Thursday, January 24, 2013

To Repeat What She Said

Recently, I read a post that left an imprint. The blogger wondered why postal clerks shouldn't be required to familiarize themselves with their own stock. Well, days later, here I am to repeat her sentiment.


More mail went out today. Lots of mail. Over ten pieces adds up to a lot. Right? Two packages were included, but again, I forgot two pieces. The first time I discovered the little . . . No. Make it three packages to go out, because I stood in line a second time to mail a small parcel I'd overlooked in the bottom of my bag. No matter. The thing that matters is this: The clerk who did business with me asked where I found the stamp I used on this envelope. Silly me, I thought she referred to the little art stamp I'd inked and applied. 


She explained. She meant the Earthscapes stamp. I was shocked. That post office is always busy. They do enough business to warrant having the latest, newest, coolest stamps issued. I wonder what the USPS does with all the money they bring in. Sponsor the US cycling team? You should see the place. I took photos the past summer to show you what it looked like, but shame stayed my hand. When it rains, you put the safety of your hips and legs, and other breakables at risk if you decide to navigate the mop buckets and rain-cathchers that line the gauntlet. I won't mention the wet floor. 

I refused to check my mailbox after a major storm once. It wasn't worth it. The ceiling tiles were . . . Well. This isn't about the shameful state of our federal building aka the US Post Office. But, I must say this. Would the government have paid for my medical bills if a wet ceiling tile had fallen on my head? Or, if I'd slipped and fallen despite the "slippery when wet sign?" SMH from sadness and shame. 


Why don't they know if they have new stamps? I hd to ask for the new year stamps as the "firecracker stamps." They had them, but still. And when I asked for the "new Valentine's Day" stamps, the clerk said, "Oh, yes. We do." I grinned. Then she showed me last year's Love stamp. SMH again. Had to tell her I wanted the new ones. And, yes, they get the same philatelist magazine we get. Okay, wait. Would we be any different if we'd worked at the post office for over twenty years? I'd hang myself with rolls of stamps licked and stuck together, and looped to form a noose, if I had to do the same job that long. Get mad at me if you want, but goodness! Oh, and remember how "going postal" was coined? Uh hmm. So leave me alone for speaking what some of you are thinking. *wink*

Yes. Mail went out today. Lots of it. And, for the first time since Hector was an embryo, my box was empty. A lovely letter awaited me in my home box. And there was a package inside. AND . . . A package on the front porch! Yes! 

So. Stay tuned for another give-away. It's time to share some of my hoarded goodies. Details? Soon. I have to do my share to help Dodson, D., with his project. Have you heard? Here's the word:


Write on.

P.S. Do you think women should be on the front lines? Why yes or no?



11 comments:

  1. Hum...another postal worker who doesn't know her stamps!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. It must be endemic, huh? See? I pay attention. :)

      Delete
  2. I sent my husband to the PO last week for some postcard stamps plus some one cent stamps for the price increase. The clerk said she didn't think postcard postage was going up. Really??

    I think women should have the choice to be on the front lines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You win. No one can top that. LOL!

      Good answer. But. What if you had a son who needed to be carried from the battle field, and the only other survivor happened to be a woman? We don't have the same upper body strength. Would male soldiers put others at risk because they might instinctively try to save a female soldier who was in harm's way? So many questions.

      Thanks for your opinion. I value it.

      Delete
    2. I personally don't see the problem. If they can pass the physical requirements for the job, why not.

      Where I can see the exception would/could be the elite forces and again the physical requirements. Green Beret, Seals and the like.

      They have already been on the front lines, just not acknowledged for it.

      Delete
    3. Why not the special forces? I've heard of women who have lifted cars off their children. My sister, Mina had so many marksmanship trophies, my mom ran out of display space. She shot better than our dad and brother. She was a deadly sniper/shooter. Our sister, Doris was in ROTC aw well, but I don't believe women are meant to be soldiers going into battle. We are creators, not killers. We are the nurturers.

      Delete
  3. I think I'll count my lucky stars, or firecrackers, as the workers at my PO seem very knowledgeable. They know their inventory for the most part, though now and then one has to check a drawer or binder to see how much of a particular stamp is available at their station. They even call stamps by the rightful names. ;-) However, they don't generally get the new stamps until a bit late in the game so it's a give and take sort of thing, I suppose. Maybe they have cheat sheets they study at home. Ha, who knows?

    As for women being on the front lines, I straddle the fence on that issue. My personal belief is that it should be a woman's choice but my first husband, who was a long time military man, had what seemed to be good reasons for women to NOT be on the front line. One was the physical strength issue. Another was that women are quite often "a distraction" (his words, not mine) and the front line is no place for distractions. He had other reasons, too, and they all made sense to me but he was never able to really change my mind, though I gave his opinion much consideration. For me, it comes down to whether a woman feels she's able to handle it or not. And whether the men feel they can handle it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. You have a great post office. :) I tend to agree with your husband. I cannot see a 150 pound woman carrying a 250 pound soldier. She couldn't even drag him out of harm's way. I thing Pena worded it well, and he is right about the females having to prove they can do the job.

      Thanks for your valuable input. I'm always interested in what others think of matters. I might not agree or allow another's opinions change my mind, but great dialogue can move mountains.

      Delete
  4. Wait a minute. A distraction? Then men are still blaming women for their shortcomings. A distraction. Hmm. I cannot imagine a woman in combat fatigues being a distraction; and who thinks about gender in combat? We need more input here. Did I get it wrong, Denise? Distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Before answering your question... I will preface with that fact that I served 8 years in the Air Force. At that time women were not allowed to serve in "combat related" career fields. I was a photographer/photjournalist, my job was not classified as combat related. But that didn't mean I wasn't put in harms way. There were many times especially overseas, that I found myself being taken to the wrong side of a "border" where I could be justifiably shot at... or left alone and unprotected to do my "non combatant" job in a hostile environment.
    The whole no women in combat thing has had blurred lines for a long time, in the 1980's I could be called to duty anywhere in the world, combat zone or not, get dropped of in the middle of whatever was going on armed only with my fatigues and my camera gear. I would not be viewed as being in combat, even though I could be equally exposed to being shot as those who were.
    In the past the military had no problem sending women into a war zone, they just wouldn't classify them as combat trained, so that they could fight back. Women in supporting roles in the war zone had to depend on the protection of those who were trained and allowed to be armed, which of course made them a liability and a distraction, and not surprisingly, unwelcome. But that is the way the military mandated it should be.
    As far as women trained for combat being a distraction, not to worry, men have no trouble getting distracted without the help of a woman. Women don't belong to the "guys only club", the whole testosterone thing keeps the guys pretty well distracted, trying to figure out who's is bigger... uh sorry, my old military mouth is coming out... When I was in the military most of the time the guys hardly paid attention to the females at all,(on duty), unless it was to make them feel unwelcome, second rate, out of place or the brunt of every crude joke or demeaning comment... Chivalry is dead... especially in the military.
    But for women, many things in the military will change for the better once they are allowed to participate in the front line combat zone. They will be able to be combat trained with the men, can build a rapport with them, earn their trust and respect, be seen not by gender but by their abilities and seen as part of the team. Male or female, the time spent in training will weed out those who can't keep up, aren't strong enough or just can't hack it. Gender has nothing to do with capability and the military is well aware of that.
    **About the 150 lb. woman carrying a 250 lb man...There are lots of small men in the military, who couldn't carry a 250 lb. man either, and lots of tall/large women who could easily haul a wounded soldier out of harms way. Fortunately, the military has weight standards, most men would be well under 250 lbs. ;) In all honesty there isn't a whole lot of picking someone up a carrying them around anyway.
    After all that, my answer is yes, women should be allowed on the front line. Gender should not be a consideration when assigning military personnel to front line positions. The choice of who goes into combat should be made by who is trained and qualified to get the job done, without consideration of their role in reproduction.
    Since I am already on my soap box, I'll just say that I think that we would all be better served if they sent no one to the front line, but instead used the vast amount of resources spent on war to find a peaceful solution to the world's problems.
    Love you Limner! You're a peach!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done. What can I say, except this: Women have always fought in wars. Some weren't discovered until they were being prepared for burial if they were among the casualties. Now, women will be able to receive better pay, better promotions, and more respect if they are deemed combat capable. Who among us wouldn't fight alongside men if our families were in harm's way from invaders? Not Martians either. ;)

      Elle, I cannot thank you enough, thanks. I enjoy hearing another person's point of view. I salute you. :) Would peace reign In a perfect world? The edenic story told of brother killing brother. I cannot help but hope.

      Delete