Don’t Commit To Things If You Can’t Give 100%

Don’t Commit To Things If You Can’t Give 100%

Sometimes excuses are just poor planning.
168
views

Being in college, I completely understand that people are busy. I, too, am involved in a variety of activities and have to budget my time throughout the week in order to make sure that I am on top of all of my work. I am very wary of how my responsibilities and the things that I am apart of affecting me and my schedule. With that being said, I am also very aware of how the things I sign onto effect those also involved in the same activities.

I think sometimes people forget the impact their decisions and actions have on those around them.

If you choose to commit to something, other people are relying on and you have to honor that.

What often ends up happening is people think that quitting things on the basis of personal benefit is justified because they are doing what they feel will help them in the long run. However, while that train of thought makes sense in their head, it comes off and is incredibly selfish towards the organization you are ditching.

There is no “I” in “team” and if you want to only think about how things affect you, do not join organizations where your role affects other people. Because in the end, when you decide you want to quit, you have now left a whole group of people not only frustrated because they have to figure out how to work with what they have left, but also not wanting to want to work with you again in the future.

With that being said, creating bad relations with organizations can all be avoided by learning how to properly plan. Planning properly means laying out all your responsibilities and figuring out how much time each of these things is going to consume.

Next, you want to prioritize all your different responsibilities and figure out if you can logically dedicate your time to everything you want to be able to do. The key word in the last sentence is “want” because although you may want to be involved in many things, it is important to recognize that getting involved in too many different things can cause you to be less committed to all of them. Further, it’s okay to say no to different opportunities and commitments that come up because the people you are turning down would be more understanding with you being upfront and honest, rather than leading them on and eventually quitting.

I would like to mention that when unexpected events or emergencies come up, it’s understandable if you cannot commit because it is not your fault that those events came up unexpectedly. However, for things that can and should be planned for ahead of time, there is no excuse for quitting midway. I think this is a lesson that many college students need to learn because although we all have our own personal agendas, as people we are often apart of organizations that are bigger than ourselves. Being selfish just doesn’t work in those situations and if that is your mentality, then perhaps you shouldn’t have join the team in the first place.

Cover Image Credit: EveryPixel.com

Popular Right Now

As A Victim Of Sexual Abuse, Painting '#MeToo' On A WWII Statue Is Taking The Movement TOO Far

There is a line you should never cross and that is it.

1639
views

The famous picture of the sailor kissing a woman was taken right on V-J Day, when Japan surrendered to the U.S. in World War II. For decades it was seen as a representation of how excited and relieved everyone was at the end of the war.

The picture touched the hearts of thousands as you could feel the overwhelming amounts of joy that came from the snap of the camera. While the woman in the picture died back in 2016 due to a struggle with pneumonia, the sailor just recently died on Feb. 17, 2019 at the age of 95.

Most people saw it as both a heartbreak and heartwarming that the couple that was once photographed were now together.

Other people saw differently.

There is a statue made of the picture that resides in Sarasota, Florida. Police found early Tuesday morning of Feb. 19, two days after the sailor's death, that someone had spray-painted #MeToo on the statue's leg in bright red.

As a woman, I strongly encourage those who have been sexually assaulted/abused in any way shape or form, to voice themselves in the best way they can. To have the opportunity to voice what they went through without being afraid. As a woman who has also been a victim of sexual assault and has been quiet for many years...

This act of vandalism makes me sick.

While the woman that was kissed by the sailor was purely kissed on impulse, she had stated in an interview with 'The New York Times' that, "It wasn't a romantic event. It was just an event of 'thank God the war is over.'"

People were celebrating and, as a sailor, that man was so over the moon about the war being over that he found the nearest woman to celebrate with.

While I don't condone that situation, I understand both the reason behind it as well as the meaning behind the photo. I understand that, while it wasn't an intended kiss, it was a way of showcasing relief. To stick #MeToo on a statue of a representation of freedom is not the right way to bring awareness of sexual abuse.

It gives those the wrong idea of why the #MeToo movement was started. It started as a way for victims of sexual abuse to share their stories. To share with the world that they are not alone.

It helped me realize I wasn't alone.

But the movement, soon after it started, became a fad that turned wrong. People were using it in the wrong context and started using it negatively instead of as an outlet for women and men to share their horrific experiences of sexual assault.

That statue has been up for years. To wait until the sailor passed away was not only rude but entirely disrespectful. The family of that sailor is currently in mourning. On top of it, it's taking away from the meaning behind the photo/statue. World War II was one of the darkest, scariest events in — not just our American history — but the world's as well.

Sexual abuse is a touchy matter, I encourage everyone to stand up for what's right. But to vandalize a statue of one of the most relieving days in America's history is an act that was unnecessary and doesn't get the point of #MeToo across in the way it should. If anything, it's giving people a reason not to listen. To protest and bring attention to something, you want to gather the right attention.

This was not gathering the right attention.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Trump Hasn't Nicknamed Pelosi or AOC. What's The Deal?

These two women aren't receiving the usual treatment and it begs the question: why?

29
views

Our Commander in Chief has been known to give out derogatory nicknames to those in the capital that he doesn't like very much. EG: "Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren, "Crooked" Hillary. I mean, for goodness sake's, there's a Wikipedia article with a comprehensive list of Trump's mean nicknames and who they belong to.

While Wikipedia does include names used on Nancy Pelosi, all of the nicknames still include her own name, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't even make the list. While the internet has adoringly dubbed her AOC, Trump himself hasn't felt the urge to demean her with a nickname.

So, what gives? Why do Pelosi and AOC get spared the derogatory nickname?

(Also, remember that in no way is this normal.)

I may be making a giant assumption, but it seems to be, that Trump's nicknames are meant to demean and belittle the receivers of them. So, by giving both Bernie and Hillary nicknames during the course of the election, he associated them with those traits and demeaned them in the public eye.

Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren't people that Trump can easily belittle. The reasons for why are varied and speculative, but it seems that Trump has found these to be more difficult to harass in front of the public. It could be because of mass public support for them, but Bernie Sanders and Hilary were both moderately popular in the eyes of the media and general citizenship.

In my mind, that narrows it down to two things. Either Trump does not view Pelosi or AOC as threats, or... he is afraid to nickname them.

It seems insane that Trump would not view the two as a threat, given their very public statements regarding his policies. Pelosi and Cortez are threats, but big enough ones that Trump is afraid of their retaliation in the political scheme, and therefore, it's too dangerous to give them nicknames.

But now we can see through him. If he can't demean these two strong women for his own political gain, what can he do?

Related Content

Facebook Comments