tenthousandyearsnonstop

[tenthousandyearsnonstop]

OMG, where should people do their work?

Now that the whole Marisa Mayer/Yahoo/telework hullabaloo has died down a little bit, can we have a rational discussion about some of the underlying issues?  Maybe starting with the premise of telework?  

It seems to me that people should do their work in a location that allows them to get their work done most effectively.  So where is that, exactly?

Some tasks require uninterrupted focus. If you're trying to solve a difficult problem or draft some kind of document or write code that works or any number of other things, you don't want someone bugging you. Home can be a good option. So can a coffee shop. Or a library. In one of those carrels back in the stacks where nobody ever goes. Assuming the library actually has books in it. Or maybe your office with the door shut, the lights out, and your phone unplugged. But then again your office might not work so well. If you have fixed work hours people either know you're in there and bug you anyway or think you're not at work and you get in trouble. For tasks requiring focus, telework = good.

Some tasks require face-to-face contact with the people you work with. Maybe you need to do some project planning. Or you get stuck and want to wander the hallways getting input from your brilliant and scintillating colleagues. Or you're nearing the end of a planned project and you (and the brilliant and scintillating ones) need to toss ideas around and figure out where you want to go next. For these things, telecons just don't cut it. You have to be in the same room. For tasks requiring human interaction, telework = bad,

So which one is it? Telework good or telework bad? Is it possible that it's a good idea to let people telework sometimes and make sure they're in the same place sometimes?  

[tenthousandyearsnonstop]

What to wear?

You know, I really wish someone would focus on making the kind of basic, quality cycling clothing that men take for granted in a women's design.  How about some good cold weather bibs that aren't weird or insanely expensive?  Or leg warmers that take into account that women's shorts are shorter and don't either end mid-calf or fall off because you got a larger size hoping they'd be longer?  Or small jerseys with pockets that are actually large enough to put stuff in?  Why is it ok to take a men's design and sew in a women's chamois and decide that it's "women's"?  What would happen if we designed everything for women and sold it as "men's" or even "unisex"?  That would provoke a serious crisis.  

Rant provoked by this blog post. If people want to buy cute fake hat helmets and skirts with weird zippers, good for them.  But don't tell me the skirt looks professional.  Don't tell me that not having cute helmets is why women don't ride bikes.  And don't go on and on about how fashionable all the cyclists are in the Netherlands while we goons in the United States are all wearing unsightly spandex.  The cyclists in the Netherlands are wearing normal clothes and riding bikes that accommodate that, making use of extensive cycling infrastructure that works for those bikes.  Spandex is a practical choice if you want to zip around on a road bike, which is a more practical bicycle choice in many parts of the US, and, incidentally, a fun ride.  We practical spandex wearers don't really care how we look in it, and we don't care whether you care.  Get a life, we say, while happily riding our bikes around not getting our clothes stuck in anything or chafing our delicate skin. 

We don't need fancy cutesy hybrid clothes.  We need bikes and infrastructure that work for normal people who wear normal clothes.  And we need good functional cycling clothing for women who ride road bikes.