Neat vs sloppy suzanne britt essay

Neat People vs. Sloppy People

By Suzanne Britt

Sometimes we learn about our vices and virtues best when we are told about them in a

humorous way. This is what Suzanne Britt does in the following essay, as she invites us

to look for ourselves in one of two groups: those who are organized and those who can

only hope to be.

I've finally figured out the difference between neat people and sloppy

people. The distinction is, as always, moral. Neat people are lazier and meaner

than sloppy people.

Sloppy people, you see, are not really sloppy. Their sloppiness is merely

the unfortunate consequence of their extreme moral rectitude.

Sloppy people carry in their mind's eye a heavenly vision, a precise plan, that is so stupendous,

so perfect, it can't be achieved in this world or the next.

Sloppy people live in Never-Never Land.

Someday they are planning to alphabetize all their books and set up home

catalogues. Someday they will go through their wardrobes and mark certain

items for tentative mending and certain items for passing on to relatives of

similar shape and size. Someday sloppy people will make family scrapbooks

into which they will put newspaper clippings, postcards, locks of hair, and

the dried corsage from their senior prom. Someday they will file everything

on the surface of their desks, including the cash receipts from coffee purchases

at the snack shop. Someday they will sit down and read all the back

issues of The New Yorker.

For all these noble reasons and more, sloppy people never get neat. They

aim too high and wide. They save everything, planning someday to file,

order, and straighten out the world. But while these ambitious plans take

clearer and clearer shape in their heads, the books spill from the shelves onto

the floor, the clothes pile up in the hamper and closet, the family mementos

accumulate in every drawer, the surface of the desk is buried under mounds

of paper and the unread magazines threaten to reach the ceiling.

Sloppy people can't bear to part with anything. They give loving attention

to every detail. When sloppy people say they're going to tackle the surface

of the desk, they really mean it. Not a paper will go unturned; not a

rubber band will go unboxed. Four hours or two weeks into the excavation,

the desk looks exactly the same, primarily because the sloppy person is

meticulously creating new piles of papers with new headings and scrupulously

stopping to read all the old book catalogs before he throws them away.

A neat person would just bulldoze the desk.

Neat people are bums and clods at heart. They have cavalier attitudes

toward possessions, including family heirlooms. Everything is just another

dust-catcher to them. If anything collects dust, it's got to go and that's that.

Neat people will toy with the idea of throwing the children out of the house

just to cut down on the clutter.

Neat people don't care about process. They like results. What they want

to do is get the whole thing over with so they can sit down and watch the

“rasslin'” on TV. Neat people operate on two unvarying principles: Never handle

any item twice, and throw everything away.

The only thing messy in a neat person's house is the trash can. The

minute something comes to a neat person's hand, he will look at it, try to

decide if it has immediate use and, finding none, throw it in the trash.

Neat people are especially vicious with mail. They never go through

their mail unless they are standing directly over a trash can. If the trash can

is beside the mailbox, even better. All ads, catalogs, pleas for charitable contributions,

church bulletins and money-saving coupons go straight into the

trash can without being opened. All letters from home, postcards from Europe,

bills and paychecks are opened, immediately responded to, then

dropped in the trash can. Neat people keep their receipts only for tax purposes.

That's it. No sentimental salvaging of birthday cards or the last letter

a dying relative ever wrote. Into the trash it goes.

Neat people place neatness above everything, even economics. They are

incredibly wasteful. Neat people throw away several toys every time they

walk through the den. I knew a neat person once who threw away a perfectly

good dish drainer because it had mold on it. The drainer was too much trouble

to wash. And neat people sell their furniture when they move. They will

sell a La-Z-Boy recliner while you are reclining in it.

Neat people are no good to borrow from. Neat people buy everything in

expensive little single portions. They get their flour and sugar in two-pound

bags. They wouldn't consider clipping a coupon, saving a leftover, reusing

plastic non-dairy whipped cream containers or rinsing off tin foil and draping

it over the unmoldy dish drainer. You can never borrow a neat person's

newspaper to see what's playing at the movies. Neat people have the paper

all wadded up and in the trash by 7:05 A.M.

Neat people cut a clean swath through the organic as well as the inorganic

world. People, animals, and things are all one to them. They are so insensitive.

After they've finished with the pantry, the medicine cabinet, and

the attic, they will throw out the red geranium (too many leaves), sell the

dog (too many fleas), and send the children off to boarding school (too

many scuffmarks on the hardwood floors).

Coca-Cola and Coco Frío On his first visit to Puerto Rico, island of family folklore, the fat boy wandered from table to table with his mouth open. At every table, some great-aunt would steer him with cool spotted hands to a glass of Coca-Cola. One even sang to him, in all the English she could remember, a Coca-Cola jingle from the forties. He drank obediently, though he was bored with this potion, familiar from soda fountains in Brooklyn. Then, at a roadside stand off the beach, the fat boy opened his mouth to coco frío, a coconut chilled, then scalped by a machete so that a straw could inhale the clear milk. The boy tilted the green shell overhead and drooled coconut milk down his chin; suddenly, Puerto Rico was not Coca-Cola or Brooklyn, and neither was he. For years afterward, the boy marveled at an island where the people drank Coca-Cola and sang jingles from World War II in a language they did not speak, while so many coconuts in the trees sagged heavy with milk, swollen and unsuckled.

It's whole new ballgame for veteran coach

The first day of freshman basketball tryouts, I learned that coaching girls is different. I was demonstrating the correct way to set a cross screen. I positioned my legs shoulder-width apart and crossed my hands--fists clenched--over my groin to protect myself from the injury that all men fear.

I paused, confused, understanding from the girls' bewildered looks that something was wrong. The other coach, a 15-year veteran of coaching girls, recognized my rookie mistake and bailed me out. He raised his arms and covered his chest, and I knew that I had entered alien territory.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

I had coached boys basketball for six years before circumstances in the athletic department forced me to switch to "the other side." I looked forward to the challenge in the same way that I had anticipated the move from teaching at an all-boys school to a coed institution five years before.

At the very least, I figured, I would be more likely to get cookies at Christmas and a gift at the awards banquet.

Baiting a feminist friend, I told her that I was excited about the change because I could be more relaxed, less intense, and besides, I wouldn't get any technicals. I just assumed girls didn't take their basketball as seriously as boys. The insinuation hit its mark. She scolded me, saying that girls were just as eager to win and play well as boys. She also suggested I read Madeleine Blais' "In These Girls, Hope Is a Muscle," a book about a girls team's basketball season.

From the book and from my teaching experience, I began the season with certain expectations about coaching girls.

I would need to be more encouraging, less critical. Most boys need a little tearing down before they can be rebuilt on a more solid fundamentals base.

Boys want to be Allen Iverson and inherently assume they know more than their old-school coach, who watched "Hoosiers" one too many times.

Girls, whose experience of playground games and watching the all-stars is often limited, do not start with as many bad habits. I expected they would be more coachable. They wouldn't need their inflated athletic egos broken down, but rather built from the ground up.

Smugly thinking I was prepared, I got a rude awakening with my screen-setting gaffe that first day. Imagine my incredulous stare when a girl trying out, in an attempt to explain why she had thrown up and had to sit out of wind sprints, told me she hadn't run since gym class--the year before.

I was also surprised--and relieved--that we did not have to cut, since only 20 girls stuck out the trials for the two teams. With boys, two or three times as many students usually came out for the teams as could be taken.

I immediately noted differences in the early practices. Girls' attention to directions was far superior to the boys, most of whom found it physically impossible not to be distracted by any movement anywhere in the gym.

Whereas the boys generally either went deadpan or shot me the evil "how dare you" death stare when I corrected their play, the girls often sincerely apologized for any mistake. My stereotypically gawky center, when told not to leave her feet on defense, said, "I know. I'm sorry. I'm terrible."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

Embarrassed, I tripped out a halting reassurance. I tried to build up her confidence by calling her "the rebound machine," but she just thought I was goofy.

Strangest of all, they actually wanted to talk to me and the other coach, something teenage boys found equivalent to having their nose hairs, if they had any, individually plucked out in front of an audience of teenage girls.

The girls came running up before practice to tell us about their classes, about who said what at lunch, about who had spilled perfume on her uniform. Uncomfortable after years of boys slinking away into corners, I usually responded, "Stretch out."

Before the first game, I realized that some of their silliness was simply due to their age, not their sex. In the pregame huddle, the other coach said we needed to play hard or go home with a big L. One of the girls asked if everyone would have to take the "L" home instead of the bus if we lost.

During the game, one player attempted to high-five a referee after making a shot.

But it was more than their tender age. While I was giving a post-game speech, one player interrupted and said, "Those are the coolest sweatpants. They zip all the way down." When my grandfather died, the whole team signed a condolence card with individual attempts to comfort me. Another time, returning from a late game, when the bus broke down on the highway in 15-degree weather, one player cut the tension with, "Coach, want a chocolate-chip cookie? I made them."

I began to observe that the team split into two groups: the hard, aggressive players and the softer, nice players. One side had girls who would steal a ball from their teammates in order to shoot. The other side had girls who apologized to their defenders if they scored. Some would crash the boards and clear out space with vicious elbows, and others would avoid any chance of injury or even breaking a sweat.

The aggressive group rolled their eyes at the limp-wristed run of one girl they called "the dancer" or "Basketball Barbie." The timid girls rolled their eyes and called our best shooter a "ball hog."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

After six wins and a growing gulf between the cliques, we experienced our first loss. Actually, we got blown out by 35 points. We could barely get the ball down the court. A coach learns all he needs to know about his team by how they react to a loss.

My team began to motivate each other in practice. They started to pull for each other. Best of all, the gap between the groups of player types began to slowly close. In time, we were a single unit again.

And I was swept up in the intensity of their effort. I don't know exactly when it began, but it was cemented when I was called for a technical foul in a Christmas tournament game.

Whereas boys' freshman coaches tend to be overly passionate, like myself, sporting buzz cuts and angry demeanors, girls' coaches usually were more welcoming. One informed us that her name was Poppy, offered our team bagels and Gatorade, and said, "We're all about fun here."

It was all I could do to refrain from saying, "We're all about kicking your butt."

Fast forward to the conference championship game, where we faced the same team that had blown us out by 35 earlier in the season. Since then, this powerhouse had won every game, none by fewer than 20 points. Not intimidated this time, our girls played them even for a quarter.

When the opponent went on a second-quarter run, I impolitely objected to an over-the-back foul and was hit with another technical. Shocked, I realized that I had been given more technicals in a single season of coaching girls than I ever had as a boys' coach. My feminist friend would be proud.

The team responded. The collective jaw of the bench dropped to the hardwood when "Basketball Barbie" hit a shot, slapped the floor and yelled, "C'mon, girls, let's play some defense." I couldn't have been more pleased if it had been my own daughter.

No, it didn't lead to a win, but we never gave up either, clawing to a nine-point loss and the bittersweet distinction of holding that team to their narrowest margin of victory all season.

Even in defeat, the girls had come a long way in their separate challenges. Some had overcome a natural timidity by learning to play aggressively, and others had learned to trust their team. My lesson? New depths to the same game I've always loved.

Childhood Has Changed!!
There's no question that parenting and childhood has changed over the last 80 years! But has it changed for the better? ..or do you think it's changed for the worse? Seems everyone has opinions.. teachers, doctors, theologians, politicians, the so-called experts, and of course, today's parents, most of whom believe, or at least hope that they are doing it right. But shouldn't we ponder the question.. if our children had the intellect, what would their opinions be? I wonder.

Since we each have only our own childhoods as actual evidence for our opinions, it seems the debate could go on & on. After all, even siblings, that is, children raised in the same families, and by the same parents, will remember their childhood eventsdifferently. This of course, is because we each view & absorb life experiences differently..

The Great Depression

Pearl Harbor

Childhood During The 1930's & 40's
Most children during these times suffered poverty, deprivation, and fear to an extent that no American child has suffered since. Effects of the Great Depression & War in Europe were their reality, and topics of nearly every adult conversation they overheard & absorbed. By the end of the 30's & early 40's.. the depression not yet ended, the war in Europe still reality, and Japan declares war on America with an attack on Pearl Harbor. Small children were left at home with older siblings as more Moms went to work, and many Dads and older brothers served the military. By 1946 the economy had improved, the war had ended, and young couples started their families.. with vows that their children would not suffer the childhoods that they had; their children would have more.. today we refer to their children as the 'baby boomers'.

Sit on it, Fonzie!

During the 50's
Effects of the Korean war were felt only slightly by children of the 50's, and these were happier times than children had experienced in two decades. Most Moms were home, and those that worked outside the home were often considered poor mothers, even if their incomes were needed, or their careers were admirable. Most children of working Moms were what we now term 'latchkey' kids, and daycare centers as we know them today were virtually non-existent.. But outside of skinned knees, etc., children could play outdoors from dawn till dusk, and walk to & from school with little concern for their safety. Though there were underlying political problems during the 50's, most children were unaware of it, and enjoyed childhoods free of concern for adult related issues. By the end of the 50's most homes had a TV, a telephone, and a vehicle, all of which were controlled by parents. Teens were enjoying more freedom which they exploited freely via rock & roll, etc., though sex education was minimal..

Childhood During the 60's & 70's
These were eras of great social change & ambiguity, and I believe the initiation of modern day childhood.. The late 50's and early 60's found Moms working to help families acquire 2nd cars, better vacations, bigger, nicer homes, more TV's, and more gadgets, etc. People were discouraged by the loss of a President & onset of what was to become a seemingly never-ending political conflict in Viet Nam. Attitudes about life in general took on more negativity as our military began arriving home with serious injuries, illnesses, and death. Alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, war protests & general crime rates increased... By the end of the 70's as many as 50% of Moms worked outside the home, and many now worked for actual living expenses due to the increasing cost of living, and also due to divorce rates which had increased by more than 50%. Childcare was still often provided by friends, neighbors, and relatives, though childcare centers began popping up in many cities. Parents became more alert to growing crime rates, and while most children could still play in their own neighborhoods with relative safety.. caution became more prevalent, and children of these eras were forced to become more aware of personal safety issues.

The 80's ~ Americas 'Me' Generation
The number of single parent households grew by leaps and bounds during this time, as the popular consideration of the 80's was to prioritize ones self... thus these were the adults of the 'ME & MINE are all that matters' generation. Crime rates had more than quadrupled since 1960, but fortunately began to gradually drop as we approached the 90's. Childhood during the 80's involved long days of childcare center experiences, and very little 'family' life for many kids, as more and more parents worked outside the home..

the 90's
By the 90's even more children were sequestered to their homes & daycare centers due to both parents working outside the home, and escalating safety issues involving more than just their own neighborhoods. Due to lack of exercise, improper nutrition, and unresolved emotional issues, childhood obesity, sexual promiscuity & drug abuse were nearly epidemic. By age 12, many children had already experimented with drugs, alcohol, sex, and often some gang & crime related situations. Modern society changes, family devaluation, and resulting divorce rates had produced nearly two generations of children, most of whom were not raised in the same home with both biological parents, and spent most of their childhoods bouncing between homes of their divorced parents.. never actually actually developing any family values, or sprouting 'roots' of their own .

Most parents worked outside the home, and though their efforts were admirable, time allowed for barely more than adequate parenting. As they scrambled to deal with mounting personal and/or marital strife, debts, and job related stress & commitments, the term 'quality time' became the latest justification for modern American parental inadequacies..

21st Century Reality

21st Century: the 1st Decade, and Beyond?
'Quality time' continued to be the accepted excusal from providing children with the daily emotional and physical requirements that all children need and deserve from their parents. Early 21st century kids manage more on their own than not. Many small children are now being raised, or at least cared for by aging grandparents, while just as many are spending their days in 'institution-like' daycares. Latchkey kids are numerous, and countless numbers of teens manage on their own, while parents spend their days in the workplace, or looking for work in effort to avoid homelessness... These kids are subjected to high stress levels and fear due to the terror of the 9/11/01 attack, as well as the insecurity of recessionary years. Actual parenting was pushed yet further to the backseat, as parents struggled to hang on to jobs and homes. These were the children of the beginning of the ultra high-tech era. Fast & cheap foods were regular staples of many American children.. Childhood afflictions multiplied by staggering numbers. Today, odds of an American child being diagnosed with autism, for example, are now 1 in 91. Where TV was the culprit 'babysitter' of previous eras.. 21st century kids are also inundated with computers, video games, cell phones, iPads, iPods, and countless other modern gadgets, in addition to TV. American neighborhoods are clearly unsafe for child play, and for many, exposure to outdoor exercise is limited to that offered by the school systems.. which has led to near epidemic numbers of childhood obesity.. The now exorbitant cost of health care and so-called higher education is leaving countless children with no medical care, and no more than high school educations. Good health and aspirations of quality careers are now non-existent for 1000's upon 1000's of American young people.

Is it just me, or does it seem the 21st century hasn't been very kind to our kids so far?

Wasn't Perfect Then, but Far from Perfect Now.....
So ..it doesn't appear that the experience of childhood has improved over the decades, does it? In fact, it appears to have suffered extreme deterioration. Do you think todays' children are better off than yesterdays' children? Do they truly have brighter futures than yesterdays' kids? Is it possible that, at least in some areas, our grandparents and great grandparents just might have had their priorities in better, smarter, kinder, and more loving places than we do? Has childhood itself been devalued to the same degree as parenting and marriage has? ..and if so, then why would anyone have children in the first place?

Though we've grown, learned, and acquired so much over the years, it seems we have become a society that likens to a monster in the dark of night, lurking under the bed of a small child ..and sadly, today, in the 21st century.. it seems parents are either too preoccupied, or too overwhelmed to chase the monsters away..

It appears the kids are losing.. and since they are the future.. seems the future's not looking too bright..

Week 5 Comparison – Contrast Responses

Top of Form

“Neat People vs. Sloppy People” by Suzanne Britt

1. What explanation does Suzanne Britt give for a sloppy person's behavior? Do you agree with her?

2. In paragraph 3, what examples does the writer list as projects the sloppy person plans to do? Do these plans seem admirable?

3. After taking a look at the links on the Comparison-Contrast in Lectures and Required Resources, can you determine if the author uses subject by subject method or the point-by-point (alternating) method to contrast sloppy people with neat people?

"It's a Whole New Ballgame for Veteran Coach" by Brendan O' Shaughnessy

1. Do you feel this recollection is demeaning or complimentary to female athletes?

2. What is REALLY saying about the male and female approach to sports? What does he gain and what does he lose from both experiences?

"Coca-Cola and Coco Frio" by Martin Espada

1. In what ways are the two drinks similar?

2. What is Espada trying to reveal in this comparison?

3. What is his discovery in comparing both drinks?

“Childhood, Then & Now” by G.L.A

1. Which era do you think was/is the most challenging for children? Which do you think was the most pleasant and rewarding?

2. If you could, which era would you like to experience, and why?