Published: Good Men Project (February 26, 2015)
Matthew Rozsa shares the three pet peeves that bug him the most. Someone has to do it, right?
___
It’s strange writing an article about pet peeves. Normally I try to write about topics that have significant consequence, and a pet peeve by definition is an annoyance that can be easily brushed off.
Except sometimes they can’t. There are certain habits that, though commonly regarded as pet peeves, can actually be far worse. This article is about the three that bug me the most.
???
1. People who loudly whisper and/or text at a movie theater.
After spending almost a century as a staple of American entertainment, movie theaters have developed a pretty well-known set of etiquette rules. Foremost among them, of course, is to not talk to other members of the audience while the film is playing. Over time that stipulation has had various supplements—don’t talk on your cell phone, don’t talk during the previews, no laser pointers, etc.—but there are two standards that are long overdue:
Since the majority of theater etiquette rules can be reduced to a single imperative—don’t distract other people from enjoying the movie—it stands to reason that doing so with a visual annoyance isn’t any better than an auditory one
First, there should be no texting during a movie screening. This may sound draconian, but I can’t recall how many times I’ve been snapped out of the fantasy world being woven in front of me by the flickering lights of a dozen illuminated cell phone screens in front of me. Since the majority of theater etiquette rules can be reduced to a single imperative—don’t distract other people from enjoying the movie—it stands to reason that doing so with a visual annoyance isn’t any better than an auditory one (hence the aforementioned prohibition against laser pointers). The same holds true for “whisper-yelling” to other people: If I can hear you, then you’re being too loud, regardless of whether it’s with your “inside voice” or the “whispering equivalent of your inside voice.”
???
2. Bureaucrats who make their jobs into your problem.
This one requires a bit of elaboration: For the past two semesters in a row, I have had difficulty with student loans. From the moment I began graduate school in the summer of 2010 (to get my Masters at Rutgers-Newark) until the summer of 2014 (when I completed my PhD coursework at Lehigh), I have been a full-time student. Starting last autumn, however, I began the process of studying for my comprehensive exams, a series of tests that every prospective recipient of a history doctorate is required to take. Although I was still a full-time student, my credit status became a tad more complicated; inevitably, I called financial aid at my school to figure out how I could make sure this alteration didn’t impair my student loan situation. When I decided to take a year-long leave of absence for 2015, I made the same request.
On both occasions, the proverbial ball was dropped, and without delving into too many details, the bottom line is that it happened each time for the exact same reason: Someone, somewhere along the way, didn’t give me complete information about every step I needed to take in order to be squared away. Consequently, on both occasions, I was forced to spend hours and hours fixing some faceless bureaucrat’s mistake before they destroyed my credit rating or began consuming sizeable chunks from my meager savings.
Bureaucrats have dreary, mind-numbing jobs. But when their indifference to their work costs other people money, they should be forced to fix those mistakes on their own free time—and without pay—rather than forcing the cost of their apathy onto other people’s shoulders.
Before you blast me, I get it: Bureaucrats have dreary, mind-numbing jobs. But when their indifference to their work costs other people money, they should be forced to fix those mistakes on their own free time—and without pay—rather than forcing the cost of their apathy onto other people’s shoulders.
???
3. People who freeze each other out.
Unlike the other items on this list, this one actually has some valid applications, most of which come into play when you’re dating or leaving a relationship. If someone won’t take no for an answer or is behaving in an inappropriate or aggressive way, then yes, freezing them out is entirely understandable and necessary.
That said, freezing someone out should be the exception to the rule, and one only called into play in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that my generation in particular seems to use the freeze out at the drop of a hat—with friends and family, doctors and co-workers, as a substitute for canceling previous engagements or a tool for avoiding unpleasant confrontations. I suspect the culprit here is a combination of an undue sense of entitlement (the idea that if you don’t want to talk to someone, you should never be obligated to do so) and the more pernicious legacies of the digital age (with so many alternatives for face-to-face interaction, the act of ignoring someone doesn’t seem as rude).
The problem is that when you freeze someone out, you aren’t committing a neutral act; you are directly insulting that individual by deciding that their convenience and/or feelings are less important than your wish to avoid an encounter with them
The problem is that when you freeze someone out, you aren’t committing a neutral act; you are directly insulting that individual by deciding that their convenience and/or feelings are less important than your wish to avoid an encounter with them. Even in the dating world, the freeze out should be used very sparingly (see the aforementioned examples), since people are rarely as vulnerable as when they are attempting to find meaningful companionship.
???
And that is my article on pet peeves. I have to say, I’ve been waiting for a long time to get these three annoyances off of my chest, but never found the right hook that would allow me to do so. Until now, that is.