Librarians 'suffer most stress'

Per a study in the UK, Librarians suffer the most stress among occupations. Finally! Someone is acknowledging what most librarians, especially public librarians have always known. The UK study says it it the lack of control over one's job that induces the most stress.

We certainly have little control over the rising costs of books, journals, electronic information sources, and internet access. We have no control over the speed in which technologies change and this impacts librarians more than most careers. Plus we're expected to know it all! With no training I might add, or time to read professional journals. Then we have the stereotypes to deal with. I do not get to read books while working! I spend 50% of my time dealing with people and the other 50% fighting with computers. If you need a sense of accomplishment, the library field probably isn't the best occupation to be in.

We also have no control in how people treat us or their fellow library users. We get little respect and we never know when we may be dealing with someone who will erupt into violence.

"The study surveyed nearly 300 people drawn from five occupations.

They were firefighters, police officers, train operators, teachers and librarians and were intended to cover the spectrum, with the librarians first-thought to be the least stressful occupation."

While firefighters and police officers have obviously stressful jobs, they are also provided training to deal with it on a regular basis. Librarians aren't, and that may be why they are currently so stressed. Librarians are expected to deal with a psycho with only politeness and charm and somehow diffuse the situation. Police officers certainly do the same but at least they have the skill (and weaponry) to defend their lives if the situation escalates in spite of their efforts.

It is never easy to deal with someone who is angry, demanding, or just plain rude, whether they are 'normal' or not. Yet we have people scream at us that they pay taxes and aren't being served or are being treated unfairly. Never mind they are only one of thousands (and conveniently forget that the librarian is tax payer too). This scenario usually occurs when someone wants service or materials that normally aren't offered, or they have been charged for losing library materials. I.e. they are in the wrong but won't admit it.

Gah! Why would anyone want to be a librarian?

Good book for Moms

O.k., first the disclaimer - I'm not a mother. But I still think this is a great book for moms. It's funny, practical, and supportive. If you ever wondered how you got yourself into this mess, or wondered if you are a good mother this book will both reassure you and amuse you. It's a well balanced book about the realities of motherhood, just good sense and good therapy.

I Was a Really Good Mom Before I Had Kids: Reinventing Modern Motherhood by Trisha Ashworth.

Favorite quote from the book - "Sometimes I think, 'I can't believe I gave up 9 months of drinking for this!'"

If you can't read why are you here?

People just don't read. You can put up all the signs you want with any attention getting colors, lights, or fonts but people will not read signs. It's not just the library, plenty of other places have problems too.

Is it that they really can't see signs, can't read, or is it because they just don't care?

For example, I once counted six "no cell phones" signs between the library doors and our Internet computers, including one by the offender. Did they still let their phone ring? Did they still engage in loud, inane conversations to the irritation of those around them? Did they still resent the librarian for pointing out the signs that says NO CELL PHONES!? Sadly they do.

Contrary to popular opinion, librarians do not enjoy shushing people. We have better things to do and not much time to do it. Pointing out the obvious to people is an interruption to the work we could otherwise be doing.

I wonder if I posted signs that said $5.00 fine for each second a phone rings or a cell phone conversation continues would be more effective?

There are only about three places in the world where you can escape cell phone users. Places of worship, libraries, and a few spots in the wilderness with no coverage. And sometimes even in these places!

Even places of worship are under siege, so I guess it's not surprising people are so inconsiderate to their fellow library patrons. It gotten so bad at catholic churches in Mexico that they've purchased cell phone jamming technology from the Israelis! ("Blocking cell phone signals in the United States is illegal, but Mexico does not yet have a regulation against it..."). Mexican churches jam cell phones for quiet Mass. The priests turn it on during mass. I'm not catholic but that seems extremely irreverent to have their cell phones on during worship. One would think their next confession would get a little rough.

Humans are humans, polygamy can't change that

If history and religion have taught us anything, it is that humankind is imperfect. While a few people can rise above or change their nature for a moment or for a purpose, a large group cannot change permanently. So while a group of people (or country) can be inspired to rise above their individual weaknesses for a time, it builds pressure within to return to type. The greater the change from the norm the greater the pressure. That pressure, if not relieved, will eventually poison the very ideals a group is trying to rise to. That poison is often self-rationalization, denial, and the abuse of authority.

Abuse of authority is probably the most dangerous of these evils. It is a common maxim that if you give any person or group of persons too much authority over others for too long they will eventually abuse that power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Warren Jeff's increasing extremism is a classic example. Checks and balances on authority and fair laws are the only ways to prevent, or at least reign in, such potential corruption.

The reasons for these thoughts comes from reading books about the FLDS polygamists: Stolen Innocence by Elissa Wall and Lisa Pulitzer, When Men Become Gods: Mormon Polygamist Warren Jeffs, His Cult of Fear, and the Women Who Fought Back by Stephen Singular, Escape by Carolyn Jessop and Shattered dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife by Irene Spencer. Of the four only the latter author got into a plural marriage with her eyes open, yet her plural marriage didn't turn out any better.

Neither men nor women are perfect, with or without religion. It is human nature to struggle for the essentials of life, and that struggle is often expressed in relationships, religion, and politics.

The FDLS vision of polygamy doesn't take into account the realties of human nature and needs. The royal and wealthy Chinese in ancient times sometimes had multiple wives. Unlike the FDLS they didn't pretend that everyone was equal, there was a head wife, minor wives, and concubines. While there was an established hierarchy that made clear what everyone's place was, it still couldn't stop the constant struggles for attention and power. So it's understandable that the Chinese characters for conflict, trouble, and/or war are believed to be two women under the same roof. A few thousand years of history and relationships ought to teach you something, and in the case of China, those lessons are embedded in the very language. So in a plural marriage where all wives are supposed to be equal it immediately creates an environment for members to struggle for supremacy. A hotbed of trouble and potential abuse. Which is only made worse by the FDLS's lack of release mechanisms. In particular, there is no graceful way to leave or return if one's beliefs or commitment changes.

Given humanities various weaknesses, why would any religion base it's access to heaven on it's purity? Instead of looking to God as the supreme being for access to heaven, they look to mere men! And men, whatever their intentions, are not gods, nor can they ever be. If mankind is the standard for godhood, it's a pretty poor standard. Why even bother?