What I don't like about Japan, but won't make me leave

[CoreyLynn]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

I find the generalisation of the USA apology to be slightly offensive. Nyororin was joking, but I am unsure if MissMisa was. That being said, let me rewrite the apology to how I would say it:

"I'm sorry I'm late, I woke up late, my alarm clock's batteries were dead. I also spoke to my mother before I went to sleep asking if she would be my back up, she agreed but did not follow through. I plan to replace the batteries, buy a second alarm clock with a plug, and ask a buddy to call me as well. This way I will prevent the mistake from happening again. It's my fault that I didn't put even more protections in place, and I will endeavor to prevent a repeat of this mistake."

This is very different from the tone used above in the other posts. When a subordinate makes a mistake, I expect all of the information above. Not just an apology, not just a promise that it won't happen again, but an explanation of why it happened, and how the subordinate will attempt to prevent it from happening again. I cannot evaluate how a subordinate learns if I don't know what processes are involved.

If you would read into the "mother" line as shifting the blame to her, you would be wrong. No blame is being shifted. Blame remains on the person apologising. It was my fault for trusting my mother to be a reliable back up, just as it was mine for not checking the batteries, and mine for not having a second alarm clock.

I think that the problem with this post is that the person to whom you're apologizing usually doesn't care about the part a mother and some batteries played in the role of whoever being late.

I know that you said that you'd want to hear their learning process, but I can't quite understand why this would be an ideal way to apologize.

To me, this explanation still sounded like one big excuse and I personally wouldn't want to hear it.
It would honestly frustrate me a bit.
Sure, they're taking the blame for everything that had happened; trusting their mother to wake them, and for not checking the batteries.

But it's still irrelevant to the fact that they were late and this person was kept waiting.

For me, a genuine "I'm sorry. It won't happen again, " would suffice and be more of an appealing way to take the blame because the person who was late would be owning up to the mistake and promising to do better.

Yes, they inconvenienced me when they arrived behind schedule, but I don't feel they owe me details into their home life to explain exactly what went on.

However, I would like to point out that apologies to different people warrant different ways to approach an apology.

Such as, if you kept a close friend waiting, then maybe the apology you posted last would be more acceptable. Your friend knows your personal life a bit better and wouldn't mind hearing an explanation in such detail.

But, if it were in a more business-like situation or with someone to whom you're not close to personally, then I doubt that they'd want to hear the details you presented.

Overall, I think this thread makes it clear that apologies are very different and everyone has their own personal preference.

: )

I respect and understand your opinions and where you're coming from, I just don't agree entirely.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

This is very different from the tone used above in the other posts. When a subordinate makes a mistake, I expect all of the information above. Not just an apology, not just a promise that it won't happen again, but an explanation of why it happened, and how the subordinate will attempt to prevent it from happening again. I cannot evaluate how a subordinate learns if I don't know what processes are involved.

If you would read into the "mother" line as shifting the blame to her, you would be wrong. No blame is being shifted. Blame remains on the person apologising. It was my fault for trusting my mother to be a reliable back up, just as it was mine for not checking the batteries, and mine for not having a second alarm clock.

I think this is the huge difference between our views and opinions about apologizing.

To be quite honest - I don`t really care what combination of events led to someone being late. What matters to me is that they`re late. If someone was working below me and gave me the apology you typed up... I would be more annoyed than anything else. I really don`t care that the alarm clock didn`t work. I really couldn`t care less about mothers and friends. In fact, I don`t really care about what is going to be done to make sure it doesn`t happen again.

What I DO care about is 1) That the person realizes they have inconvenienced me / caused a problem... And 2) That they are going to take measures not to do it again.

What comes between those two bits - Why they`re late, who else was involved, what they`re going to do to keep it from happening again - come across as nothing more than overkill and excuses.
If I ASK what happened - that`s one thing. If they do it more than once, then I may want to know what is going on and how they plan to make sure it doesn`t happen again.... But if someone showed up late and gave me that spiel, I would basically write them off.

And from the other side - if I`m late for something, I don`t want to have to give a summary of my life just to "apologize". What is important is that I know I`m in the wrong, and that I`m not going to do it again.

The only times I feel differently is if there is a true emergency - someone in the family suddenly died, the person is in an accident, there is a natural disaster (although this one would probably negate the need for an apology at all...), etc, or if there is something that WILL cause the event to repeat. For example, I would expect someone to tell me that because of some change in life or the like they will be unable to keep the agreed schedule from here on out.

Otherwise, quite frankly, I don`t care. You`ve already wasted my time by making me wait - don`t waste more with a long winded explanation.

[Tsuwabuki]

Right, and that is indeed the difference. I do care. And the first question I would ask if someone said, "I'm sorry. I was late, it won't happen again" would be "Well, WHY are you late?" and the second question I would ask would be "What is your plan to fix it?" If I don't like the answers, then I will have to counsel this individual. If I do like the answer, that's the end of it.

From the other side, it's a golden rule thing. I treat others how I wish to be treated. Or actually, more accurately, I expect to be treated how I treat others. If I report an apology like the one above, and am told I'm making excuses and shifting blame, I become deeply offended. Did I not clearly say "This is my fault" and not lay it on anyone else? Inferences that what I said are "overkill" and "excuses" is a perception that entirely ignores my intent.

You interrupt me, halfway through, and tell me I'm making excuses, I am going to be pretty upset. I may, if I make a future mistake, tell you "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" and leave it at that, but I guarantee I won't mean it as much as I did in my above apology. I also probably won't trust you again.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by sarasi

You bring up some very interesting points. I'll just comment on a couple because I have to go out soon. Gym classes at my first high school in New Zealand were segregated, and do you know, I never gave it a thought at the time, it just seemed normal to me.

I will have to think about it, but I don't know how non-segregated gym classes would have worked- school boys in NZ spend a lot of time on rugby, and you really don't want boys and girls playing proper rugby together, people are going to get crushed!

We actually didn't have a trouser option with our uniform although some schools do these days (uniforms are the norm in NZ in public as well as private schools, right from primary school), but boys not being able to wear skirts isn't just a school uniform thing, is it- a salaryman wearing a skirt suit to work here would cause mayhem as well. That's just a societal thing, in no way limited to Japan, so I can't really say it's something I don't like about Japan.

Your post is interesting. Im also from New Zealand. I went to a co-ed primary school and intermediate school and the genders werent seperated for gym class. The only time it was seperated was for sex ed. We certainly didnt play rugby either... even at my all boys high school (though we had such a variety of different sized guys in our school that were there girls, and considering some of the girls I knew at the time, gender seperation wouldnt have been much of a protective measure). I mean you could join any number of the high school teams but thats about it. Gym class (or PE as we called it) was mostly focused on athletics and athleticism as well as developing skills for sports that require no contact like basketball (in theory its non contact at least), tennis, ultimate frisbee etc.

Anyway... the reason your post is interesting is because it has made me think that perhaps the seperation of gender in high schools in Japan can be better understood as a "conservative" thing rather than a cultural thing. Japan in many ways is a culturally conservative society so widespread views on gender might make it seem like a cultural thing however I can imagine certain members of New Zealand society holding similar views on gender to the widespread view in Japan which makes me think that there are better ways of understanding it.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

I find the generalisation of the USA apology to be slightly offensive. Nyororin was joking, but I am unsure if MissMisa was. That being said, let me rewrite the apology to how I would say it:

"I'm sorry I'm late, I woke up late, my alarm clock's batteries were dead. I also spoke to my mother before I went to sleep asking if she would be my back up, she agreed but did not follow through. I plan to replace the batteries, buy a second alarm clock with a plug, and ask a buddy to call me as well. This way I will prevent the mistake from happening again. It's my fault that I didn't put even more protections in place, and I will endeavor to prevent a repeat of this mistake."

This is very different from the tone used above in the other posts. When a subordinate makes a mistake, I expect all of the information above. Not just an apology, not just a promise that it won't happen again, but an explanation of why it happened, and how the subordinate will attempt to prevent it from happening again. I cannot evaluate how a subordinate learns if I don't know what processes are involved.

If you would read into the "mother" line as shifting the blame to her, you would be wrong. No blame is being shifted. Blame remains on the person apologising. It was my fault for trusting my mother to be a reliable back up, just as it was mine for not checking the batteries, and mine for not having a second alarm clock.

No no, I wasn't stating that's how it was, I was asking if it was like that. I've never been to the USA, I wouldn't know, but from reading this thread, that's how people are suggesting that people in the USA respond.

And to be honest, that whole paragraph just sounded like a blame shifting lame excuse to me, but maybe that's where we are culturally different. I personally don't think it was a very different tone at all, it was the same excuse with fancy language.

Oh yeah, and as well as that, you can say 'It's all my fault,' but mentioning the alarm clock, and your mum, and the batteries just makes me feel like your just saying it.

If someone were to give that excuse at my school/university, they would be told to stop making excuses, stop wasting time, to sit down and not do it again. Who cares how it happened, as long as it doesn't happen again, it doesn't need a long winded pointless explaination.

And to address some earlier points: There SHOULD be an option for girls to wear trousers in school. How backwards and old fashioned it would be to be forced to were skirts in winter! Some girls are consious about their appearance, and it would be unfair to force them to wear a skirt if they don't want to. Skirts are culturally a female item of clothing, whereas trousers are now considered unisex. That's why it would be odd for males to have the option of wearing skirts.

And if my gym class WASN'T seperated, I would have certainly NOT done it. In England, gym classes (It's called PE over here) are seperated at high school. Why? It's because that's when young people are developing and growing as teenagers. It's the time when they are body consious, and PE usually requires gym clothes, shorts, tshirt and so on. I would feel wholly uncomfortable to be with males at this time. To change the clothing would be impractical when doing sports, so they just seperated the two. If you wanted to do sports with the guys, it was fine, you just had to go to the after school classes.

In class in England, you are usually sat 'girl, boy, girl, boy.' They claim it's to 'encourage people to mix,' but it's really so you aren't sat next to your friends, which for most people are usually of the same sex, and chat and disturb the class. I thought that this idea is pretty old fashioned, but I wasn't particularly bothered because the majority of my friends were male anyway.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

No no, I wasn't stating that's how it was, I was asking if it was like that. I've never been to the USA, I wouldn't know, but from reading this thread, that's how people are suggesting that people in the USA respond.

Ah. I was unsure of your intent, and I didn't want to assume it. I can't state I represent every American, but I know why I express apologies as I do, and why I expect them to be expressed to me the same way. If how I apologise is typical of how Americans apologise, than the logic I have explained might be typical as well.

And to be honest, that whole paragraph just sounded like a blame shifting lame excuse to me, but maybe that's where we are culturally different. I personally don't think it was a very different tone at all, it was the same excuse with fancy language.

Stating reasons of how the mistake was made is not the same as shifting blame. There is no logical progression in the argument that it is. Words matter. That "fancy language" shows not just the sincerity of the apology and an understanding of the mistake that was made, but also gives the person you're apologising to a plan of action for correcting that mistake.

Anyone can say "Sorry, I won't do it again" but it takes someone who has really considered the ramifications of their actions and has a commitment to preventing it in the future to share to decide on a course of prevention.

If someone were to give that excuse at my school/university, they would be told to stop making excuses, stop wasting time, to sit down and not do it again.

And I would feel that I had just been verbally spat on for a sincere apology.

Far from ending the event, as has been suggested, this would engender quite a lot of resentment. If done in public, in a classroom, as you suggest, it would be a clear case of "two wrongs don't make a right" and I would report the professor to the dean. It's fine to refuse an apology in private, but to humiliate a student in public with no clear evidence of intent of equivocation is going too far.

Who cares how it happened, as long as it doesn't happen again, it doesn't need a long winded pointless explaination.

I care. And as stated, I would not consider the explanation either long winded or pointless. I would also expect it from others. I'm just going to ask anyway if you leave it off.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

And to address some earlier points: There SHOULD be an option for girls to wear trousers in school. How backwards and old fashioned it would be to be forced to were skirts in winter! Some girls are consious about their appearance, and it would be unfair to force them to wear a skirt if they don't want to. Skirts are culturally a female item of clothing, whereas trousers are now considered unisex. That's why it would be odd for males to have the option of wearing skirts.

Well, schools in England and the United States are dealing with quite a few issues about it. I don't care if it's odd or not, I only care how seriously we take our supposedly egalitarian values. I find the idea that any article of clothing should be allowed for one sex and not the other based solely on what they have in their pants "backwards and old fashioned." I am certainly not interested in forcing girls to wear skirts. I am only against boys not having it as an option. You're English, but the Irish and the Scots might have a thing or two to say about the manliness of a good kilt. There is no rational reason why a dress code, especially in a publicly funded school, should deny clothing to one person over another based on anatomy.

And if my gym class WASN'T seperated, I would have certainly NOT done it. In England, gym classes (It's called PE over here) are seperated at high school. Why? It's because that's when young people are developing and growing as teenagers. It's the time when they are body consious, and PE usually requires gym clothes, shorts, tshirt and so on. I would feel wholly uncomfortable to be with males at this time. To change the clothing would be impractical when doing sports, so they just seperated the two. If you wanted to do sports with the guys, it was fine, you just had to go to the after school classes.

We call it gym or PE interchangeably. I will even sometimes use both in the same sentence. But you'll notice I also use a fair bit of UK English, and always have. I blame the amount of British literature I read growing up...

The problem I have with separated gym classes (or segregated anything), and I am glad mine wasn't, is because it focuses too much on the differences inherent in the changes. By such separations we draw more attention to physical differences than we should, and we fail to emphasise the sameness of people, regardless of anatomy.

I do not believe, and will never believe, that there is some essentialist property inside of genitalia or chromosomes that makes the terms "boy" or "girl" anything besides socially constructed labels that keeps us from recognising the essentialist property that makes us human.

It's my belief, although there are far smarter people than me who have written on the topic, that your uncomfortableness around males while an adolescent stems from cultural baggage.

I can't say I am baggage free, but I've complained about it since elementary school. I've even effected some actual changes in some places. Such as unisex bathrooms on my university campus, and refusal to choose "gender" on certain legal forms. I recognised the hypocrisy as soon as I inquired why boy, girl for certain events and why not blue eyes, brown eyes, or brown hair, blonde hair? No one could give me a suitable answer. I knew then, at perhaps eight or nine, that the whole thing was hogwash. Given my own general affinity for "female-labeled" activities in addition to an affinity for some "male-labeled" activities, everything since adolescence has just confirmed my view.

Treat every one equally and as an individual. That's all I ask. Unfortunately, it is clear that for many people, I ask too much.

In class in England, you are usually sat 'girl, boy, girl, boy.' They claim it's to 'encourage people to mix,' but it's really so you aren't sat next to your friends, which for most people are usually of the same sex, and chat and disturb the class. I thought that this idea is pretty old fashioned, but I wasn't particularly bothered because the majority of my friends were male anyway.

As stated, in my schools, teachers broke up obvious groups, but there were no patterns that indicated X was different than Y leading to a pattern. And boy, girl, boy, girl is a pattern showing an "awareness" of sex that inherently draws attention to sex as if that aspect was very, very important. If there had been, I would remember, because I would have protested it.

A lot of my issues here revolve around situations that are mandatory, as opposed to chosen. A decision to enter a private organisation, or even a public one that not a requirement, might mean taking on sex related restrictions. While I would hope those restrictions would eventually fall, I would have the choice not to join that organisation, and if I do, then I am bound to follow those restrictions.

Public schools, where you go to the nearest one, and have no choice, fall under situations that are mandatory.

[MissMisa]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

Ah. I was unsure of your intent, and I didn't want to assume it. I can't state I represent every American, but I know why I express apologies as I do, and why I expect them to be expressed to me the same way. If how I apologise is typical of how Americans apologise, than the logic I have explained might be typical as well.

Stating reasons of how the mistake was made is not the same as shifting blame. There is no logical progression in the argument that it is. Words matter. That "fancy language" shows not just the sincerity of the apology and an understanding of the mistake that was made, but also gives the person you're apologising to a plan of action for correcting that mistake.

Anyone can say "Sorry, I won't do it again" but it takes someone who has really considered the ramifications of their actions and has a commitment to preventing it in the future to share to decide on a course of prevention.

And I would feel that I had just been verbally spat on for a sincere apology.

Far from ending the event, as has been suggested, this would engender quite a lot of resentment. If done in public, in a classroom, as you suggest, it would be a clear case of "two wrongs don't make a right" and I would report the professor to the dean. It's fine to refuse an apology in private, but to humiliate a student in public with no clear evidence of intent of equivocation is going too far.

I care. And as stated, I would not consider the explanation either long winded or pointless. I would also expect it from others. I'm just going to ask anyway if you leave it off.

Well I just suppose our perception of these things are totally different, and that's that. If they didn't want to be humiliated, they shouldn't have a) been late, and b) made up excuses about being late. Our definition of excuses and shifting blame are different, and that's just how it is.

Well, schools in England and the United States are dealing with quite a few issues about it. I don't care if it's odd or not, I only care how seriously we take our supposedly egalitarian values. I find the idea that any article of clothing should be allowed for one sex and not the other based solely on what they have in their pants "backwards and old fashioned." I am certainly not interested in forcing girls to wear skirts. I am only against boys not having it as an option. You're English, but the Irish and the Scots might have a thing or two to say about the manliness of a good kilt. There is no rational reason why a dress code, especially in a publicly funded school, should deny clothing to one person over another based on anatomy.

Meh, I'll be honest, I really couldn't care less if a guy wore a skirt or not. I've never encountered a guy that wanted to wear a skirt, so frankly I haven't thought about it.

If you are on about transgendered people who consider themselves female, well, they are female in my eyes and are more than welcome to wear a skirt. And to be honest, if a male wore a skirt in the school I was at (I'm at University now, there is no uniform) just because 'he wanted to,' nobody would care, because the rules on stuff like that are lax anyway.

It's my belief, although there are far smarter people than me who have written on the topic, that your uncomfortableness around males while an adolescent stems from cultural baggage.

Completely untrue. These stem from personal issues I don't want to discuss on this forum. I wasn't 'uncomfortable around males,' as mentioned, all my of my closest friends were/are males.

As for school, we were put boy/girl at the start of the year if the teacher didn't know us. If they knew groups that chatted anyway, they'd break us up regardless of gender. But like I said, I thought the whole thing was pretty stupid. Another thing they did, without really saying so, was put high achievers next to ones who struggled. I sat next to some people who struggled and was able to help them out, but other times I was sat next to some really lazy people who COULD NOT be arsed and it was just dragging me down. SO ANNOYING.

Personally, I think the big deal with equality is things like the pay gap between women and men in England. I don't really think seperating people in PE because everyone is developing and hormonal is that big a deal. To be honest, I'd already gone through all of that WAY before high school.

I'm a big feminist, but we have to accept and embrace that the sexes are different, and each have positive things about them. Of course, in many many aspects, we are all the same. I don't see anything wrong in being different, as long as we aren't forced to make life decisions based solely on it.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Well I just suppose our perception of these things are totally different, and that's that. If they didn't want to be humiliated, they shouldn't have a) been late, and b) made up excuses about being late. Our definition of excuses and shifting blame are different, and that's just how it is.

I actually think we do agree. At least on the words themselves. What I think we disagree on is connotation of phrases. It's a difference of intent vs perception. You're not a mind reader, so if I gave you that apology, you would go to your connotation and accuse of me of shifting blame. My intent would be quite the opposite, to sincerely apologise, offer an account of my behavior, and display commitment to preventing it.

If you said exactly what I said, it would be because you were shifting blame. However, you cannot apply your connotation to me saying it. This is indeed cultural. However the "excuses" would not be "made up." In a sincere apology, the process described would be truthful.

That being said, there is NEVER a reason to reprimand in public. Praise in public, reprimand in private. Public humiliation is unacceptable. Think about how you would like it, if you were late, despite your best efforts, you were asked to apologise, and you did in a way you believe to be sincere and respectfully, and then you are publicly humiliated. I bet that wouldn't go over very well. Especially if you're paying the professor's salary.

Meh, I'll be honest, I really couldn't care less if a guy wore a skirt or not. I've never encountered a guy that wanted to wear a skirt, so frankly I haven't thought about it.

It isn't about whether any guy would. It's about whether or not the option exists. If the option doesn't, it's sexist. Plain and simple.

If you are on about transgendered people who consider themselves female, well, they are female in my eyes and are more than welcome to wear a skirt. And to be honest, if a male wore a skirt in the school I was at (I'm at University now, there is no uniform) just because 'he wanted to,' nobody would care, because the rules on stuff like that are lax anyway.

If I had meant MtFs, I would have said so. I'm not necessarily only talking about transgendered individuals. That still places people into neat little boxes that create artificial barriers.

I was more talking about public primary or public secondary. Probably mostly comprehensive schools, in your parlance. I would think most selective institutions would be private, but I'm not really as familiar with the 11-17 UK education as I'd like to be, so I don't really know.

Completely untrue. These stem from personal issues I don't want to discuss on this forum. I wasn't 'uncomfortable around males,' as mentioned, all my of my closest friends were/are males.

My fault. I should have been clearer. I didn't mean you specifically, I meant you proverbially. I don't know your specific circumstances. I won't push.

I will say I am quite incapable of viewing "boys" as a group or "girls" as a group. It denies too much individuality to be useful.

As for school, we were put boy/girl at the start of the year if the teacher didn't know us. If they knew groups that chatted anyway, they'd break us up regardless of gender. But like I said, I thought the whole thing was pretty stupid. Another thing they did, without really saying so, was put high achievers next to ones who struggled. I sat next to some people who struggled and was able to help them out, but other times I was sat next to some really lazy people who COULD NOT be arsed and it was just dragging me down. SO ANNOYING.

We didn't have assigned seating. Something I am ever the more grateful for considering your horror stories above.

Personally, I think the big deal with equality is things like the pay gap between women and men in England. I don't really think seperating people in PE because everyone is developing and hormonal is that big a deal. To be honest, I'd already gone through all of that WAY before high school.

They are exactly the same to me. We will never solve the pay gap as long as people believe that sex represents an inherent difference.

Furthermore, since you brought up the alphabet soup earlier (LGBT), how do you think THEY feel during adolescence? Being crammed into a group solely because of a sex/gender/sexuality they do not identify with? And what of those that just don't identify AT ALL?

We make it a big deal. We shouldn't. It's not. To quote the bard, it's sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'm a big feminist, but we have to accept and embrace that the sexes are different, and each have positive things about them. Of course, in many many aspects, we are all the same. I don't see anything wrong in being different, as long as we aren't forced to make life decisions based solely on it.

I'm an ardent feminist, and not all feminists with XX chromosomes agree with you. I certainly do not. I do not accept that mere biological differences are differences that matter. And I am certainly not about to embrace an idea that I am vehemently against. The differences that matter, that define us, are internal. Our beliefs, our thought processes, our personalities, our preferences... Those things are who we are when we say "I am." The body? So much window dressing.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

Right, and that is indeed the difference. I do care. And the first question I would ask if someone said, "I'm sorry. I was late, it won't happen again" would be "Well, WHY are you late?" and the second question I would ask would be "What is your plan to fix it?" If I don't like the answers, then I will have to counsel this individual. If I do like the answer, that's the end of it.

Having my explanation judged would, quite honestly, be the most upsetting thing to me. As no two people share the same lives, what might be a perfectly acceptable answer for one person may not be for another.

For example, if I apologize and then are asked "Why?" I would give a basic answer - I overslept, it was transportation related, etc, and apologize again. I`m not going to go into why I overslept, or what exactly happened with the transportation. I would never give an extended explanation as even if it isn`t looked at as an excuse, it still seems far too "personal". (I am assuming that these are all business / professional situations - not between friends as that is a totally different thing.) I would feel like I`m making the assumption that the other party cares or should care about my personal life and issues, which seems far too "friendly" for anything professional.

What, by the way, would you consider a good answer? An elaborate detailed one? Something that is a "good story"? I ask this because the main reasons for me ever being late is generally not considered a "good" excuse. But for me personally it is probably the best and most understandable one. Personal bias is going to pop up when judging these answers. I know I wouldn`t really take "there was an accident so more traffic than I had expected" to be a good excuse - you should always leave early enough that a bit of traffic won`t make you late. But for me, this is the main reason I am late for anything.

I live on the other side of a main bridge (the only bridge for a distance) that I have to cross for 90% of the appointments I have. If there is an accident or something happening on the bridge like the retrieval of a suicide from the river below... Traffic stops and can stay stopped for hours. Heading to the next closest bridge is hopeless as in addition to it`s regular traffic it has all the extra from my bridge, so stops as well. I do have a back up plan for when this happens (at least if I`m not already on the bridge when things stop) - but it involves turning around and taking the expressway which is a very out of the way trip and inevitably makes me late or close to it.
To me, saying that there was an accident on or on the other side of the bridge is a very valid excuse for being late. But to someone who doesn`t know that I live where I live, and who doesn`t know my back up plan and the fact that I do leave with plenty of time to spare just to be safe in such situation... Is not going to be impressed with that "excuse" for being 5 minutes late.

And I do not want to have to give someone my whole life outline just to get "forgiveness" for a single case of a 5~10 minute delay. I would be insulted to be asked to explain that far, and doubly insulted if I did tell someone why and they counseled me on it.

From the other side, it's a golden rule thing. I treat others how I wish to be treated. Or actually, more accurately, I expect to be treated how I treat others. If I report an apology like the one above, and am told I'm making excuses and shifting blame, I become deeply offended. Did I not clearly say "This is my fault" and not lay it on anyone else? Inferences that what I said are "overkill" and "excuses" is a perception that entirely ignores my intent.

The same here for the golden rule - I don`t know what would be a valid reason in someone else`s life. They don`t know what is a valid reason in mine. I don`t want to need to know that in a professional relationship, and I don`t want to burden someone else with that knowledge.

You interrupt me, halfway through, and tell me I'm making excuses, I am going to be pretty upset. I may, if I make a future mistake, tell you "I'm sorry, it won't happen again" and leave it at that, but I guarantee I won't mean it as much as I did in my above apology. I also probably won't trust you again.

I certainly wouldn`t interrupt, and probably wouldn`t even comment on the situation. But in my mind, I am going to see someone who gives that long and detailed an excuse in a fairly negative light. It doesn`t matter the tone or the meaning behind it - for all I know they could be lying like crazy about the reason. All I really care is that they acknowledge that they are in the wrong and that they aren`t going to let it happen again.
If the reason is that they were completely stupid in managing their time, forgot about the appointment, were doing something very private, etc... All I am doing by making them explain is pushing them to come up with a good lie. (I seriously doubt they`re going to be honest and admit something embarrassing...) Again, everyone makes mistakes and has secrets so judging them on a single event is unfair.

Just wanting an apology, and wanting them to not do it again is what I would consider kindness on my part.

This has gone pretty far off from the original topic, but I think it`s a really interesting subject and am really enjoying the discussion so was going to split it off into another thread about apologies, but as there are so many posts covering apologies and other topics... It is a bit hard to pull off.