of anything.
There is not one chapter in which somebody is not cheating somebody else, there is an apology of infidelity, an outrage to decent people that see only corruption, financial swindles and crimes of all types, each trying to climb the other's back in order to have more, be more, acquire more power.
The honest, righteous and gullible ones are characters used only as steps because they are either killed or suffer the whole time from the horrors that the author invents with refinement every day and which, i am sure, are inspired by true or plausible facts.
I bet they will say or think: Bia, what you are doing is standing for censorship, the end of the freedom of expression! No, I am only defending what decent people learned they have the duty to always protect: ethical awareness.
I hope they do not try or want to comfort me saying that the whole world is the same because it simply is not true. This is a fallacy that only helps to maintain the status quo.
Many countries (mostly more advanced and, in some cases, even some less advanced economically than ours) have adopted rules to protect values, those values that build a healthy society, more idealistic, more concerned with constructive objectives and with people as a whole. I am not being sentimental either!
Yes, there are places where young people are not seen in the street alone or in groups without a responsible adult after a certain hour, the hour when our young people begin to get ready to spend the night reveling.
What is there for a young person in the streets at dawn but violence, alcohol, drugs, risks and madness? What is there in such a life that makes them happier than we were, or than other young people in countries that demand more from and give more to the young than we do?
Tell me what is there that cannot be done earlier or in our own homes?
Is it me who is out of it, my friend?
Vocational Guidance: Should my children follow in my footsteps?
What will my son (or daughter) be when he/she grows up? Who hasn't answered or intended to answer this question? And how many of us insist in believing that the parents are the ones most capable of helping their children with this difficult decision?
Perhaps this question would be better placed in magazines of psychology, but when we think of the enormous number of family-owned firms and the great expectation of adults in general to see their children as professional heirs or successors, we realize the impact these decisions can have on family firms and family life.
Better than think that this is a problem of vocational guidance would be to spend a little time to understand that the choice of a career is, doubtlessly, if not the most important, one of the most important decisions in the relation time / investment that people make, and the one that affects profoundly many of the other choices that we make though life.
I do not wish to deal with the question of the career itself, or whether its characteristics have changed with the development of society, but I want to comment on the search for happiness, for, in the end, this is what we are dealing with when we guide or hide our wishes in relation to this aspect of the life of those we love.
The choice of the area or the way we wish to develop our potential and tastes, that which many call vocation, may materialize in time as something natural and consequent, but it may also be a source of anxiety to unwary parents and adolescents that despair trying to conciliate ability, vocation and possible competitive, social or financial advantages that each activity of career may possess.
That is where conflicts arise most of the time, for what we like is not always what we are good at and, also we may possess both vocation and ability and not have the necessary material conditions to reach our goals.
It is not difficult to find young people with a vocation for medicine, who do not have the financial resources to support their studies or pass the competitive entrance exams, or young people who want to do oceanography and live in the interior of the country, or those who adore basketball and do not reach the height barrier.
It is necessary to guide the young to analyze their potential and their real conditions to face the challenges of the desired activity, to look for technical information about demands, formation and market of the chosen area, conduct them to discussions with satisfied and dissatisfied professionals and, above all, not impose on the children the limitations that our dreams and prejudices may impose.
Our child's mission is not to carry on our work. The fight that must be fought is for his/her happiness, where the pleasure to do what one likes should be much more important and, usually, much more promising than whatever gives money and is recognized socially.
We must not shun professional help when this has already become a stressful problem for at least part of the family, but the psychological tests and exercises should only be considered pointers and guidance about a person's vocation.
And here goes a suggestion for those who are facing the cruel doubt of a professional choice or change: close your eyes in a quiet, isolated place and imagine your life in ten years time. Think of your house, your companion or spouse, imagine your children and your professional routine.
Try to be as realistic as possible and if, when you open your eyes, the idea seems pleasant and viable, I believe you have found your way.
This article, whose original title is "Vocation for Happiness", was adapted and published on the "Canal de Gestão da Escola" do Portal KlickEducação (note – Scholl Administration Chanel of site klickeducacao), and included in the site of www.loboeassociados.com.br in February 2000.
This is meant to alert people who, innocently (but very frequently), make it a habit of asking others: Do you know so-and-so? In the first place the question would demand some clarification, or at least an addendum: know signifying knowing who it is or having been introduced to the person?
It may seem silly, but for years I had this friend who always said he knew any personality mentioned (appearing thus to have contacts in the best and most select circles of all different areas) until my husband had the brilliant idea of asking : and does he know you? The negative answer came with the explanation: no, I saw him on tv!!!!
That is, it is better to ask if the person has heard of someone and not if he/she knows someone (unless the objective is to actually know!), especially if it is someone famous, because then the answer will be more trust worthy.
Another common problem is that this type of question is usually about a person who – at least for the one who asks – is part of the environment in which the he/she lives, or of the area of his/her activities, or it may even be a cultural, artistic, political reference that has meaning for him/her – which, for some reason, makes he/she think that the person should be known by all, throughout the world.
When they are icons, whose premise of obvious knowledge by the speaker is a strong possibility, the question is irrelevant. Ex: do you know George W. Bush, Brad Pitt, Lula (note: ex-president of Brazil)? In this case to know could only mean to have been physically with the celebrity, or should at least take into account that you have a basic general culture and know who the person is, or else the question can actually be offensive, even if unintentionally so.
It is true that if the person mentioned is reasonably well known by the public in general, or recognized as belonging to your personal restrict circle, this type of inquiry can even help to give a more personal note to the conversation, a nearness based on things in common.
But one must be careful there, because it is also very common for someone to direct a question about a specific person that HE/SHE knows or admires, or who was an object of study or some of whose work is known to him/her, to someone that does not belong to the same circle, that does not necessarily like the same things and whose probability of knowledge is almost nil, because it becomes a trap for the other person , for the one who responds negatively may even hear some sort of protest: You don't? So-and-so did this or that which is a landmark; so-and-so is extremely famous in the x area! And how does the one who was asked feel? Is he/she subtly but recurrently considered ignorant?
To finish I will use a home example: many people ask my husband (who was a rector at USP – University of São Paulo – with a long career of managing posts in the foremost South American university) if he knows so-and-so. For obvious reasons, chances are the answer will be negative. As a response he ends up hearing, in an almost indignant tone: but he/she is (or was) professor at USP! How come you don't know him/her? He/she says he knows you.
So be careful with such question, because worse than that only the famous and embarrassing: Do you remember me?
I am neither a critic of technology nor a fanatic of the absolute connectability that seems to have spread throughout the world. I use my cell phone to eventually find people when I am traveling, for emergencies in general, but I practically get no calls as I am always available either in my office or at home (for friends and relatives) or else, as it should be, actually unavailable! I do not wish to be interrupted ay time by anyone when I am working, at a meeting with clients or at peace at home, or during my rest period at the hotel.
But I know that I am almost an exception and one of the reasons must be my age group (my generation in general uses fewer high tech gadgets), or the fact that I have a fixed office that can "find me", which allows me to use my cell phone as I think it should be used: as a tool at my service.
People that answer their phone or use their gadgets in the most bizarre and embarrassing situations (public toilets, in the middle of the night on a bus trip, during lectures, in the movie theater etc) are sometimes glorified in TV ads (remember the one about Dudu the intern that becomes Carlos Eduardo because he finds on the web the answer to a problem? (note: a publicity from Brazil), instead of criticized, for having even this "sign of professional quality".
However, this use of technology is, in most cases, a demonstration of an inability to concentrate and even lack of respect for someone who is concentrating attentively or expounding problems at a meeting while some participants are twitting their private emails or browsing the internet.
It is as though I were out of touch with the world for thinking that actually this need to connect is making people disconnect…from each other! I firmly believe that we are going towards an isolation disguised by superficial contacts offered by the new technology, which can make us distance ourselves, or remove the need to know people and to relate to them.
At airports I see 80% of the people engrossed in their smartphones, notebooks and tablets, dealing with things not always urgent, but occupying the mind with what in the past was space and time for reading a good book, or for one of those chats that make life worthwhile (where are you going? are you a local? where is your home town? do you know so-and-so?). Chats that give us an idea of differences, of the world outside and at the same time bring us all closer.
I know several parents who are terrified of staying somewhere with their children without access to the internet, or electric light, because they would have nothing to talk about, no way of entertain or controlling the children, that is, they can no longer live together (and then these gadgets become electronic babysitters, or substitute a healthier activity or the pleasure of being with the family)!
My grandson (son of my step-son), who has just arrived home after a year in Switzerland, confirmed that this phenomenon is no Brazilian and has no frontiers. He visited 5 European countries and saw it everywhere and gave me the missing proof that the whole thing has got out of control: young people at parties sit in a room talking… via twitter, with other young people not physically present in the same room at the party!!!
I know and fully admit the value and the importance of the access to information and to the world in the educational process, in work, or in the lives of people with the ease of finding out about everything and practically cancel distances, but the exaggerated, even neurotic use of connectedness must be thought over.
Otherwise there will come a time when it will be usual for a couple, after a sexual encounter (not virtual) to sit in bed and twit to each other: Was it good for you?
I know many people who adore their mothers. Especially when our mothers do what we want, or help us as best they can bearing a large part of the burden of children – even when it is high time that these children look after their own lives – making the mothers-grandmothers give up their deserved rest and their quality of life.
I also know many children who only appreciate their mothers when they are very old, no longer capable of enjoying the pleasure of being sincerely loved and admired as deserved.
I love my mother and more than this I feel extremely committed to her life, protection and everything that can spare her useless effort and unnecessary worries.
In my own case, my mother is a person I admire, respect and I do everything to make her life better, for she made me a better person and was by my side, with her sense of justice, availability and affection every time I needed her strength, her honesty and her impartiality.
I always say I do not make the dramatic gesture of calling dozens of times indicating presence (some people do this and avoid responsibilities…) or sharing with her my problems that would be only reasons for anxiety. On the contrary, I only think of saving her work, of providing leisure and entertainment and help using my resources and my care to make her life easier for her! We also have long and intimate chats!
Besides love (which does not have to be blind to defects, but can distinguish between peccadilloes and mortal sins) I respect her as a person, as a woman and a professional, and I would like my son to have for me at least half the admiration, love and awareness of the importance she has had in my life considering what I represent for him.
I have endeavored to achieve this, but it is a long road.
Long live Misses Maria José! A long life of health and peace!
Are there openings for commentators on Sport TV or ESPN?
After watching the America Cup, listening to the commentators and finally Galvão Bueno's program "Well Friends" yesterday (note: This is a very important program about sports in Brazil in cable tv!), I have a little question: only a few viewers remember what is said in those programs or do they think we are all fools?
I ask because I have witnessed an intransigent defense for the 'boys" of our attack (Neymar, Ganso and Pato – Brazilians soccer players) with thousands of observations that we must be patient because they suffer a lot of pressure, they are still very young and they are the ones responsible for bringing back the football-art that "the supporters and all Brazilians" want to see.
But when Dunga (note: He was the coach of Brazilian Selection in last World Cup of Soccer) did not call the pair from Santos (and won the America Cup, imagine that!!!) and then lost a difficult match and our chances for World Cup 2010, he was massacred by the press and commentators for leaving the two out (at the time Ganso had a rotten knee and immediately went to surgery, as we all saw).
It seems there is really no coherence in those who earn a living as football commentators, or else being connoisseurs means they can contradict themselves without being in the least embarrassed.
I do not know much about football, but I enjoy it and analyze what is said and what is shown. I wrote a text on Dunga's work soon after the Cup 2010, which I am going to post by the end of the week (to show that I already used to say what now seems to be consensus).
Watching and listening to our commentators, I swear to God, I feel like asking for a place in one of those round table types of programs on football (and other sports), ah!!, I really do! And I would not do this too badly either!
Open letter from a mother to her son!
Yesterday I saw a man on the stage!
A responsible, mature, determined, polite, considerate man with a dazzling smile! I saw a dedicated professional, extremely talented, courageous and confident.
I saw more than that. I saw that this professional, already a man, is also a leader, a positive leader, respected, admired, but conscious of the fact that there is still a long way to go, that it is always possible to improve and progress in every sense.
I heard that he can be whatever he wishes, he can even change the world, but he is first changing himself, his environment, his group and his life perspective.
I saw somebody that loves, overcomes hurdles, but ever asserting himself and recognizing obstacles. I found a man and realized that he is very happy!
Yesterday I could see, for the first time, this admirable person in his plenitude. A person I knew very well, a person with whom I have quarreled so often and struggled side by side for over 22 years, and whom I love and support unconditionally.
And I was able to have one of those moments that make living worthwhile, when one feels that everything, everything was worth it! That moment when one hovers beyond the air, wanting to shout inside and out with pride! His father-mentor and myself.
After all this man, a professional, a leader and a promise that has come true is my son, our son!!!
It is not a matter of motherly doting, as my judgment goes far beyond motherly love, and nobody knows better than you how demanding and sincere we are, critics when correcting but also appreciative.
I have written other times being exacting, giving advice or praising, but I want you to be able to register, keep and show to whoever you wish what we think and feel, and that this will always work as fuel on the long and spectacular journey that awaits you and that you will doubtlessly cover without losing the values that today you assimilate and practice.
May life smile at you for the good you do it, my angel!
I just want to make a note of something that I have been seeing for years and that is confirmed practically every holiday or trip in which there is a great number of cars: many queues are formed because of hypocrisy!
What kind of hypocrisy? Like when people go very fast and/or are afraid of the police for some reason unknown to me, even when the allowed speed is, for instance, 60k/h, when they go past a police post ALL go down to less than 40k/h, which leads to enormous lines, and then once at a distance immediately go back to the original speed!
If you pay attention you will notice that besides this hypocritical attitude, the use of the berms by the smart-asses, to whom it causes no problems, is also shameful.
By way of illustration: a few months ago, coming back from Campos with my husband and after commenting on the ridiculous and dangerous scene of dozens of cars using the berm to escape the traffic jam, I saw 12 (twelve!!!) police cars coming down the hill. What for? I do not know for they were all using… the berm!!! That is, a convoy of police cars giving a terrible example, instead of punishing the potential "killers".
And I will end this by asking someone to tell me why cars (especially the expensive and imported ones) can reach 220, 250 or even 300k/h when it is not allowed to go above 120k/h on any Brazilian highway (or on most highways in the world)?
On the higher costs of imported cars: who is getting it?
After the great rise in the taxes for imported cars, "to strengthen the national industry", was announced, we at home wondered which national car manufacturers we have: Ford? Fiat? Chevrolet?
Isn't it one more move by the government to favor car assembly plants that send their profits abroad?
Isn't it a way of continue to have in the national cars all security items as OPTIONAL?
Are we going back to the wagons of the Collor era? (note: Collor was Brazil's President in the 90′s, he called the Brazilian cars of " wagons", opened the country for imported cars and, before completing his government, the Congress did his impeachment for corruption).
Is it possible people do not realize that this is the old trick to allow cars manufactured here to RAISE their prices, because they were unable to compete with foreign cars (which have several serial items much better than ours), and that with this market reserve or protectionist measure our cars will have more buyers and, according to the law of supply and demand…will raise their prices without including anything new in their products!
If I am wrong, let me just ask: Why did they not lower the taxes on national cars instead of rising those on imported cars, which get to us much more expensive than they are abroad anyway?
I admit: when I started writing, besides being unfamiliar with this tool, I didn't know how to check the pending comments and I had the greatest surprise this week when I found nearly 1,700 comments, the vast majority from foreign countries, always very kind and full of praise about the content and the idea of the BLOG.
I also practically don't use the social networks so if people want to use my texts in their blogs, keeping them intact and naming the author and how to find the original, that's fine!
I want to apologize to all for not having answered, and I will still do it when an answer is plausible, calmly because the lagging behind has reached great proportions (haha)!
4- To send suggestions of themes which, if I find I am competent enough, I will address with the greatest pleasure and the usual candor.
Love to all that have given me affection and support! Thank you very much indeed!
Do good regardless of who you do it to!
I was very young when I learned that we must try to do good, that the decision of what we do and who we do it to is a matter of free will and the important thing is to be conscious that we have done what we thought should be done.
I am not perfect, far from it, but I have really attempted to be better tomorrow than I was today, and to treat with justice and dignity all my collaborators of life or work.
Disappointments? I have had several, coming from people for whom I had done more that the usual, from whom I never expected a blow and believed they felt affection, respect and even genuine admiration for me.
Because of this I even heard that I was naive and that to treat people too well is not good employer tactics. That is, I start from the a priori principle that people are good, honest, giving everyone the benefit of a doubt.
And believe me, I am very demanding: I am in fact a large as life "manageress," one who knows how to make the team yield results and give the best of themselves, but to whom I give absolute respect and I am there, with them! We are always evaluated with very high marks, clients and suppliers see in us a welcome exception!
At times I may even go too far wanting everything to come out right in the best way possible, but I think that all benefit from this, including the collaborators themselves, despite the stress it generates, and I know that this is not common, but it is our spirit and my husband's and the work incarnates that spirit always!
I have answered that if it is true that it is better to mistrust all and not to worry about others, besides feeling sad and hopeless, I will still think I am the one to blame!
I help when I can and find it valid, I bet on people and yes, I have suffered several blows, but those who did it to me lost more than I did. Time and life prove it. After all, I know I have done my part!
Be careful with your instincts, you can sink a ship!
I read in the newspaper that the commander of the ship Costa Concordia, which sank a few days ago in Italy, almost in the "way home", explained the tragedy that he caused as a result of two factors: he made an unjustifiable change of route (he had sometimes done this before!) to greet an old friend and that he, yes, he was the victim of his own instincts!
I do not even want to comment on the absurdity of the statements he has been that is changing to justify himself as the press and the authorities in the investigations proceed, as the explanation of how he abandoned the ship (with a slip, he fell unwittingly straight into a lifeboat and was taken with the other passengers away from the ship), or about the rocks that he said were the cause of the wreck because they were not in the nautical maps (as if stones were equal to the iceberg hit the Titanic!).
I will focus on two issues which I think is illustrative of behaviors that, when not associated with a great tragedy, or a demagogic story, often overlooked, but which are important for a reflection.
The first is the fact that the Commander Schettino (from a family of several generations of commanders that came before) called "instinct" which actually is a learned behavior and not an innate behavior as he seems to want the people believe: the pride that leads to the omnipotence!
To explain further, we know that is very common to develop the human skills that when perfectly mastered and repeated very often, their risks and consequences tend to be more easily ignored by those who perform them. Know much, or do very well in any activity can easily lead one to disregard protocols, or stop doing the checks, or run the script needed to ensure an appropriate outcome.
That's how you build scenarios of various disasters, accidents in which human errors that could be prevented gain contours of fatality, since it is not expected that this can happen to people so experienced.
However, friends, the modus operandi – that kind of behavior and what is behind it – is not private of the responsible for the disasters, or those that are caused major damage against individuals or corporations.
This is the same model of behavior of the children that grow up without limits, of the high command of professionals that are not monitored, of the people who become famous, rich or powerful that think they can do everything and that nothing bad happens but if it happens, there is a way!
Do not think that is my exaggeration, but the feeling of being "all powerful", this omnipotence to which I refer, also happens to ordinary mortals, and in everyday situations, ranging from driving a vehicle after 2 or 3 beers, to close the house before leaving without caring to check if the windows are open, or let a child play in a dangerous game which you also did as a child and was uninjured. Simple like that, but on the limit, or on the extremes.
It also happens to those who are responsible for meetings or parties, or important activities in companies.
They know what needs to be done, but can not maintain the consistency needed to ensure the best results, follow the boring script and to check what has to be checked.
That is, the speech does not happen because the driver was not informed that the speaker would get at the airport, guests arrive soggy because the couple believe it never rains in outdoor weddings, the report does not arrive in time because in the last minute, the Internet is down!
Pride is the supremacy of the exercise of power over other people's feelings and the actual conditions to run it, for to get what desires. It is putting up yourself beyond the good and evil, and thereby expose himself and others without having such right or consent. It works like this: I do because I want, because I can, because I am order!
Similarly, the second question that I raise from the unfortunate episode of the wreck of Italian ship, with respect to the trial that people makes in these cases, taking the roof, and the top of the world's pantheon of heroes who just and only complied with its obligation, as the Company Commander of the Port of Livorno and his wife declared after the episode.
I know that many will find that who charges a Commander harshly because he cowardly abandoned his ship with victims on board, especially if this attitude has generated some action or consequence that ultimately save lives, can be considered a hero. So much so that already sells T-shirts with the phrase (that became a hit on the Internet), that he shouted to the coward Captain that refused to return to the ship.
I would tell her that it does not occur only in Italy but worldwide. Here in Brazil, someone poor that returns a wallet found on the street full of money has presence guaranteed on prime time TV and is considered a hero by many (and silly by others too).
I'm still in time in which to be called a hero, someone had to have put their lives at risk to defend a collective cause or to save others without anything or anyone had asked, or ordered, and without expecting to receive anything in return!
Inform everyone that, given the hundreds of requests (hundreds even!) I created a specific email for this blog, to who you want to talk to me directly, in general on the posts that let some confusion for some people, or for some people that need the private answers.
Therefore, friends, the e-mail must use with responsibility, because if too much spams appear here, I do not have time to answer and clean everything that not be right.
So, let's become his space a place of exchange, respect and mutual learning.
The e-mail (blogmariabeatriz@gmail.com) is at the top of the homepage in Portuguese on the button called "email para a autora" and has an icon below, along with other links, in English. You need just of a click for the correspondence be ready to send directly to me, the author.
Soon we will have a forum also to share ideas about the same subject in this Blog, ok?
Decade of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic!
For those who like sports, we have to recognize we are living a wonderful decade for lovers of good tennis!
Many good players have marked generations with their accomplishments and records as the unforgettable duels of Egberg against Lendl, Borg against McEnroe, Agassi against Sampras, among others. We have been living for several years another historic rivalry: Federer against Nadal.
The absolute dominance of Federer in the last decade transformed him, in the opinion of many experts, in the greatest tennis player of all times: refined technique, mastering all the moves, perfect fitness, winner posture and confident.
Finally, a genius of the sport that had everything it took him to hit almost every highs record men's tennis, which made us believe that it would take long time for him to find rivals its height.
The geniality of Federer seemed unbeatable, his charisma dominated the world and his polite behavior and ethical – he is considered a gentleman by everyone, including the players and journalists and he has given several examples of honesty in the doubtful points of games – has been a blessing to a public that has not had always good examples of athletes to be admired, also, in their lives and personal conduct.
When Nadal crossed the path of the Swiss, the matches between them have become real battles and no one understood or knew how to explain why Federer suffered such unbelievable losses for the Spanish and, more importantly, why his behavior be so different (and much less confident) on the court and on delivering prizes, for he came to cry at the last Grand Slam he lost before hitting the record for tournament titles complaining that he could not handle the pressure suffered by losing to Nadal.
As history shows, there is always someone who challenges the geniuses somehow difficult to justify. I have, to myself, some reasons for the disproportion of defeats of Roger Federer against Rafael Nadal which are not related specifically to the technical issues of this sport, but certainly they are fundamental components to forging the great champions of today.
I feel that the younger players were forced to develop two more striking aspects of what occurred before the supremacy of Swiss player in an attempt to overlap the immense technical skill and lightness of Federer: physical strength (which provides resistance to withstand long games, or to reach every ball and greater speed in blows to ensure more effective counterattacks and winners) and a super-aggressive posture (with physical expressions and manifestations on the court who were previously considered at least a discourtesy in a tennis game).
In respect to the physical questions, it was inevitable that occurred (and occurs in all sports), because nowadays not only the doctor and physiotherapist assist the athletes, but multidisciplinary teams that bring all the advances in areas ranging from physiology of stress to nutrition and psychology to analyze the body's reactions and behavior of the athlete at high pressures.
On the changes of behavior in court, I guess it was for the worse. The aggressiveness while celebrating the points and the excesses in the manifestations of power and will of the younger players look more like a provocation, a moral confrontation with the opponent.
These behaviors, perhaps not born with Lleyton Hewitt (who does not remember the yell "come on" until he reach world's number 1?), or with the screams of Sharapova, but certainly they grew up recently.
I know many consider it normal, even vital part of the struggle of the great warriors, and that these gestures can yield points with the public, but are almost provocation (unnecessary in my view) for many people and lead to real psychological assaults that aim to destabilize another, or incite the crowd.
It is almost impossible to tackle and overcome the discomfort and shame that trigger these behaviors in people with personality and education of Roger Federer (and I quote others as, for example, Del Potro, from Argentina).
I'm pretty sure this is the big problem for Federer to face Nadal in particular and other players who take this stance from now on. I say this calmly and without wishing to disparage the great sporting qualities that Nadal is, no doubt.
The rivalry of Nadal and Federer could be perpetuated, and it will for several more years as the biggest attraction of the tennis world, but the rise of Novak Djokovic (incorporating a little of both: a refined technique similar to that of Federer and the resistance added to aggressive and provocative manifestations of Nadal) brought a scene even more exciting to compete in major championships, especially the Grand Slams.
We will see memorable matches (like the longest final of all time that happened yesterday at the Australian Open) and between these three players and dream battles between these human beings who behave like demigods.
Perhaps Andy Murray improves his game – and his self-confidence – to compose a quartet that will mark an enviable generation of tennis players.
However, I sincerely hope that the highlight of this decade gold in tennis does not further increase the use of force, the cries and gestures of omnipotence of the players as the ultimate weapon to be used to overcome the technical, class, politeness, finally, the education!
Congratulations to Mayra Aguiar that won the gold medal in judo!
It's great to see Brazil win a gold medal in judo at the Paris Grand Slam. She won great struggles with aggression and with good shots.
With many athletes winning medals for their lack of toughness of opponents, the Brazilian athlet Mayra Aguiar won with a winning attitude and taking the initiative of the blows, including the winning number one world ranking in the semi final of the tournament!
Congratulations and let's see if in the male judo, Rafael Silva manages the same feat, since he is in the final with the athlete's home that is world champion.
You like to find a bathroom for public use clean and sanitized?
Everyone likes! So, perhaps few people can imagine what my motivation to write this text is, but the answer is simple: I've noticed how Brazil is late and careless with the cleanliness of toilets for common use.
I'm not even talking about the so-called public toilets, which are in squares, streets, or in strategic locations where it accumulates usually large number of persons, or of chemical toilets needed (or about the lack of them) in large outdoor events. I will not even talking about these because I don't want to die of embarrassment!
Like most of the public who access the internet and have come to my blog, probably, do not use public restrooms, I want to draw attention to the bathrooms of cinemas, of theaters and, in particular, of large shopping malls.
When I travel to outside of the country, most recently to the United States, I check that all, practically all the bathrooms in common use, besides being clean, with all the necessary materials, has a seat protector.
This happens in the large and luxurious hotels and restaurants, as in places of public visitation and all trade, including shops and eateries simplest, whose prices are very cheap. Of course there must be exceptions, but it was a fact so common in my trips, that when I returned to Brazil I noticed it more than ever.
I had no surprise to realize that this is not common here even in airports or in museums or other places of visitation. But, honestly, I was astonished by visiting three of the most luxurious malls in the city of Sao Paulo – those whose prices per square meter their shops are among the highest in the world – with the luxury of the bathrooms in general, the floors and walls of colored marble, the fine and modern crockery, timers on taps and electric hand dryers (everything friendly to environment!).
What most of these places have in common, besides the luxury? No, but none of them had paper to protect the toilet seat (the protector of disposable paper or plastic one that involves the lid and turn when the sensor is touched!).
I came to a sad conclusion: the owners of large shoppings think (and they have all the reasons to think because they should not receive complaints sufficient to take the actions) that where there are the largest and most famous brands in the world and circulate the beauties of classes A and A + the infrastructure needs appearance luxurious, very ostentatious, but …doesn't need to be very hygienic.
After all, it must be very expensive for these temples of consumption ensure that the toilets where we sit (especially women for obvious reasons) are hygienically protected to prevent diseases transmission.
Every nation has even the bathroom that deserve?
How many TV shows and magazine articles talking about the opinion of many people about the apocalypse that will end the world in 2012, similar to what occurred at the turn of the millennium and many other similar occasions?
I had employees who in the days before the millennium were preparing white clothes and candles to await the end of the world lying together, with the locked house, at the turn of the day December 31, 1999 for the day January 1, 2000.
I saw their sorrow for their children and the pain that comes from zealotry without base (because the belief is without common sense that leads to fanaticism) and directed by a pastor or priest of a church who they followed without hesitation.
I tried in vain to dissuade them from the idea, showing that it was the turn of the twentieth century, but nothing worked until I suggested that they were talking to a PHD in physics awarded in the United States (which is where my husband and that sometimes the people around us forget the quality and recognition of his work) who said that they should accept the existing scientific arguments against the thesis of the end of the world to predetermineted date.
After the passage of the new year (in which nothing happened as everyone already knew) I asked them whether they should question this inconsistency (to say the least) to the leader of the church and, to my surprise, they continued to follow him and the religion without questioning this big size error of "statement"!
The minimum expected of any leader is the defense of truth, so those who still believe in who makes these apocalyptic predictions that never happen deserves to suffer a bit!