William Wimsatt, the author of the first article, was born into wealth. His family describes themselves as upper-middle class and he stands to inherit a large amount of money in the not too distant future. Until this happens, he is very comfortable writing and being active for various causes. One such cause he is passionate about is the organization of wealthy people and their expenditure habits.
This topic is where he begins to defend rich kids like himself. "Rich people don't choose to be born rich any more than poor people choose to be born poor" (Wimsatt, p. 511). He begins arguing that people automatically tend to push this class of people aside, finding little to relate to and often referring to them as simply spoiled. What Wimsatt is pushing for, is for others to understand that the money held by these people can potentially create a great deal of positive change in the world; grassroots organizations and hard work can only go so far without adequate funding. If instead of ridiculing, we urged these wealthy people to donate conscientiously and in a focused way, we could create the change we wish to see. The organization he is currently developing is seeking to do exactly that: organize wealthy people in order donate to specific causes in order to have the largest impact. Allan Johnson's article is similar in the sense that most change does require both action and money. While action is largely seen as common sense for something like creating change, the money situation is where becoming part of the solution can be impossible for some.
While these articles did make me view wealthy people in a new way, it didn't necessarily change all my opinions. Wimsatt is basically telling us to look to these wealthy people as sources of funding and to take advantage of their capabilities. This is all well and good and I'd be overjoyed knowing wealthy people were contributing to just causes, but it still doesn't change the way they live their lives. This to me, is what separates the wealthy from the rest. I understand he's doing good by being generous with his money, but he still can't relate to my life and knowing that I'm going to have to work everyday for a long time in order to stay afloat. Without being able to personify the wealthy in this way (struggle) it's hard to relate. I don't blame them for being wealthy and I don't hold a grudge; I simply cannot relate to their lives and hope they realize that they can't truly relate to not having money no matter how generous they are.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Other Movement that Rosa Parks Inspired / Influencing Public Policy
The Other Movement that Rosa Parks Inspired: By Sitting Down, She Made Room for the Disabled
"She stood up by sitting down. I'm only standing here because of her" (Wilson, p. 491). These words come from Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, who owes much of what the public transportation in his city has become for the disabled to Rosa Parks. Though Parks wasn't protesting for the rights of people with disabilities, she set a precedent. This standard was that the voiceless should have a voice and that change can be created by ordinary people. Her efforts during the civil rights movement inspired another organization at the time, Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT).
ADAPT saw relevance in Parks' methods and realized they could create similar changes to help their cause. Bob Kafka, a leader of ADAPT, discussed how the organization was splintered with everyone wanting something different. "The deaf community wanted interpreters. People with mobility issues wanted curb cuts. The blind wanted more sensory communication...We were tossed salad, not fondue" (Wilson, p. 491). Without something to unify their movement, there was little progress being made and transportation for those with disabilities was a huge problem. Typically, only certain busses were equipped with lifts for wheelchairs; thus, severely limiting public transportation options for those with physical disabilities. This prevented this population from accessing jobs, social opportunities and anything else which required consistent transport.
When they eventually realized that by staging sit-in style protests on the busses, they could send a message and be heard, they began doing so across the country. Like with Parks, changes slowly began and with the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act, laws were changed. Currently, the difficulties lay in ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act across states. With the high-cost of purchasing and maintaining wheelchair lifts, cities often fail to provide what they're legally obligated to provide. "A 2002 federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics study found that 6 million Americans with disabilities still have trouble obtaining the transportation they need" (Wilson, p. 492).
This whole discussion made me think of how possible a legacy truly is. Rosa Parks stood up for civil rights and created a legacy in doing so. This later impacted those with a similar struggle and cause even more positive social change. As most of us are in the education field, I believe it's important to think of ourselves in this way. The impacts we make on children everyday will repeat in different ways throughout a child's life. If we can make a significant difference, they might in-turn replicate your work later in their life. Thinking this way can be especially helpful on difficult days, when it seems like you're not making a difference. It's important to understand that if you're truly doing your best, there's no way you can't be making a difference, for you're modeling the best we can hope for.
"She stood up by sitting down. I'm only standing here because of her" (Wilson, p. 491). These words come from Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, who owes much of what the public transportation in his city has become for the disabled to Rosa Parks. Though Parks wasn't protesting for the rights of people with disabilities, she set a precedent. This standard was that the voiceless should have a voice and that change can be created by ordinary people. Her efforts during the civil rights movement inspired another organization at the time, Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT).
ADAPT saw relevance in Parks' methods and realized they could create similar changes to help their cause. Bob Kafka, a leader of ADAPT, discussed how the organization was splintered with everyone wanting something different. "The deaf community wanted interpreters. People with mobility issues wanted curb cuts. The blind wanted more sensory communication...We were tossed salad, not fondue" (Wilson, p. 491). Without something to unify their movement, there was little progress being made and transportation for those with disabilities was a huge problem. Typically, only certain busses were equipped with lifts for wheelchairs; thus, severely limiting public transportation options for those with physical disabilities. This prevented this population from accessing jobs, social opportunities and anything else which required consistent transport.
When they eventually realized that by staging sit-in style protests on the busses, they could send a message and be heard, they began doing so across the country. Like with Parks, changes slowly began and with the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act, laws were changed. Currently, the difficulties lay in ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act across states. With the high-cost of purchasing and maintaining wheelchair lifts, cities often fail to provide what they're legally obligated to provide. "A 2002 federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics study found that 6 million Americans with disabilities still have trouble obtaining the transportation they need" (Wilson, p. 492).
This whole discussion made me think of how possible a legacy truly is. Rosa Parks stood up for civil rights and created a legacy in doing so. This later impacted those with a similar struggle and cause even more positive social change. As most of us are in the education field, I believe it's important to think of ourselves in this way. The impacts we make on children everyday will repeat in different ways throughout a child's life. If we can make a significant difference, they might in-turn replicate your work later in their life. Thinking this way can be especially helpful on difficult days, when it seems like you're not making a difference. It's important to understand that if you're truly doing your best, there's no way you can't be making a difference, for you're modeling the best we can hope for.
Lilly's Big Day
Gail Collins, the author of this essay, is referencing Lilly Ledbetter in the title of this work. Ledbetter waged a successful series of litigation in the court system that led to the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. This piece of legislation was the culmination of decades of struggle and effort put forth for equal rights by women. Collins describes the smaller political victories won by women such as Eulalie Cooper, who was forced to leave her flight attendant position because she married. Or Lorena Weeks, who was told later in her career that she was making a fraction of what her male counterparts were earning.
These women stood up, often alone, to fight for what they knew to be right. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a result of these many small victories along the way. No longer can companies fill positions with men, citing that women are incapable of handling parts of the job responsibilities. It's evidence that individuals do make a significant difference and that small victories can shift to larger. Collins ties all these women together in this essay, pointing out "They're strangers to one another; most of them made their stands and then returned to their ordinary lives" (Collins, p. 490). These women were not part of a movement and didn't have a previous stand to make, they were simply reacting to what they saw as inequality. It makes me wonder if any of the small changes I've been able to create over the years will snowball towards a greater good. It will be important to remember these lessons when things seem impossible or insurmountable, you never know how much change is necessary at once...
These women stood up, often alone, to fight for what they knew to be right. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a result of these many small victories along the way. No longer can companies fill positions with men, citing that women are incapable of handling parts of the job responsibilities. It's evidence that individuals do make a significant difference and that small victories can shift to larger. Collins ties all these women together in this essay, pointing out "They're strangers to one another; most of them made their stands and then returned to their ordinary lives" (Collins, p. 490). These women were not part of a movement and didn't have a previous stand to make, they were simply reacting to what they saw as inequality. It makes me wonder if any of the small changes I've been able to create over the years will snowball towards a greater good. It will be important to remember these lessons when things seem impossible or insurmountable, you never know how much change is necessary at once...
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Everybody's Ethnic Enigma
Jelita McLeod is half-Caucasian and half-Asian. This mixture of ethnicities has caused her a great deal of annoyances over the years that don't cease at the end of a conversation with a stranger. People are constantly going up to her to ask what race she is. It's amazing people feel they can ask for this information and that for whatever reason it's less private than other identity markers such as height and weight. She said that it's almost always strangers asking and some are far more clever in their wording than others. However they choose to phrase the question, her answer is always the same.
What does change are people's reactions to her responses. People often reacted as if they had guessed incorrectly and were disappointed in themselves. This sort of reminds me of when people guess dog breeds in public...I just never thought people would be guessing human breeds! Her least favorite reaction is when people suddenly don't feel a connection they were thinking they might have had if she had been the ethnicity they were guessing. For example, an Asian person might assume she's Asian and ask, only to be visibly disappointed with the response. Suddenly, because of her answer, she is not the same person as who the question was asked to initially.
What's interesting about all this is that people are clearly not "color blind" as most would hope to claim. If one were to truly identify as such, they would never ask anyone about their ethnic identity, for they wouldn't notice any differences between the individual and them self. Even though these strangers aren't necessarily asking questions because they are being racist, they are certainly highlighting differences between them and making this author feel super uncomfortable! This makes me feel for those with mixed backgrounds who appear as such - people will likely think about their ethnicity rather than being able to readily identify it and simply move on.
What does change are people's reactions to her responses. People often reacted as if they had guessed incorrectly and were disappointed in themselves. This sort of reminds me of when people guess dog breeds in public...I just never thought people would be guessing human breeds! Her least favorite reaction is when people suddenly don't feel a connection they were thinking they might have had if she had been the ethnicity they were guessing. For example, an Asian person might assume she's Asian and ask, only to be visibly disappointed with the response. Suddenly, because of her answer, she is not the same person as who the question was asked to initially.
What's interesting about all this is that people are clearly not "color blind" as most would hope to claim. If one were to truly identify as such, they would never ask anyone about their ethnic identity, for they wouldn't notice any differences between the individual and them self. Even though these strangers aren't necessarily asking questions because they are being racist, they are certainly highlighting differences between them and making this author feel super uncomfortable! This makes me feel for those with mixed backgrounds who appear as such - people will likely think about their ethnicity rather than being able to readily identify it and simply move on.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
What's Class Got to do with It? / More or Less Equal? / The Silver Spoon
Michael Zweig breaks down the importance and relevance of social classes before defining the most current interpretations of the various classes. He believes it's important to understand different people's class status in order to have a more holistic view of each person's background. He gives an example: "Suppose you knew that there were men and women because you could see the difference, but you didn't know about the socially constructed concept of gender. You would be missing something vitally important about the people you see" (Zweig, p. 130). Like this example using gender as a classification, social class too gives people more information.
Zweig goes on to divide the classes and define each of them. The lowest level he describes are the working class, comprised of blue collar employees who have little say in their day-to-day operations. Next are the middle class, these people earn enough to have more amenities and carry more power and decision making capabilities than the working class. The middle class is broken into three subcategories: self-employed, professional and supervisors. The final class is the capitalist class, which makes the final decisions and has the most persuasion. The Economist's article describes how these differences were created and how they have changed over the last few decades. Again, these classes are changing and the results seem to be leading the US towards more inequality.
Stephen McNamee discusses how these varying classes affect our lives before we even have a chance to understand what's happening. The idea of the silver spoon is very much real and is proven through statistics. Basically, people who are born in a higher class don't need to work as hard to maintain that level of comfort; whereas, people born into lower classes need to work extremely hard to get up to where the first class was born into. This is not to say that this process is impossible, more that it's important to realize the disparity in effort levels required to lead comfortable lifestyles...for some it's natural and requires little work, for others it may take their whole life to get there.
What I found different about Zweig's view of the social classes was how he considered influence and power to be the determining factors in establishing/defining the classes. Rather than income, which most people tend to agree is the major seperator, power and influence between groups leads people in directions beyond their income. For instance, a working class person who puts in a lot of overtime to get extra money for amenities is not quite at the same level as a professional putting in a normal amount of hours and getting paid the same. Additionally, the professional is more likely to have control over their day-to-day work lives and are in charge of more decision-making. These ideas make a lot of sense and helped me to re-frame my perception of classes. I too thought that income was the sole determinant, but I can see and agree with Zweig's definitions and better understand the relationships that are formed within our society resulting from these relationships.
Zweig goes on to divide the classes and define each of them. The lowest level he describes are the working class, comprised of blue collar employees who have little say in their day-to-day operations. Next are the middle class, these people earn enough to have more amenities and carry more power and decision making capabilities than the working class. The middle class is broken into three subcategories: self-employed, professional and supervisors. The final class is the capitalist class, which makes the final decisions and has the most persuasion. The Economist's article describes how these differences were created and how they have changed over the last few decades. Again, these classes are changing and the results seem to be leading the US towards more inequality.
Stephen McNamee discusses how these varying classes affect our lives before we even have a chance to understand what's happening. The idea of the silver spoon is very much real and is proven through statistics. Basically, people who are born in a higher class don't need to work as hard to maintain that level of comfort; whereas, people born into lower classes need to work extremely hard to get up to where the first class was born into. This is not to say that this process is impossible, more that it's important to realize the disparity in effort levels required to lead comfortable lifestyles...for some it's natural and requires little work, for others it may take their whole life to get there.
What I found different about Zweig's view of the social classes was how he considered influence and power to be the determining factors in establishing/defining the classes. Rather than income, which most people tend to agree is the major seperator, power and influence between groups leads people in directions beyond their income. For instance, a working class person who puts in a lot of overtime to get extra money for amenities is not quite at the same level as a professional putting in a normal amount of hours and getting paid the same. Additionally, the professional is more likely to have control over their day-to-day work lives and are in charge of more decision-making. These ideas make a lot of sense and helped me to re-frame my perception of classes. I too thought that income was the sole determinant, but I can see and agree with Zweig's definitions and better understand the relationships that are formed within our society resulting from these relationships.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Where's the Rulebook for Sex Verification? / The Gendered Society
Alice Dreger and Michael Kimmel take the opportunity to discuss gender classification and the biological/physiological aspects of it. Dreger wrote the article in response to Caster Semenya, a world class runner who competes with other women from around the world. She has drawn a lot of attention because her gender identity has been called into question by the I.A.A.F. (a track organization). They were questioning whether she 'qualifies' to be considered a woman or if she is actually a man.
Dreger goes on to discuss the minute differences between male and female characteristics down to the chromosomal level. She discussed chromosomes, hormones, genitals and other chemicals present in both male and female bodies that scientists are trying to use to inform their decisions regarding where the line between male and female is. There is no point where a human has more of one thing than another or any specific part to them that is unique to their gender. It's absolutely possible to be born feeling a part of one gender, only to discover that you're internally different due to varying levels of certain hormones/chromosomes. "A few years ago, I got a call from Matthew, 1 19-year-old who was born looking obviously male, was raised a boy, and had a girlfriend and a male typical life. Then he found out, by way of medical problems, that he had ovaries and a uterus" (Dreger, p. 123).
I never knew there were so many variables to consider when attempting to identify a gender. The fact that there is no black and white answer leaves judgement up to people who decide what characteristics are most important to them and their definition of gender. So, although science can help to inform their decisions, it cannot be the one to draw the line; instead, it's done subjectively by humans. This makes the entire process sort of arbitrary and makes me wonder if we should consider dropping the labels all together. While some people may choose eventually to switch genders, many are born with differences that they had no choice over. It seems insanely unfair to try to make a 2-gender mold that everyone has to fit nicely into.
Dreger goes on to discuss the minute differences between male and female characteristics down to the chromosomal level. She discussed chromosomes, hormones, genitals and other chemicals present in both male and female bodies that scientists are trying to use to inform their decisions regarding where the line between male and female is. There is no point where a human has more of one thing than another or any specific part to them that is unique to their gender. It's absolutely possible to be born feeling a part of one gender, only to discover that you're internally different due to varying levels of certain hormones/chromosomes. "A few years ago, I got a call from Matthew, 1 19-year-old who was born looking obviously male, was raised a boy, and had a girlfriend and a male typical life. Then he found out, by way of medical problems, that he had ovaries and a uterus" (Dreger, p. 123).
I never knew there were so many variables to consider when attempting to identify a gender. The fact that there is no black and white answer leaves judgement up to people who decide what characteristics are most important to them and their definition of gender. So, although science can help to inform their decisions, it cannot be the one to draw the line; instead, it's done subjectively by humans. This makes the entire process sort of arbitrary and makes me wonder if we should consider dropping the labels all together. While some people may choose eventually to switch genders, many are born with differences that they had no choice over. It seems insanely unfair to try to make a 2-gender mold that everyone has to fit nicely into.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education
James Banks wants to change the way we teach our citizens about human rights. Rather than simply memorizing laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he urges us to immerse ourselves in the subject matter in order to internalize the concepts. Rather than surrendering our individual cultures to create a monoculture, we should embrace our differences and realize that being different is what we all have in common! Why not form a nation state on the notion that we're all unified by our differences?
I believe Banks comes very close to accomplishing the task of re-focusing our views of what it means to be a citizen in today's modern world. I never before thought that there should be a balance between patriotism to one's homeland and patriotism to the rest of the world, but i makes sense if one wishes to truly be a global citizen. This article has certainly made me view what it means to belong in a different way and has made me realize that my world should encompass more.
I believe Banks comes very close to accomplishing the task of re-focusing our views of what it means to be a citizen in today's modern world. I never before thought that there should be a balance between patriotism to one's homeland and patriotism to the rest of the world, but i makes sense if one wishes to truly be a global citizen. This article has certainly made me view what it means to belong in a different way and has made me realize that my world should encompass more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)