Trayvon Lives On

The news has been pouring with stories and different accounts of Trayvon Martin's shooting back in February. The simple story that has been spread around by major news sources such as the New York Times, is that a young African American in Florida-- 17 to be exact-- named Trayvon Martin, was shot by an armed community watch guard who suspected Trayvon of suspicious activity. Trayvon was unarmed at the time, and was carrying only an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Driving While Black is a pretty well known phenomenon, think of this is as Walking While Black. 


President Obama shared his sentiments on the atrocity later: "'I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this'". Obama understands that this is not just about one boy who was killed, this is about our entire attitudes as Americans towards people of different races. Mitt Romeny, the Republican presidential candidate, took a similar stance on the issue "'What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity'". 

Trayvon Martin

Some facts about the shootings that are much less well known are that Zimmerman, the community watch guard who shot Trayvon was a Hispanic American. I am not sure how exactly this affects my views on the shooting, but I definitely think that you could see this as an example of racial tension. Another lesser known fact is that Mr. Zimmerman had called 911 an astounding 46 times in the past eight years, which shows his paranoia and mental instability- no wonder the police did not come rushing to the scene when Zimmerman reported suspicious activity. Few people know why Trayvon was really there. He was there with his father to visit his father's fiance and son-- so he truly was minding his own business. Zimmerman is now in prison and has been charged with second degree murder. Thanks to the media, the police received enough public support to further investigate the case. Now, there is an extremely long Wikipedia page dedicated to the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". 


I personally find this whole case a giant upset for American progress. It has been centuries since we have been importing slaves to America. Segregation in public schools has been outlawed for about 50 years now. America now has its first African American president. Yet, after all of these improvements, I wonder in light of the Trayvon Martin shooting, how much has really changed? Is it possible that America has not in fact progressed, but began to regress?




Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/trayvon_martin/index.html?8qa
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/dear-al-sharpton-leave-trayvon-martin-alone.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

NIMBY

"NIMBY" I told my parents half jokingly. Over dinner, my parents informed me that the synagogue I live directly across the street from is trying to renovate their basement to form an apartment or home for a homeless family, which would house them. Instead of continually teaching the values of taking care of others and being generous, a bunch of churches and now this synagogue also, have decided to help solve the problem. Indeed, it is a noble idea. Its nobleness is the reason it is so difficult to oppose it and voice our opinions against it-- no one wants to be the one denying a homeless family a home.

When you wipe away all of the grandeur of the idea, you can begin to see the flaws. The three main causes of homelessness are crime, drug issues, and mental illness. These three things sadly make it hard to buy or rent a residence and make you an undesirable neighbor. But these reasons are the reasons that I am not in favor of having a homeless family as my neighbor: I question my safety. If you put yourself in my feet  you may agree. Do you really want to live next to someone with schizophrenia?

Beyond my worries about how this may affect me, I wonder how this will affect the homeless family. Family is a very vague term, and the details of what exactly will happen are vague too. But regardless of whether this is a parent with three children, or grandparents with a child and their spouse and their 24 year old son or daughter, how will they feel and manage. If the family cannot afford to maintain a residence, then how will their 10 year old daughter feel in the midst of label heaven (Glencoe is the second most fashionable town after all, see earlier post). As far as how an older family may manage, where will they do something like buy their groceries? At Grand Foods which only offers six dollar organic milk? I doubt it. Everything around here is more expensive, so situating someone with very very little money in an expensive neighborhood seems like a path to disaster.

Also, God forbid something goes wrong, like a theft for example, the defendants will not be suing the family, they do not have any money, they will be going after the synagogue.

Some questions that I have which I hope to be answered when more details are provided are 1) will the family pay taxes or are residents supposed to support them, and 2) will this be a stable housing unit for one family for an extended period of time or for shorter terms.

I am all for affordable housing but I think homelessness is a completely different case . In the end, is the synagogue solving the problem or using the family as a token of their support?



Note: "66% [of homeless people] report either substance use and/or mental health problems". For further reading, this article talks about homelessness.

Glencoe: The 2nd Most Fashionable Town in the U.S.

Apparently I live in the second most fashionable town in the entire United States. My sister texted me today saying that Glencoe was ranked the second most fashionable town in America.  I was aware of the fact that Glencoe, Illinois was one of the wealthiest towns in America, but this still came as a shock considering that while talking to kids and parents in Glencoe most labeled themselves "upper middle class". Maybe they are right and they really are upper middle class, or maybe they are unwilling to label themselves as upper class or even lower class. Recently in my American studies class we have been learning about how people identify themselves based on class, and how skewed people are. In a documentary we were watching, one person said "everyone considers themselves middle class". But why? 

I believe that the term middle class connotes something very American-- working hard and moving up. In my opinion, if you are in the upper middle class it is more likely that you have had to work for your money than if you are in the lower upper class or upper class. Upper class people have probably inherited money and have been given a little bit of a financial cushion making it more likely for them to remain in the upper class. These people are not quite fondly called "old money". Glencoe is a mix of old money and new money. The general consensus would be that it is marginally more "new money". I have a theory on why Glencoeans identify as upper middle class even though research would argue otherwise. Growing up, most of my parents generation was middle class. They got by fine but did not have a surplus of money. So, these people consider themselves middle class because that is what they are used to being. I believe it is hard to change classes, and these people know. Undoubtedly though, they have gained more wealth, which is shown in the amount per household spent on clothing. Still, it was hard for them to believe that they managed to believe that they had moved up but still acknowledged a little. Upper middle class became for them the compromise between being middle class and being upper class, and middle class still connotes that they had to work to get to where they are, it was not handed over. 

If my generation moves back to Glencoe, I expect Glencoe to shift to being a predominantly "old money" town. We would be "old money" because we grew up wealthy with such amenities as dressing nicely, and a college education to name a few. I think then, we may be willing to identify as upper class because having money will no longer be a foreign idea to our generation. 

(Note: the article can be found by clicking on this link)

Women: Nothing But White Noise?

In my American Studies class in school, we recently finish White Noise by Don DeLillo. Here is the premise of the book: set in the 70s, tells the story of Jack Gladney, a Hitler studies professor at a college, and his family. After the set up, a cloud of chemicals comes that forces the family to leave town for a little, and later move back. Jack is of course the main character, complex and interesting, but his wife Babette also receives a decent amount of development. Don't get your hopes up though, by no means is she described flatteringly. When we do learn about her, it is for short sections, that could be thought of as white noise.

I am not surprised by the lack of impressive female characters in the novel. I think that this novel merely mirrors life. The New York Times recently published an article about Gloria Steinem, a prominent and highly influential woman involved in the women's rights movement for 40 years. The article  talks about how the feminist movement relies solely on Gloria as their spokesperson, and how no one else has been able to replace her. As I said at the beginning of this paragraph: this novel merely mirrors life. In White Noise, there is not a single powerful female character. Let me describe some of the female characters in the book:
Babette: scared of death, obsessed with weight, and sleeps with another man to get what she wants.
Denise: Jack's daughter who is bossy yet extremely gullible and easily influenced. For instance, she adopts every symptom of what she hears on the radio that could be a result of exposure to the toxic cloud "'[Denise and her sister] get them only when they're broadcast" (129). In this case, "them" is whatever new symptom has been announced.
Steffie: Jack's other daughter who is like another Denise except sensitive. We do not really know very much about her but we know that her genes are not great because her mother has some issues.

Those are really the three main female characters, but combined they are still all less interesting than Jack, the main character. If novels are reflections of real life, can we expect there to be interesting, intelligent characters like Gloria Steinem when there is only one person like her? Except for Gloria Steinem, are women nothing but white noise?

Mad (Wo)Men

Mad Men, a popular tv show on AMC set in the mid 20th century about the big wig advertising men of that era, just aired the premiere of its 5th season on Sunday Night. Deciding to give into the Mad Men crave, I watched the first episode of the show today. In the first 15 minutes of the show, you see 5 different women's characters. The first one is a woman smoking at the bar, the second a booty call, the third a young girl who seems like a hopeless dreamer with the dream of getting ahead who cannot stick up for herself, the fourth a pissy red head who insists that women are good for nothing but sex, and the fifth is finally a seemingly educated woman- however, she is foreign and is immediately shut down when she begins talking.

But don't worry it's okay because they are just making fun of people who make fun of women.....

But is it really okay? Are we not taught in English class that a double negative makes what you said before you repeated yourself true? Example: "Mother, I did not not do my chores". In this case I am partly clearing your name, but what I still really mean is that I did not do my chores, I am just unwilling to admit it. SO, to say that you are making fun of people who are making fun of women really just means that you are in fact making fun of women. In the words of a vlogger on feminist frequency "It’s really the normalization of sexism through the use of irony" (video shown below). I certainly agree with what she has to offer on the topic of lampooning others who make fun of women; check it out to hear her ideas on the topic.

Do you agree? Can we apply the theory of a double negative to something like sexism in a tv show?

At The Bottom

Feminist sayings with Ryan Gosling pictures have
been flooding the internet. This is one of many. 

A popular New York Times article floating around is about the possibly longest serving flight attendant in the U.S.- an 83 year old man who has been working as a flight attendant for 63 years now. The tone of the article can easily be described as light, heartwarming, or even inspiring. When I saw only the title of the article, I assumed the subject of the article would me a woman because of occupational crowding- men or women being  grouped in a certain job because it is the right "fit" for their gender. I do not think it was presumptive of me to jump to the conclusion that the flight attendant would be a male for a reason stated in the article. The qualifications for a flight attendant used to be: "single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 19 1/2 may apply for future consideration). 5’2” but no more than 5’9,” weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses". I suppose it goes without saying that they must we women. Oh and also they were required to retire by 32. These requirements to be a flight attendant are quite appalling. The gall of the executives of this company to put this add out there in 1966, not that long ago, is remarkable. In the next paragraph, the article mentions his personal life: "He married a fellow flight attendant... He continued to fly. She promptly quit". This should give an idea of just how regulated these things were; these rules of being single and such were played by the book.

Despite this article acknowledging the unfair treatment of women in the work force, it does not mention women's role in the field until the very bottom of the first page and spilling on a tiny bit onto the second. It makes me wonder: how far have we really come? In an article about the unfair treatment of women, why are women only a small portion of the article, and why do they come at the point when most people would stop reading?

Women DO Count

One of the cover stories on the Sunday New York Times is about Obama's campaign and his latest tactic to regain candidacy in the 2012 race. As my title suggests, the key to his winning the election is getting the women vote. A new health care law is out mandating universal insurance and requiring coverage of both treatments for illnesses, and more controversially, certain women's health care coverages. These coverages include: contraception, mammograms, and abortion. Republicans and leading republican presidential candidates are not in favor of these health care laws and plan to repeal it if they get in power. 


One of my main problems with this issue is the disconnect between the Republican party's pro-life stance and how they treat people. A friend of mine recently shared this photo with me on Facebook, about all of the help the Republicans deny different groups. As the sign poignantly remarks upon- we will take care of you to make sure that you will be born, but once you are born, we have no intentions of protecting you from going broke from expensive medical treatments which you cannot pay for, or breast cancer prevention (mammogram testing), etc. Being sick is not a choice, which is why I believe that whether or not the Catholic Church's morals allows Catholics to receive previously mentioned women's health care, they should provide it as an option for all employees and people who have their health care. It simply does not make sense to be pro-life and not let people then have a good life where they do not have to worry about whether they can receive medical attention or not because it may cost them their house for something like a few chemotherapy treatments. 


Back to where I began, women in the election. Most women would and maybe even should be appalled by the Republican party's lack of support for their well-being. Here is a statistic on how much women effect who is in power, a "survey asked in the summer which party should control Congress, 46 percent of women favored Democrats and 42 percent preferred Republican control. But in a survey released Monday ... that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats "(Source). It has been 90 years since women gained suffrage, and their vote is finally starting to matter. But I wonder in terms of the Republicans, how can they expect to win the race when they are upsetting women, who according to the NYtimes article "were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008 " ?