Today's topic is humanism. I've mentioned it a bit in passing and have decided it needs its own post. Other than quotes and definitions, the ideas are my interpretations. I'm focusing on secular humanism, which is based in Enlightenment and free-thought ideas, rather than any of a number of other specific versions of humanism. Although, like all belief systems, humanism changes depending on who you ask. And it is definitely something I suggest looking more into.
According to the definition on Google, humanism is:
An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Humanism is people centric. There is no deity or higher power. No clockmaker god. Nothing. But that is not to say humanism rejects the divine or supernatural. Religion has its purpose and gives people something to believe in. Everyone needs something to believe in. Humanists believe in people: "I have known many good people who did not believe in God. But I have never known a human being who was good who did not believe in people" (John Lovejoy Elliott).
In many ways, a belief in humanism makes many discussions of religion redundant. What people believe in is less important than what they do. In one of my college classes, Religion in American Life, we discussed this topic. What people believe is not as important as what that belief makes them do. "Life has no meaning a priori...It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose" (Jean-Paul Sartre).
I've written before about finding comfort being small in the enormity of the universe. Although alone, I am still connected to humanity.
Humanism "requires an affirmative philosophy...translated into a life devoted to one's own improvements and the service of all mankind" (Corliss Lamont). The aim is to make life "better" for everybody. The idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is close to that idea. The phrase tends to refer only to economic situations, and even then it's validity is questionable. In humanism, the aim is to lift the boats of all people, in every situation, in every way possible.
The quote I'm going to close with is about faith in different things. I want you all to understand, I know religion is very helpful for many people, including myself, but it has also caused an enormous amount of harm to many people as well. I don't want to diminish any belief system, we each need one. And so, as Joss Whedon said, "Faith in God means believing absolutely in something with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary."
Monday, May 18, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Hearing and Listening
One of my favorite quotes is, "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" (Alan Greenspan). It is truly amazing how often this happens. It's like that game "Telephone", where you pass a whispered phrase around a circle and see how close the end result is.
Sometimes, the translation happens because you are saying something to someone who isn't familiar with you. Communicating with strangers is hard because we each have our own specific vernacular. Add in regional pronunciation and vernacular, and sometimes communication is neigh impossible.
Sometimes, you can't articulate your thoughts. This happens to me a lot. And it is very frustrating. Trying to say something, or explain a thought, but not being understood. Knowing the scaffolding behind a statement, but not being able to explain the structure. Referencing a past event, or a piece of information, but not conveying it well.
I don't think anybody responds well to this kind of misunderstanding. I know I don't. I get frustrated easily and when I meet the barrier of understanding, too often I just stop trying. Which is obviously unhelpful. My problem, I think, is that I think what I'm saying, and how it should be understood, is obvious and if the person I'm speaking with doesn't get it, they are doing it on purpose. They aren't most of the time.
That's the difference between hearing and listening. When you simply "hear" what someone says, there is more room for misunderstanding. "I'm hearing you" can mean "I see your point of view and understand it but" or "I hear you making noise in the form of words but". "Listening", I find, has less misinterpretation. If you actually listen to what someone is saying and understand what isn't said, their meaning is clearer.
Listening takes patience and is hard, but it is a worthy endeavor. We have to understand what people are saying and what they mean and why they are saying that. We need to actually care about each other, instead of merely waiting until it is our turn to speak again.
Sometimes, the translation happens because you are saying something to someone who isn't familiar with you. Communicating with strangers is hard because we each have our own specific vernacular. Add in regional pronunciation and vernacular, and sometimes communication is neigh impossible.
Sometimes, you can't articulate your thoughts. This happens to me a lot. And it is very frustrating. Trying to say something, or explain a thought, but not being understood. Knowing the scaffolding behind a statement, but not being able to explain the structure. Referencing a past event, or a piece of information, but not conveying it well.
I don't think anybody responds well to this kind of misunderstanding. I know I don't. I get frustrated easily and when I meet the barrier of understanding, too often I just stop trying. Which is obviously unhelpful. My problem, I think, is that I think what I'm saying, and how it should be understood, is obvious and if the person I'm speaking with doesn't get it, they are doing it on purpose. They aren't most of the time.
That's the difference between hearing and listening. When you simply "hear" what someone says, there is more room for misunderstanding. "I'm hearing you" can mean "I see your point of view and understand it but" or "I hear you making noise in the form of words but". "Listening", I find, has less misinterpretation. If you actually listen to what someone is saying and understand what isn't said, their meaning is clearer.
Listening takes patience and is hard, but it is a worthy endeavor. We have to understand what people are saying and what they mean and why they are saying that. We need to actually care about each other, instead of merely waiting until it is our turn to speak again.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Non-Classical Poetry, Part 4 Update
So, a while ago, I wrote a post on the poem 'Dear Woman'. I love it as you may remember. Today, I saw the picture of the page in the book I linked to again, this time with the author's name: Michael Reid. It is part of a larger book called Dear Woman. I wanted to update you all on this. I hope to read more of his work at some point.
American Sisyphus
The other day, I was watching segments from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. One of the most recent ones is on paid family leave. Like many of the segments, I knew a bit of the subject matter before watching, but Oliver puts topics in such stark terms, my understanding of the situation is clarified. In this case, I knew the state of paid family leave in the US is dismal but, wow.
Often working moms are criticized for not spending enough time with their kids. As the child of a working mother, this is nonsense. There are probably some moms who don't or can't balance time well and my mom made us her priority. But, some working moms can't spend as much time with their kids, because, sometimes, the choice is financial. When choosing between spending time with your kid and earning money so that kid can eat, be clothed, and have a home, there is no choice. Just a terrible situation.
The situation is even worse for new moms. The only two countries in the world that do not guarantee paid time off for new mothers are the United States and Papua New Guinea. That's it. Just the two. In the whole world. Yes, some offer more than others. Yes, I'm sure there are other considerations. But there is at least some legal provision guaranteeing paid maternity leave.
The only federal provision in the US is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. According to the Department of Labor fact sheet:
The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:
Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth...
There are other state-level laws, but all the laws combine don't cover 40% of the women in the workforce. Temporary employees or contractors and part-time employees who qualify for insurance don't receive any guarantees. The women most impacted by this situation are minority women who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.
For as much as people profess to love mothers, they sure don't act like it, especially legislators. And this isn't like the issue of maternity/paternity/family leave in the US is new. This is a continuing failure. But, apparently, this is a "do as I say and not as I do" situation. We should love our mothers, and all mothers, but not actually do anything to show that we care for them or want them to thrive.
I think what is truly disappointing about this is that the lack of guaranteed family leave in the US is not even surprising to me. As I have become increasingly aware, women are still second-class citizens in this country. So, abhorrent treatment of women across the board is unsurprising. "Land of opportunity" they tell us. Without telling us about the terms and conditions: if you are anything less than a straight white male, you might as well be Sisyphus.
Sources:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/john-oliver-mothers_n_7254924.html
Often working moms are criticized for not spending enough time with their kids. As the child of a working mother, this is nonsense. There are probably some moms who don't or can't balance time well and my mom made us her priority. But, some working moms can't spend as much time with their kids, because, sometimes, the choice is financial. When choosing between spending time with your kid and earning money so that kid can eat, be clothed, and have a home, there is no choice. Just a terrible situation.
The situation is even worse for new moms. The only two countries in the world that do not guarantee paid time off for new mothers are the United States and Papua New Guinea. That's it. Just the two. In the whole world. Yes, some offer more than others. Yes, I'm sure there are other considerations. But there is at least some legal provision guaranteeing paid maternity leave.
The only federal provision in the US is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. According to the Department of Labor fact sheet:
The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:
Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth...
There are other state-level laws, but all the laws combine don't cover 40% of the women in the workforce. Temporary employees or contractors and part-time employees who qualify for insurance don't receive any guarantees. The women most impacted by this situation are minority women who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.
For as much as people profess to love mothers, they sure don't act like it, especially legislators. And this isn't like the issue of maternity/paternity/family leave in the US is new. This is a continuing failure. But, apparently, this is a "do as I say and not as I do" situation. We should love our mothers, and all mothers, but not actually do anything to show that we care for them or want them to thrive.
I think what is truly disappointing about this is that the lack of guaranteed family leave in the US is not even surprising to me. As I have become increasingly aware, women are still second-class citizens in this country. So, abhorrent treatment of women across the board is unsurprising. "Land of opportunity" they tell us. Without telling us about the terms and conditions: if you are anything less than a straight white male, you might as well be Sisyphus.
Sources:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/john-oliver-mothers_n_7254924.html
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Grace in Failing
You have probably realized by now I like to write about things that make me excited, especially when I don't have any real life stories to share. (And I've have a lack of those and pictures to share recently.) Today, however, I am torn. I have two blogs I could write, and I might write both. Actually, I probably will. My dilemma: writing about the new Avengers film or about paid family leave: Superhero movie vs. actual societal problem. Let's go with Avengers.
Avengers: Age of Ultron is currently the biggest movie in America, and I think the world. I saw it over the weekend. I loved it. And, yes, there were problems. But it was still good. Marvel and Joss Whedon have been catching a lot of flack for some of those faults. And yes, there are legitimate criticisms. The lack of Black Widow merchandise for one. It's sad that I now am more surprised when I see Black Widow on the plethora of Avengers products than when I don't. And honestly, she's probably the best. Also, where is my Black Widow movie?
I'm going to try to avoid spoilers, so I am going to avoid some of the more controversial parts of the movie, but, suffice to say, I think a complex view, thorough understanding of the characters is needed and simply condemning the entire franchise, and every one who is a part of it, is wrong and unfair. I'm not apologizing for a lack of female characters, just that we shouldn't be so quick to judge.
I loved the music. What makes a movie, most often for me, is the music. There were a lot of musical callbacks to earlier Marvel films which help tie the universe together. I also liked the cinematography. And the dialogue.
There are a few lines that stand out. One of my favorites in these movies is Captain America/Steve Rogers. In the first Captain America movie, he says, "I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from." Which, honestly, is a fantastic line. In this film, he says, "Every time someone tries to stop a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time." Again, fantastic. We get to see a superhero who cares about collateral damage and he is not OK with it. Captain America is an idealist who only knows war. He knows that to win battles, teamwork is necessary, which everyone but Stark seems to mostly get. Rogers knows the Avengers need to prove themselves. This is why, I believe, early in the movie Thor's hammer almost moves for him--he is almost worthy.
One of the other lines I love is said late in the movie, in one of the final confrontations:
"Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that."
"They're doomed!"
"Yes... but a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts..."
Many times in life we try to hold onto things we love and find beautiful; we try to order our lives to make sense of the chaos of the universe. Change needs to be accepted although it is hard. I admit, I am not very good with change. Disorder is difficult. Honestly. Life is hard but that doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The idea of grace in failing calls to a humanist understanding of the world. E. O. Wilson said, "If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable."
Avengers: Age of Ultron is about superheroes regaining their humanity. While there are explosions and fights, there is also a battle raging for their souls. And, when they've won the physical battle--war really--against the villain, they still are fighting for their souls, their humanity.
******Spoiler Alert*********
I wanted to include this earlier, but, you know, spoiler alert. While Thor's hammer moves slightly for Steve Rogers, The Vision is able to pick it up. Although young, he can lift the hammer because he believes in humanity and finds grace in failure. This may also be the case for Rogers, and maybe he can lift the hammer as well. I don't know, I've not thought most of this through past this point.
Avengers: Age of Ultron is currently the biggest movie in America, and I think the world. I saw it over the weekend. I loved it. And, yes, there were problems. But it was still good. Marvel and Joss Whedon have been catching a lot of flack for some of those faults. And yes, there are legitimate criticisms. The lack of Black Widow merchandise for one. It's sad that I now am more surprised when I see Black Widow on the plethora of Avengers products than when I don't. And honestly, she's probably the best. Also, where is my Black Widow movie?
I'm going to try to avoid spoilers, so I am going to avoid some of the more controversial parts of the movie, but, suffice to say, I think a complex view, thorough understanding of the characters is needed and simply condemning the entire franchise, and every one who is a part of it, is wrong and unfair. I'm not apologizing for a lack of female characters, just that we shouldn't be so quick to judge.
I loved the music. What makes a movie, most often for me, is the music. There were a lot of musical callbacks to earlier Marvel films which help tie the universe together. I also liked the cinematography. And the dialogue.
There are a few lines that stand out. One of my favorites in these movies is Captain America/Steve Rogers. In the first Captain America movie, he says, "I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from." Which, honestly, is a fantastic line. In this film, he says, "Every time someone tries to stop a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time." Again, fantastic. We get to see a superhero who cares about collateral damage and he is not OK with it. Captain America is an idealist who only knows war. He knows that to win battles, teamwork is necessary, which everyone but Stark seems to mostly get. Rogers knows the Avengers need to prove themselves. This is why, I believe, early in the movie Thor's hammer almost moves for him--he is almost worthy.
One of the other lines I love is said late in the movie, in one of the final confrontations:
"Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that."
"They're doomed!"
"Yes... but a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts..."
Many times in life we try to hold onto things we love and find beautiful; we try to order our lives to make sense of the chaos of the universe. Change needs to be accepted although it is hard. I admit, I am not very good with change. Disorder is difficult. Honestly. Life is hard but that doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The idea of grace in failing calls to a humanist understanding of the world. E. O. Wilson said, "If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable."
Avengers: Age of Ultron is about superheroes regaining their humanity. While there are explosions and fights, there is also a battle raging for their souls. And, when they've won the physical battle--war really--against the villain, they still are fighting for their souls, their humanity.
******Spoiler Alert*********
I wanted to include this earlier, but, you know, spoiler alert. While Thor's hammer moves slightly for Steve Rogers, The Vision is able to pick it up. Although young, he can lift the hammer because he believes in humanity and finds grace in failure. This may also be the case for Rogers, and maybe he can lift the hammer as well. I don't know, I've not thought most of this through past this point.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Drowning in a Sea of Pink
In one of my high school English classes we discussed the difference between "connotation" and "denotation". Denotation being the dictionary definition of a word--what something actually means. ("Actually" here being used with the understanding that all meaning is created.) Connotation being the ideas or feelings associated with a word. For example, pink.
Pink, by definition, is the color between red and white. But pink has many connotations. According to the dictionary on my computer's dashboard, "pink" as an adjective can also mean, in a derogatory sense, "having or showing left-wing tendencies"; or "associated with homosexuals" (which I will get to later); or, historically, a type of ship.
Escaping my dashboard dictionary, "pink" in society often equals "girl". It hasn't always been that way. Until the late 1940s, the "rules" for color associations and babies were fluid. Pink being cited as "more manly" was for boys and blue "associated with girls since the Virgin Mary is customarily dressed in blue." Whatever the reasons, the current color situation didn't appear until after the Second World War.
Once article I found states,
Regardless of the original connotations of the two colors, it's clear that they've now reversed their earlier meanings and that pink is much more associated with girls now, and vice versa for blue. There have been some studies that suggest that women just "naturally" like pink better, and that blue is a color that men prefer innately. Other suggest that the now current color consensus, which appears to have materialized int he 1950s, came from the Nazis branded gays with pink triangles in their concentration camps.
Not to say that is a perfect quote, but it works. I feel confident is forwarding the theory that pink is associated with girls because of a choice made by Hitler. Now, I'm not saying the current gendered color situation is directly caused by Hitler, but it cannot be coincidental either.
Which brings me to my point: pink being solely associated with girls and many products aimed at girls and women being available only in pink is stupid.
I've been working at a local Target to earn some money while I figure out what I'm doing with my life, and I work in the clothing section most of the time. Until I started, I did not understand how much of the baby stuff and toddler/kids clothing was gendered. The amount of pink in the girls sections is sickening. (There are other colors available, but only in pastels.) Perhaps the "pink product" that is the worst, is the pink nasal aspirator. In the same section, there are other basic baby care tools that also come in pink. The originals are white. The pink versions are all more expensive, another point I will return to.
The other day, a co-worker and I were working in the baby section and talking about the amount of pink, specifically pink bottles. I held that it was stupid for basic baby products to be gendered like that. She said that people want the gender of their baby to be obvious to others. First, what business is it of anyone else the gender of a stranger's baby. Second, why does it matter?
Answer: it shouldn't, but, disgustingly, it does. Society trains us to think pink=girls. Limiting girls to almost a single choice, although that is slowly changing, diminishes them and strengthens the status quo.
Pink products are not limited to girls either. There are pink products for women too: razors, ear plugs, shoes, bicycles, and many other everyday products. Perhaps the two most astonishing, to me, are pink guns (like it matters the color of the thing you're using to shoot bullets) and pink pens. Yes, pink pens. Because women need special pens.
This trend is economically discriminatory as well. Women's products cost more across the board--known as the Pink Tax. Other than in California, which banned gender-discriminatory pricing in 1995, women's products cost more. (At least in the US, but I'm sure the same holds true across most of the Western World.) And it's not just lotion and deodorant. It's dry cleaning and health insurance; the latter because women tend to live longer than men. Remember that nasal aspirator? 2 cents more expensive than the gender neutral white one. That may seem like nothing, but it is indicative of the larger problem. Women are charged more and are paid less.
My last point, and the catalyst for this post, is the use of pink as the color for breast cancer. And I get it, most cancers have colors associated with them for awareness, and even other illnesses. But, the most associated, known, whatever, one is pink for breast cancer. And the name most tied to that association is the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for more cancer awareness and prevention measures. I just don't think having pink ribbons everywhere is helpful anymore. Or professional athletes, almost all of them men, wearing pink shoes or socks or jerseys is raising awareness.
Last night, I was watching a baseball game. And for Mother's Day (a completely made-up commercial holiday) the players were wearing pink, all to support breast cancer awareness.
On this topic I have two points. First, this kind of "pinkwashing" isn't helpful. Companies can that make products or deal in products that increase the risk of cancer in everyone can buy good public opinion by donating money from some pink product. It is stupid and unhelpful. A gesture meant to make people feel good without doing any actual good. Instead of making a specialty product, why not stop fracking?
Second, many of the breast cancer awareness campaigns are based on "Save the Ta-Tas" or "Save Third Base"--statements which are incredibly harmful. They focus on breasts, and only sexualized breasts, instead of women. It is offensive. The logical trend from "pink" to "women" to "breast" to "object" is distressing. As they have been for centuries, women and their bodies are commodities to be bought and sold.
If you have read this entire post, thank you. And now, I ask one more thing: when confronted with the choice between a gendered product and a non-gendered product, choose the latter. There is the theory that products are only made because people buy them. Conscientious consumerism is hard but anything worth doing is hard and this is possibly the only way to effect change.
Sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?all
http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/pink-wasnt-always-considered-a-feminine-color-and-blue-wasnt-always-masculine/
http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-products-more-expensive-than-mens-2015-4
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/komen-is-supposed-to-be-curing-breast-cancer-so-why-is-its-pink-ribbon-on-so-many-carcinogenic-products/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-s-holmes/breast-cancer-awareness_b_1988050.html
Pink, by definition, is the color between red and white. But pink has many connotations. According to the dictionary on my computer's dashboard, "pink" as an adjective can also mean, in a derogatory sense, "having or showing left-wing tendencies"; or "associated with homosexuals" (which I will get to later); or, historically, a type of ship.
Escaping my dashboard dictionary, "pink" in society often equals "girl". It hasn't always been that way. Until the late 1940s, the "rules" for color associations and babies were fluid. Pink being cited as "more manly" was for boys and blue "associated with girls since the Virgin Mary is customarily dressed in blue." Whatever the reasons, the current color situation didn't appear until after the Second World War.
Once article I found states,
Regardless of the original connotations of the two colors, it's clear that they've now reversed their earlier meanings and that pink is much more associated with girls now, and vice versa for blue. There have been some studies that suggest that women just "naturally" like pink better, and that blue is a color that men prefer innately. Other suggest that the now current color consensus, which appears to have materialized int he 1950s, came from the Nazis branded gays with pink triangles in their concentration camps.
Not to say that is a perfect quote, but it works. I feel confident is forwarding the theory that pink is associated with girls because of a choice made by Hitler. Now, I'm not saying the current gendered color situation is directly caused by Hitler, but it cannot be coincidental either.
Which brings me to my point: pink being solely associated with girls and many products aimed at girls and women being available only in pink is stupid.
I've been working at a local Target to earn some money while I figure out what I'm doing with my life, and I work in the clothing section most of the time. Until I started, I did not understand how much of the baby stuff and toddler/kids clothing was gendered. The amount of pink in the girls sections is sickening. (There are other colors available, but only in pastels.) Perhaps the "pink product" that is the worst, is the pink nasal aspirator. In the same section, there are other basic baby care tools that also come in pink. The originals are white. The pink versions are all more expensive, another point I will return to.
The other day, a co-worker and I were working in the baby section and talking about the amount of pink, specifically pink bottles. I held that it was stupid for basic baby products to be gendered like that. She said that people want the gender of their baby to be obvious to others. First, what business is it of anyone else the gender of a stranger's baby. Second, why does it matter?
Answer: it shouldn't, but, disgustingly, it does. Society trains us to think pink=girls. Limiting girls to almost a single choice, although that is slowly changing, diminishes them and strengthens the status quo.
Pink products are not limited to girls either. There are pink products for women too: razors, ear plugs, shoes, bicycles, and many other everyday products. Perhaps the two most astonishing, to me, are pink guns (like it matters the color of the thing you're using to shoot bullets) and pink pens. Yes, pink pens. Because women need special pens.
This trend is economically discriminatory as well. Women's products cost more across the board--known as the Pink Tax. Other than in California, which banned gender-discriminatory pricing in 1995, women's products cost more. (At least in the US, but I'm sure the same holds true across most of the Western World.) And it's not just lotion and deodorant. It's dry cleaning and health insurance; the latter because women tend to live longer than men. Remember that nasal aspirator? 2 cents more expensive than the gender neutral white one. That may seem like nothing, but it is indicative of the larger problem. Women are charged more and are paid less.
My last point, and the catalyst for this post, is the use of pink as the color for breast cancer. And I get it, most cancers have colors associated with them for awareness, and even other illnesses. But, the most associated, known, whatever, one is pink for breast cancer. And the name most tied to that association is the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for more cancer awareness and prevention measures. I just don't think having pink ribbons everywhere is helpful anymore. Or professional athletes, almost all of them men, wearing pink shoes or socks or jerseys is raising awareness.
Last night, I was watching a baseball game. And for Mother's Day (a completely made-up commercial holiday) the players were wearing pink, all to support breast cancer awareness.
On this topic I have two points. First, this kind of "pinkwashing" isn't helpful. Companies can that make products or deal in products that increase the risk of cancer in everyone can buy good public opinion by donating money from some pink product. It is stupid and unhelpful. A gesture meant to make people feel good without doing any actual good. Instead of making a specialty product, why not stop fracking?
Second, many of the breast cancer awareness campaigns are based on "Save the Ta-Tas" or "Save Third Base"--statements which are incredibly harmful. They focus on breasts, and only sexualized breasts, instead of women. It is offensive. The logical trend from "pink" to "women" to "breast" to "object" is distressing. As they have been for centuries, women and their bodies are commodities to be bought and sold.
If you have read this entire post, thank you. And now, I ask one more thing: when confronted with the choice between a gendered product and a non-gendered product, choose the latter. There is the theory that products are only made because people buy them. Conscientious consumerism is hard but anything worth doing is hard and this is possibly the only way to effect change.
Sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?all
http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/pink-wasnt-always-considered-a-feminine-color-and-blue-wasnt-always-masculine/
http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-products-more-expensive-than-mens-2015-4
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/komen-is-supposed-to-be-curing-breast-cancer-so-why-is-its-pink-ribbon-on-so-many-carcinogenic-products/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-s-holmes/breast-cancer-awareness_b_1988050.html
Friday, April 10, 2015
The American Dream
I cannot remember if I have written about the American Dream. I'm sure I have, or, at least, I have discussed it with some of you. No matter. I am going to write about it again. And it's going to be long.
A more apt title for this would have been "The Death of the American Dream" but that seems a little pessimistic. The sister post for this one is "The Cost of Education" and what I write here should be read with that post in mind.
First, a little background on the term "The American Dream". According to Wikipedia: "In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, 'life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement' regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.'" The full quote from Adams' Epic of America reads
But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
I find this definition has been lost over time. Since the end of World War II, the American Dream has been owning a house, having a good-paying job, marriage, and kids--with some variation. But it is the idea of the "self-made man", with limited definitions of what "making it" and "success" mean.
The meritocracy of Adams' definition has been infected with money--leading to a far more class-based society than I believe he imagined. Social mobility, and the belief that it is attainable have decreased. In the article"the American Myth of Social Mobility", the author states
Many cite education as the key to socioeconomic mobility, and there the inequalities in the American educational system clearly play a role. For example, the United States Department of Education has shown that the highest performing eighth graders from low socioeconomic backgrounds have about the same chance of completing a bachelors degree as the lowest performing eighth graders from high socioeconomic backgrounds. Translation: When it comes to higher education, the amount to money your parents have is much more critical than academic potential, and higher education is a key to socioeconomic mobility.
And this is the part that relates to "The Cost of Education" post: Education is expensive and without it, it is impossible to "make it", whatever that means.
One of the defining features of American society has generally been the size of the middle class. But recently, it has shrunk, or at least been perceived to have shrunk. As you can read about here. The age group most affected by this: 18-29 year olds. This is due in large part because real wages have stagnated. Meaning, pay increases have not kept pace with inflation--not even taking the price of goods into account. In this article, Drew Desilver says
But after adjusting for inflation, today's average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979...in real terms, the median has barely budged over that period [1979-2014]. What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.
It is getting more difficult in this country to live if you are not wealthy. And if you are not wealthy and go to college to get a job that will allow you to climb the social ladder, you will pay and be saddled with loans, and have difficulties finding a job. Which leads to underemployment.
This article may be from 2014, but the point it makes remains the same. In August 2014, the "real" unemployment rate was 12.6%. That means, when the article was written, there were almost the same number of people marginally employed as were unemployed during the height of the Great Depression. Added to this, most of these workers are earning something near minimum wage.
I searched "current living wage in us" in Google and was presented with this statement:
A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 125 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage. The living wage varies based on the cost of living and taxes where families live.
The first link under that search leads to this article, which says
The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than 3 full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 68-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Across all family sizes, the living wage exceeds the poverty threshold, often used to identify need.
There are efforts to increase the minimum wage, but it is hard not to think that is merely a band-aid on a bullet wound.
As a historian, I know the struggles workers have experienced to get fair pay. I know the living conditions. I know the hope. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" No longer are those masses just immigrants from foreign lands, they are our neighbors, our friends, our families, ourselves. We need massive change to reclaim the American Dream.
A more apt title for this would have been "The Death of the American Dream" but that seems a little pessimistic. The sister post for this one is "The Cost of Education" and what I write here should be read with that post in mind.
First, a little background on the term "The American Dream". According to Wikipedia: "In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, 'life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement' regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.'" The full quote from Adams' Epic of America reads
But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
I find this definition has been lost over time. Since the end of World War II, the American Dream has been owning a house, having a good-paying job, marriage, and kids--with some variation. But it is the idea of the "self-made man", with limited definitions of what "making it" and "success" mean.
The meritocracy of Adams' definition has been infected with money--leading to a far more class-based society than I believe he imagined. Social mobility, and the belief that it is attainable have decreased. In the article"the American Myth of Social Mobility", the author states
Many cite education as the key to socioeconomic mobility, and there the inequalities in the American educational system clearly play a role. For example, the United States Department of Education has shown that the highest performing eighth graders from low socioeconomic backgrounds have about the same chance of completing a bachelors degree as the lowest performing eighth graders from high socioeconomic backgrounds. Translation: When it comes to higher education, the amount to money your parents have is much more critical than academic potential, and higher education is a key to socioeconomic mobility.
And this is the part that relates to "The Cost of Education" post: Education is expensive and without it, it is impossible to "make it", whatever that means.
One of the defining features of American society has generally been the size of the middle class. But recently, it has shrunk, or at least been perceived to have shrunk. As you can read about here. The age group most affected by this: 18-29 year olds. This is due in large part because real wages have stagnated. Meaning, pay increases have not kept pace with inflation--not even taking the price of goods into account. In this article, Drew Desilver says
But after adjusting for inflation, today's average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979...in real terms, the median has barely budged over that period [1979-2014]. What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.
It is getting more difficult in this country to live if you are not wealthy. And if you are not wealthy and go to college to get a job that will allow you to climb the social ladder, you will pay and be saddled with loans, and have difficulties finding a job. Which leads to underemployment.
This article may be from 2014, but the point it makes remains the same. In August 2014, the "real" unemployment rate was 12.6%. That means, when the article was written, there were almost the same number of people marginally employed as were unemployed during the height of the Great Depression. Added to this, most of these workers are earning something near minimum wage.
I searched "current living wage in us" in Google and was presented with this statement:
A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 125 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage. The living wage varies based on the cost of living and taxes where families live.
The first link under that search leads to this article, which says
The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than 3 full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 68-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Across all family sizes, the living wage exceeds the poverty threshold, often used to identify need.
There are efforts to increase the minimum wage, but it is hard not to think that is merely a band-aid on a bullet wound.
As a historian, I know the struggles workers have experienced to get fair pay. I know the living conditions. I know the hope. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" No longer are those masses just immigrants from foreign lands, they are our neighbors, our friends, our families, ourselves. We need massive change to reclaim the American Dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)