Southwest-AirTran Dispatcher Seniority Update

Posted on by

Last week an arbitrator issued his ruling on the Southwest-AirTran dispatcher seniority list integration (SLI) case. He sided with our union and awarded us four extra years of seniority when we merge our seniority lists. This decision has implications for most dispatchers at each company, some good and some bad. For those who are interested, here are some details.

Background

The SWA dispatcher seniority list, counting all specialty positions and managers, has about 200 people, compared to about 45 for AirTran. Ideally, the two unions would negotiate an SLI agreement instead of going to arbitration. The SWA and AirTran pilots already did so successfully. If I understand correctly (I wasn’t involved), since both unions are under the Transportation Workers Union (TWU) umbrella, the AirTran union thought the only acceptable way to integrate the seniority lists per TWU bylaws was by date-of-hire into the dispatch office. In other words, if you were hired at AirTran before I was hired at Southwest, you’re senior to me. Our union countered that the AirTran dispatchers would be getting a much better contract (higher pay, better benefits, etc.) and more opportunity at a larger company, and the SWA folks should get something from the merger as well. Otherwise, it would be a huge windfall for AirTran with zero direct benefit to SWA. We tried to negotiate, but the AirTran union immediately filed for binding arbitration, thinking they had a strong case based on TWU documentation. Thus the decision fell to the arbitrator. At the hearing in February, AirTran proposed date-of-hire, and SWA proposed adding four years to all SWA dispatchers’ seniority. He decided the latter was the fairer outcome.

Impact for Me

Compared to using date-of-hire, the arbitrator’s decision bumped me above six AirTran dispatchers. Now twelve of them will come in above me instead of eighteen. That’s certainly nice, but on a combined list of 200 working dispatchers, those six spots won’t make a huge difference to me right now. However, the overall impact of merging with AirTran does make a significant difference as the majority of AirTran dispatchers will come in below me on the list.

Right now, I’m at the 65th percentile among SWA dispatchers. When we bid for our schedules each summer, I can have any start time except the morning shifts, which go to the top half of the list. If all the AirTran dispatchers make the move (more on that later), and no one retires from Southwest before the merger is complete, I’ll be in the 56th percentile. So overall the merger bumps me up by about ten percent. This will make it a bit easier to get overtime and give me slightly better pick of vacation days, but for now that’s about it.

Impact for Coworkers

The integration plan will have a much bigger impact on my coworkers, especially the junior people and my new friends at AirTran. As you’ve surely figured out already, the four-year boost for our side is a huge help to the junior SWA dispatchers. Except for the group we hired last summer, all of them move up by 10-15 percent. Perhaps most significantly, about 17 of them move off reserve status, which means they can finally have a consistent, predictable schedule with a set rotation of days on and days off and a fixed start time. Reserves don’t know their schedules until about three months out and might work a combination of days, afternoons, and midnights with days off scattered throughout the month. Their schedules get especially messy and busy during the summer and around holidays. It’s a good day when you finally climb high enough in the list to get off reserve.

Unfortunately, what’s good for the SWA people is bad for the AirTran people. The majority of the AirTran dispatchers will be on reserve status. Some were off reserve status at AirTran but will get stuck with it again once they come over to Dallas. Also, because they’ll be less senior overall, they’re more likely to get afternoons and/or midnights, which might be very difficult if they’ve been on day shift at AirTran and have a family situation that requires day shift to work well. Since they’re already being forced to uproot their lives in Orlando and move halfway across the country, the seniority snub is extra salt in the wound. A few had decided to leave AirTran before the SLI decision for various reasons. It’s possible that others might decide not to make the move. I feel badly for them. They didn’t ask for their company to be bought. Now they must choose between moving to Dallas with a loss of seniority or starting over somewhere else.

Let me be very clear that I am excited about the merger for a variety of reasons. In addition to the benefits to Southwest as a company (Atlanta, international ops, more airplanes, etc.), every AirTran dispatcher I’ve encountered has been a pleasure – bright, hardworking, personable, and great to work with. If all of their dispatchers are like the ones I’ve met, they will be a tremendous asset to our company, and I look forward to meeting more of them toward the end of this year or sometime next year when they start to come over.

Civility is Hard

Posted on by

A friend, whom we’ll call Andrea, posted a political graphic on Facebook yesterday with a rhetorical question. A friend of hers (“Debbie”) posted a comment mildly but politely disagreeing with her. Andrea and her husband both politely responded to explain their shared position. Debbie was highly offended and told her husband, who felt the need to jump in and fire back. A comment war ensued along with a few private messages between the ladies. When the dust settled, Debbie, her husband, and another of Andrea’s friends had unfriended Andrea on Facebook, and I’m not sure how much contact they will have in the future. Andrea and Debbie had been in a home group together previously and been fairly good friends until yesterday.

Three relationships were broken by one side’s inability to disagree with civility. What a waste.

Secrets Come Out

One of the blessings and curses of the Internet is its profound ability to connect us to others, particularly through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogging. As many others have found, I both learn things about others and share things with others that would probably never occur without the Internet. In person, we’re not supposed to discuss the Forbidden Topics of religion and politics, but it seems to be more acceptable online. Without Facebook, I would have no idea that my friend Susanna is a libertarian, Amber is a tree-hugger, Geri and Michelle are staunch conservatives, or Brad is a universalist. Most of you probably wouldn’t know that I’m a pacifist left-leaning Democrat without reading my blog. Knowing people’s perspectives on various issues tends to draw you toward people you agree with and to put up walls between you and people you disagree with. That’s not necessarily good, but it’s human nature, and our polarized American culture seems to amplify that basic tendency.

For example, Patrick and I were acquaintances at Baylor and hadn’t been in touch for many years. But when I saw he was a Christian leftie like me, I suddenly felt a connection with him, perhaps because very few of my people fit that description and I was thrilled to find a kindred spirit. (It can be a bit lonely being a liberal Christian Democrat surrounded by conservative Republicans here in north Texas.) So reconnecting with him was a pleasant surprise and benefit of my Facebook account. But on the flip side, when I got a negative comment from an old friend who turned out to be a pretty critical conservative Republican, I couldn’t help but feel defensive and a bit hurt. I restrained myself from responding in anger, but from that point on, I looked at her differently. I hated to change my perspective on her based on something so inconsequential, but I couldn’t help it. She was now Other, one of Them. Blame me, blame MSNBC and Fox News, blame whomever you like, but things changed a bit between us. I didn’t like it. Perhaps when it comes to the Forbidden Topics, ignorance is bliss?

The Filter is Off

Since online interaction involves more distant clicking and typing rather than more intimate voice conversations, it also gives us the courage to say things to each other that we would never say out loud. It’s worst when people can comment anonymously. Check the comments section of any online video, blog, photo, or article for a quick lesson in how ugly people can be when they hide behind a screen name.

Even when using our own names, it’s scarily easy to turn off our filters and say whatever is on our mind without worrying about how other people will take it. That’s actually one reason I blog. I can say things here that I would never volunteer in person, things I really want to say but lack the courage, initiative, or opportunity to share face-to-face, such as “Hi, I’m Andy, and I believe in climate change and an old earth, question a literal hell, and voted for Obama! Nice to meet you!”

That freedom is tremendously liberating, but it can be dangerous as well. It’s so easy to type venom to someone and hit Send when the same words would catch in my throat if spoken aloud. I try not to say hurtful things online, especially to my friends. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cooked up a juicy response to someone, probably rehearsed a few times in my head or even out loud, and then chosen to cool down instead. Most of the time, the temporary satisfaction couldn’t possibly be worth the aftermath.

Do You Understand the Words That Are Coming Out of My Mouth?

Saying what we want online can also cause unintentional problems when people misunderstand what we’re saying. Text communication eliminates many important elements of our interactions that convey meaning, such as the tone of our voice, body language, and inflection. I suspect that part of the problem in the Andrea-Debbie situation was a misunderstanding. Debbie and her husband “heard” things from Andrea and her husband that offended them, even though no offense was intended. Andrea and her husband wanted to have a mature, logical discussion on a serious topic. Debbie and her husband felt attacked when faced with a differing opinion, picked up their ball, and went home.

Agreeing to Disagree

Unless we want to live without the Internet, or we only post the blandest possible status updates or pictures that have no possibility of offending anyone in any way, we must figure out a way to interact online with some degree of civility. Common courtesy isn’t just for face-to-face conversations. We must treat each other with respect whether the other person reciprocates or not. We must also think about how our text-based message comes across to other people, particularly when many different people are reading what we write and some are less familiar with our writing style and maybe don’t detect our sarcasm. Finally, we must find a way to disagree without being disagreeable, as Bernard Meltzer said so elegantly.

It’s tempting in our culture to label and demonize the other side. You’ve no doubt heard and maybe done this yourself. Obama is a socialist. Bush is an idiot. Climate change scientists are frauds. Social conservatives are fascists. Feminists who think birth control should be covered by insurance are sluts. Creationists are narrowminded fools. Journalists are liberals. A guy with a white-sounding name named Zimmerman who shoots a black teenager is a racist. Such labels are convenient, pervasive, and make for good soundbites, but they rarely lead to productive dialog and serve primarily to boost ratings and cultivate hatred. I struggle with this issue myself, but I’m trying to fight it. We all must fight it if we’re going to get along.

Yes, being civil is hard, especially online when it’s so easy to be rude or mean. But I know it’s possible. I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised at how civil people have been with me here and on Facebook, even when they’ve disagreed with me on various issues. Many thanks to all of you for your kindness. I wish that our society overall could be as gracious with each other as you have been with me.

If you don’t like what someone has to say, either respond politely or ignore it. If you’re not mature enough to let people disagree with you without defriending them, spouting off in anger, or trying to bully them into submission, stay off the Internet. (please!)

My Next Adventure

Posted on by

This October, I plan to turn 34 years old. What better way to celebrate than by running through the gorgeous woods of East Texas? I’ve signed up for Whispering Pines Trail Run, a 25k (15.5 mile) run through beautiful Tyler State Park on October 13. This race is awesome because:

  • It’s a long trail run in East Texas in October!
  • It’s cup-free, meaning each runner needs to bring a water bottle or pouch so we don’t trash the park with thousands of ugly water cups.
  • It’s cheap for a race like this.
  • The organizers are really enthusiastic and eco-friendly.
  • The official shirt is bamboo and organic cotton.

Jenny and I will spend the weekend in the Tyler area and might visit some wineries or try something cultural after the race. Whatever we do, it will not involve much walking.

The only true trail races I’ve done were 5k, and this one will be even farther than my half marathon. It will definitely test my limits. But I think I can make it if I slow down and walk more, especially with six months to train. This race will be more about the experience than about going fast.

The Following Movie is Rated R

Posted on by

In the 2006 documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, a filmmaker explores the mysterious and frustrating work of the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings board. Its members are the ones who assign films a rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17 based on their suitability for minors. The film itself was just OK. My favorite parts involved analyzing and comparing clips from various films and hearing from directors who fought with the MPAA over ratings. While he made some valid points about several different aspects of the rating system and process, the filmmaker focused too heavily on the anonymity of the board, devoting a large chunk of the movie to the private investigators he hired to follow and identify its members. To me, the more interesting questions involve the actual content that produces each rating and what the ratings system says about American values and culture.

The Ratings

If you’ve seen many movies, you probably have a decent idea of how the ratings work even if you haven’t thought much about it. The MPAA claims that its ratings board is made of ordinary parents who make decisions based on how they think a majority of American parents would rate each film. The MPAA website offers a decent explanation of the standards it claims to apply when rating a film. Here’s a brief summary:

  • G – Nothing offensive, safe for all ages
  • PG – Mild language, violence, maternal or tribal nudity, situations that might produce some awkward questions from children
  • PG-13 – More colorful language (including one F-bomb in a certain context), non-gory violence, more extensive nudity in a nonsexual context, some sexual situations, some alcohol and drug use
  • R – More than 1 F-bomb, pervasive profanity, extensive and/or bloody violence, sexual nudity, any full-frontal nudity, hardcore drug use
  • NC-17 – Anything “appropriate only for an adult audience”, but in practice, mainly extreme violence or explicit sex

The higher a film is rated, the smaller its potential audience becomes. Obviously, an R-rated film severely limits the under-17 audience, although it might also attract a somewhat larger adult audience who finds the adult content appealing. On the other hand, an NC-17 is the kiss of death from a revenue perspective. Very few theaters, rental companies, or retailers are willing to carry such films, so an NC-17 must be low-budget or is almost guaranteed to lose money. Filmmakers seeking to reach their audience must walk a difficult line between expressing themselves and paying the bills.

What Does It Mean?!?

Although the ratings system does give parents a general idea of a film’s content, I’m sure you can see from the descriptions how subjective the ratings must be. For instance, how much blood and gore does it take to push a film from PG-13 to R, or from R to NC-17? Is there a body count threshold? Does a character smoking a joint demand an R for the film, or would a PG-13 suffice if the scene is short? What about a line of cocaine? How many curse words that don’t start with F can the director include while maintaining a PG-13? How explicit can a sex scene be in an R-rated film?

The documentary featured interviews with several directors whose films had been slapped with NC-17 ratings initially. Some edited their films down to an R rating, while others refused and released their films with the NC-17 or unrated. This segment made some fascinating points about how the ratings board treats certain types of sex, nudity, and violence differently from others. I won’t explore those in detail here. (you’re welcome, Lisa!) They were highly frustrated with the lack of firm standards and clear guidance from the ratings board, subjectivity of the rating, and seemingly unfair treatment their films received compared to other films.

I wholeheartedly agree with the directors on these issues. As someone who considered screenwriting as a profession, I think filmmakers need much clearer standards for what constitutes each rating so they’ll know what to expect. As a parent, I want more specific information regarding what’s in a PG film or an R film. In recent years, we’ve seen details included with the rating box, which is helpful. But we’re still a long way from having clear standards regarding content.

American vs. European Ratings

For me, the most interesting point involved the differences between the American perspective and the European perspective on film content. In America, we tolerate huge amounts of violence and gore and hardly blink an eye. They are in our movies, video games, TV shows, and music. Primetime hit show CSI regularly shows graphic crime scenes and re-enactments. The documentary pointed out that James Bond, through his dozens of movies, had killed countless people, yet no Bond film had ever exceeded a PG-13 rating. Killing people is OK from a ratings perspective as long as the deaths aren’t too bloody. Except in very extreme cases, even gory death, dismemberment, war, torture, and other horrible sights only warrant an R in America. Even in many PG movies, violence is perfectly acceptable in film, even though in reality most of us rarely experience violence. However, sex and nudity quickly escalate a film’s rating even though both are completely normal and natural parts of life. A killer can hack people apart with a machete and spray blood over the camera in an R-rated horror film, but show too many private parts or a too-steamy sex scene and the film will get the dreaded NC-17 and go straight to video unless it’s edited.

In Europe and Australia, the perspective is flipped, according to the documentary. Sex and nudity in films and TV are considered less offensive and less “scary” for children because they are seen as normal parts of life. It’s graphic violence that gets their raters worked up because they seen it as harmful to society. They consider us prudes regarding sex and the human body and uncivilized brutes regarding violence. I haven’t been able to verify the filmmaker’s claims on the topic, but they seem reasonable to me given my understanding of the cultures involved. I’m also not surprised to find a greater incidence of violence in an American culture that glorifies violence, nor a greater incidence of teenage pregnancy, STDs, and body image disorders in an American culture that both stigmatizes and obsesses over sex and nudity.

Parenting After Sesame Street

As a parent of young boys, I don’t need to think about film ratings much…yet, but I can certainly see their value. I don’t necessarily want to screen everything they watch before they can see it, so a rating gives me a decent place to start when deciding whether something is appropriate. However, I don’t want to blindly trust the ratings board, either, as I don’t agree with all of its decisions. Receiving a PG or PG-13 doesn’t guarantee that my kids are ready to handle the content of a given film or that it sends the messages that I want them to hear. I’m not advocating censorship by any means, merely wanting to make an informed decision. Plus, I have an annoying little voice that reminds me how much I whined to my mom as a kid when she sometimes limited what I could watch or listen to. (how dare she!!) The voice says I’m a hypocrite for planning to limit what my kids can see. The voice is right, and I’m not very comfortable playing the role of censor for my kids. Bottom line, I’m happy to postpone those types of decisions because I’m not sure how to make them quite yet. When I am forced to make them, I’ll seek out better information than what we find from the MPAA ratings board.

What are your thoughts on our current film rating system? If you’re a parent, how much do you rely on content ratings when deciding what films, TV shows, and video games your children can see?

Pace Yourself

Posted on by

Ninety percent of this game is half-mental. – Yogi Berra

I never had much interest in NASCAR. Someone said NASCAR can be boiled down to four words: “Go fast. Turn left.” From what I could tell from intermittent glimpses at the TV, that was an accurate assessment. But then a NASCAR fan tried to explain what’s going on behind the scenes – the timing of pit stops, which maintenance to perform during each stop and the tradeoffs involved, the strategy of pacing oneself and managing the race well, how to make a move at the right time. Finally, I could understand the appeal. There’s a lot more to racing than keeping the gas pedal down for hundreds of laps.

Running races is very similar. To a non-runner, it might seem that racing is simply putting one foot in front of the other as fast as possible. However, as with NASCAR, there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes, largely in the runner’s head. Prior to the race, the runner develops a race plan that includes prep before the race, getting there, the race itself, and recovery. Pacing is one of the most important elements of the plan. It’s also one of the hardest to master.

Cruise Control

As far as I understand, a race car can run at full speed until it runs out of gas or its engine overheats. The human body doesn’t work that way. We can only truly run at full speed for a short distance, perhaps 100-200 meters. That’s why the 100 meter dash is the shortest and most prestigious running event and the male winner is known as the World’s Fastest Man. Currently that man is Usain Bolt, who averaged 23.4 mph during his record-setting sprint. That’s insane. I can’t maintain that speed on my bike without a tailwind or a downhill slope.

However, past about 200 meters, the human body can’t maintain that speed. The longer the distance, the slower a runner’s best possible speed must be over that distance. So a runner has two choices:

  1. Run as fast as possible for as long as possible (max effort available at that moment, which declines over time)
  2. Run the fastest speed that is sustainable over the full distance

Option 2 is actually faster than Option 1. If a runner starts at full speed, he’ll run out of juice and slow down considerably in the latter part of the race, producing a slower overall time compared to a consistent, fast pace. The elite runners generally run a very consistent pace from lap to lap and mile to mile, like they’re on cruise control. Ideally, they may even get faster as the race progresses, an achievement known as negative splits, the sign of a disciplined runner.

However, if a runner starts too slowly, he can cost himself some time because he won’t be able to go fast enough toward the end to catch up to his ideal overall pace. For instance, suppose his target pace is 8:00 min/mile for a 6.2 mile race (just under 50 minutes total). He plays it safe and runs the first four miles at 9:00 min/mile. He’ll have to run the final 2.2 miles at 6:21 min/mile, a pace that he probably can’t sustain.

Racers need to leave something in the tank for the end of the race, but not so much that anything is left at the end if they want to achieve their best possible time. They need to burn their last bit of useful energy as they cross the finish line. It’s a delicate balancing act.

The Sweet Spot

To get there, when training for a race of a given distance, the runner must estimate how fast he can realistically go and what his target pace is for that particular race. That’s one reason runners log so many miles and try so many different speeds. Finding the sweet spot takes some trial and error. If he starts out too fast, even just a bit too fast rather than full speed, he’ll wear out before the race is over and slow down to well over his target pace, resulting in a disappointing finish. This is a common mistake that I still commit myself.

In addition to knowing his body, it helps to know about other factors that will affect his pace on race day:

  • Course – Is it hilly or flat? Paved or trail? A flat, paved course is significantly faster than a hilly, dirt trail where footing is unpredictable.
  • Weather – What will be the temperature when the race starts and ends? Cool weather is best for running. Above 65 degrees, the body becomes less efficient at cooling itself off. I slow down noticeably above 70-75 degrees compared to 40-50. Will it be windy? A headwind can slow the runner down more than a tailwind speeds him up. Will it rain? Wet courses require a slower pace due to the poor footing. No one wants to leave the race with a broken ankle.
  • Other Racers – A popular, crowded race means more runners to dodge and a slower pace, especially at first before the runners spread out. Small races are best for setting personal best times.
  • Aid Stations – Does he plan to stop for water, electrolyte drinks, and/or snacks? Or can he carry what he needs? Obviously, any stops increase the time. I try to carry my water and any gels with me so I don’t need to stop.

On top of all these factors, the excitement and adrenaline of race day works against runners in terms of pacing. When the starting horn sounds, and they finally get to begin the race for which they’ve been training over several weeks or even months, they feel like someone just opened the gates at Disney World. They don’t feel like being slow and methodical and disciplined. They want to MOVE. Even if they try to hold back, many of the other runners do not, especially in a large race. It’s like being caught in a flash flood, a massive surge of bodies pulling runners along whether they like it or not.

Pacing is tricky. I’m still working on it. In my race Saturday morning (Run for Cover 10K in McKinney), I started out a bit too fast, got tired, and slowed down in the final mile. I missed my goal by about 35 seconds. So I signed up for another 10K in two weeks, hoping to redeem myself. This time I’ll tweak my plan based on what I learned yesterday morning and in all my other races. I hope to force myself to slow down at first so that I can kick it up a notch in the second half. I’ll also push myself to give just a little bit more at the end so there’s nothing left in the tank.

Boys Who Watch My Little Pony

Posted on by

I came downstairs the other day and found my boys watching My Little Pony on Netflix. Instantly, I felt an internal struggle brewing, much like the one I felt a few weeks prior when I found them watching Strawberry Shortcake.

One internal voice told me to encourage my sons to watch something more boy-oriented. Bob the Builder? How It’s Made? Diego? Cars? Anything with strong male characters and/or large machines. The competing voice told me to keep my mouth shut and quit trying to impose artificial gender roles. They asked for My Little Pony. Mom set it up for them. They were happy. Why was this a problem?

Voice #2 won.

So, you’re a…dancer?

A similar struggle occurs sometimes at my mom’s house, where she has collected an assortment of costumes for them and my niece to play with. I wasn’t a big costume person as a preschooler, so for a while most of her costumes were my sister’s old dance uniforms and other dresses. Despite my efforts to be openminded and enlightened and all that, it was a tiny bit disturbing to see my 3 1/2 year old son walk out in my sister’s pink and gray mouse leotard from her first dance recital. But I didn’t say anything. Apparently, Grampy was a bit more disturbed. Grammy saved the day and bought the boys an assortment of superhero costumes, which they seem to prefer most of the time.

Will boys be boys?

Part of my quiet discomfort springs from the gender roles I’ve been taught and seen modeled throughout my life. You know the traditional mold. Boys are supposed to be active and rough-and-tumble, to like destroying things and making noise, to play with cars and superheros and army dudes. Girls are supposed to be sweet and quiet, to like reading and dancing and tea parties, to play with Barbie and My Little Pony and jewelry.

As a general rule, my boys and my niece fit those molds very well with minimal conscious direction from any of their parents. My boys are loud, love to run and climb and wrestle, and are fascinated by fire trucks and cars and airplanes. Reagan speaks softly, dances, loves dresses and purses and princesses, and wears as many bracelets as her little arms will hold.

Interestingly, on a few occasions, Brenden has turned down a cup of yogurt or a movie because it had princesses, saying it was “for girls”. So he has some rudimentary concept of gender roles and the idea that certain things are designed for one gender or the other. But in general, my boys they like what they like, which in their case also happens to include some “girly” things like My Little Pony and leotards. I’m not sure anyone’s ever told Brenden that he’s not “supposed” to like those things because he’s a boy. And I don’t plan to. There are certain elements of being a man that I want to teach them, but they involve qualities and actions, not likes and dislikes. Standing up for what’s right, treating people with love and respect, taking responsibility for one’s actions and the people who depend on you…those things are part of being a man. Liking cars or violence or sports is not a requirement. Neither is disliking tea parties or shoes or My Little Pony. When we buy them toys, we lean toward boy-oriented or neutral ones. We’re certainly not pushing them to cross genders. But neither do we freak out if they pick up a doll.

Born This Way?

Mixed in with the issue of gender roles is the issue of sexual orientation. They might not be as blatant or obnoxious as Homer, but I think some parents still wonder how their actions might influence their children’s sexuality and sexual orientation. Will watching My Little Pony and wearing dance leotards turn my sons gay? For some, that’s a stupid question. For others, it’s a perfectly legitimate one. Your answer depends mainly on whether you think sexual orientation is based primarily on nature, nurture, or personal choice.

In an Emmy-winning 1997 episode of The Simpsons called “Homer’s Phobia“, the Simpson family gets to know the local antiques dealer, a nice man named John. Everyone gets along great, and Bart starts emulating John’s crazy taste in shirts and dance moves. But when Homer figures out that John is gay and fears his “gayness” might be rubbing off on Bart, he starts a crusade to keep Bart on the straight and narrow, so to speak. He shows Bart “manly” cigarette ads, takes him to visit a steel mill, and takes him on a hunting trip. Surely shooting some unarmed animals will keep Bart straight. Finally, after John saves Homer and crew from the reindeer they were hunting, Homer reluctantly accepts John and then realizes that Bart still has no interest in either gender.

I’m certainly no expert, and I know some of you disagree, but I fall in the nature camp. I didn’t choose to be attracted to women; I just am. I can’t just make myself like guys. I can’t explain why I like girls. That’s just the way I am. And I find it ridiculous to assume that so many gay people, especially in past decades when society was less accepting, would willingly choose to “be gay” and invite so much abuse, hatred, and death from the straight community. People more knowledgeable than I have said that certain circumstances, such as abuse, can affect one’s sexual orientation, so I doubt nature is the only factor. But for most of us, I am convinced it’s the primary one.

Because of that view, I feel no obligation to “train” my boys to like girls. That’s the other reason I’m not freaking out like a “good American dad” when I see them watching a show aimed toward girls or trying to forcefeed them “manly” pursuits like fishing or hunting or football.

I want them to pursue their interests. Some might be more personally appealing to me than others, but part of my job as a parent is to help them discover their interests and talents, explore them, and possibly do something with them, whether they involve sports, drama, rock music, politics, science, religion, writing, or whatever else might grab their attention.

So I’m not stressing out whether they watch Bob the Builder or My Little Pony, dress like Superman or a pink mouse, or play with Lightning McQueen or Barbie. Brenden and Jonathan are who they are. I want them to become the young men God created them to be. And no matter how they turn out, I will love them with all my heart for as long as I have breath.