Guest Post: Graicey

Note from Alex: We had an assignment to post on somebody else's blog and under their lens. My friend Graicey is posting here, and soon I'll have a post on Meghana's blog. Hope you enjoy!

 

Hey everyone! I'm one of Alex's classmates, and I'll be writing this post as a guest blogger. If you want to read my blog for our English class, feel free to check it out here! The lens I write about is feminism and women's issues, so if you're interested go on ahead and explore. However, for this blog post I'd like to examine an issue that doesn't fit under my lens, but works with Alex's lens of discrimination and minority groups.

Since I'm well versed in feminism, other groups with stigmas against them ignite a similar interest. As I was doing research for another blog for another class (it's in French so I won't link it here) I stumbled upon a concept that I'm continuing to struggle with as I'm writing this.

The thing that I can't wrap my head around is this: is discrimination against obese people acceptable?

As a not-overweight person myself, I don't have any personal experience with the issue of discrimination based on weight. However, after researching and doing a bit of reading, I'm not so sure where I stand.

I read this commentary about a writer's feelings on a hospital that refuses to hire someone with a BMI higher than 35, and another news article that talks about the issue with much more professionalism.

I like to think of myself as accepting. I don't discriminate based on looks, I'm sensitive to cultures and attitudes different than mine, and when I hear some politician ranting about how birth control is the work of the devil I only get incensed instead of murderous. But reading articles on this topic made me feel uncomfortable because I felt as if either way you look at it, it's a lose-lose situation. 

For example: All medical conditions aside, weight is a thing you can control to some extent through diet and exercise. That leads me to believe that discrimination against obese people is okay because a healthy weight is attainable with a healthy lifestyle. And I'm not saying everyone should look bikini-model thin, because obviously people have different body types and a unique healthy weight. There is no 100% goof-proof healthy weight for everyone, so there's a flexibility therein. So what it comes down to is I think it's okay to discriminate against obese people because it will make them healthier in the long run if they change their diet and food choices.

But on the other side, I'm also knowingly making life more difficult for a person because of something about their appearance. If I condone discrimination against obese people, I'm saying that yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and also it's okay to judge people based on how they look, which isn't something I believe in.

When it comes down to it, there's not really a better or worse side to be on. I guess this is one of those things I'll have to puzzle over for a while before I can form a more firm opinion about the topic.

Working Mothers

If you pay attention to the news, undoubtedly you have heard over the recent debates surrounding Ann Romney, wife of presidential candidate and certain Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

(Photo from left to right: Mitt Romney, Ann Romney, Barbara Walters. Picture from Politico.)

Anderson Cooper was interviewing Democratic political pundit Hilary Rosen (who is not affiliated with the Obama campaign) on Mitt Romney's attempt to attract women to his campaign, considering that he'd have to win about 40% of female voters to hope to beat Obama in the November election. The sound bite heard 'round the world was Rosen saying that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life."

Immediately, outrage flew from mothers and Romney supporters alike. Some blogs called Rosen's comment "ludicrous" and "offensive," citing motherhood as the most difficult job in the world. The opposition argued that compared to parents who have to work– and worry about losing –wage-paying of the house, Ann Romney's life is comparatively a breeze.

I do think that Rosen's comment could have been worded better; as a mother herself, she should have recognized that the comment would come off as tactless. However, I do think that the crux of her argument was a good one, especially taken in context. Rosen was saying that according to Mitt, he asks his wife to seek out women's opinions on political issues. In fact, just after that quote, Rosen went on to say "[Ann Romney has] never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."

Roger that. Ann Romney attended private elementary schools and BYU; she had her first child when she was 21. She was actually criticized in her husband's losing 1994 Massachusetts Senate bid for appearing too privileged. The one thing that might connect her with an average American would be her struggles with multiple sclerosis and cancer in the past, but I doubt the cost of healthcare was ever on her mind.

The Romneys are no strangers to looking out-of-touch. Mitt Romney has such gems like saying he enjoys the ability to fire people, and he doesn't watch NASCAR but has friends that own NASCAR teams. If there was ever a man that should appear foreign to the middle class, it should be Mitt Romney– which might explain the extremely drawn-out Republican nomination race, as well as the general lack of enthusiasm for Romney.

I am sorry that such legitimate political commentary has been lost among a war of words. I don't think Rosen quite deserves the flagellation she's getting (though I do disagree with her phrasing). Instead, we should examine the idea that the Romneys don't really get what's going on with the average American.

Do you think Mitt Romney appears out-of-touch? Is it fair to bring Ann Romney into this conversation?

Causes, the Lottery, and What's Important

Allow me to tell two stories, and then string them together.

Just before Spring Break let out, my English class did an interesting activity. We were given a list of 20 events or causes that were more or less positive depending on personal opinion, and told we had $100,000 to spend on each cause based on how much we valued them. This was assigned as homework, and then we discussed our methodologies in class.

The causes were–

1. An end to hunger worldwide
2. Happy marriage
3. A long life of physical health
4. World peace between the US and all other countries
5. Reverse the effects of global warming
6. Fame 
7. An end to capital punishment
8. A good education
9. The ability choose the President of the United States for the rest of your life
10. An end to racism
11. Enough money that you don't have to work for the rest of your life
12. Outstanding musical/artistic talent
13. A end to abortion
14. Women's rights globally
15. Legalization of gay marriage
16. Outstanding athletic talent
17. Spiritual enlightenment
18. Worldwide democracy
19. Global nuclear disarmament
20. Worldwide access to effective contraception

Personally, I first put zeros for all the causes that I didn't actually want (a worldwide end to abortion, fame, outstanding athletic talent, etc.). I then put zeros for things that would benefit only me (a good education, a happy marriage, outstanding musical/athletic talent, etc.). I then had ten causes left. I picked the two goals that I considered the most difficult to achieve– an end to hunger worldwide, and world peace between the US and all other countries –and gave them $30,000 each. The other causes I gave $5,000 each.

In class we discussed what we picked. Some people chose to focus more personal causes. Some gave more money to the legalize women's rights globally option, thinking that it would solve other problems like an end to abortion, world hunger, and worldwide access to more effective contraception. We also discussed discrepancies between what we picked on this hypothetical list and what we work on in real life. I, obviously, care about my personal problems, which my choices for the assignment did not reflect. I also devote most of my time to the legalization of gay marriage, one of the options to which I gave $5,000.

New story time.

One of my two sisters, my Mom, and my Dad and I were sitting in our hotel room in Orlando over spring break. At the time, the lottery pot which eventually grew to $656 million dollars was a big news story. My family casually discussed how we would use the money– how much of it would go to charity, how much we would invest, what we would buy, what we would save. I personally didn't come up with any exact figures.

My Consumer Education teacher has said that the two rarest commodities are time and money; of those two, time is probably more rare.  I don't have $656 million (and neither does the winner; there were three, and the IRS takes 25%). Nor do I have $100,000 readily available to me. But I do probably have a good 60 years ahead of me. What causes are most important to me? What do I want to spend my life doing?

I've heard back from all ten colleges to which I've applied, both acceptances and denials. I applied to all 10 as a music education major. Now the rather grueling decision process begins. In terms of my major choice, it gives me a rather specific career (though my top choices have five year BA/BM programs where I would double major in an arts and sciences field, the second major would probably be for personal fulfillment and not for a career).

I'm not going to become a doctor and make my career out of helping people get more effective access to contraception. I'm not going to become a lawyer or politician and make my career out of ending capital punishment. My career solves exactly zero problems on this list, but that doesn't mean that these problems aren't important to me. I run a political blog that arguably calls out people who wish promote sexism and racism. I find great enjoyment out of the rare days in Gay-Straight Alliance where I get to educate the club on a topic. I also share a lot of media on Facebook and Tumblr to the end of promoting LGBT rights.  Although I chose hunger and peace as the largest, most difficult, and most important items on the list, they are not the ones I focus on in my daily life.

Why?

On the hunger issue, it's difficult for me to know which charities to throw money at. And in terms of world peace, I don't know how I could improve that without working for the State Department (if my readers think differently, I'd love to hear)...or perhaps a little bit of cause #9! If $30,000 each could fix that problem instantly, as I believe the premise of the activity suggests, of course I would put money towards that. But in real life, it wouldn't.

Plus, in terms of legalization of gay marriage in the United States, our successes are visible. They are legislative, political issues. They make sense. There's no problems with national sovereignty or white savior complexes or corrupt governments of developing countries. Sometimes it doesn't even require money, more of a vote or a signature. And so it's a good field to work in for me because I have visible results achieved through the appropriate political channels. (Of course, it's also an issue of personal importance to me.) But I know many people would say that lives are not at stake in the legalization of gay marriage debate, and so it should be considered less important.

I look at my blog, and I've talked about so many social issues in, particularly, the United States. But I can't work on all of them all the time, or even most of the time. And nobody can. In my opinion, we have to choose a fewer things that we're the most passionate about, because it is when we throw our hearts into our causes that we make the most impact.

What do my readers think? If you're in my class, what causes did you put down? If not, what would you have put? What do you work on in "real life?" Do you agree or disagree with my methodology?