Social Class and Mental Illness

(This blog post is somewhat a study in intersectionality, which is essentially the principle that different forms of oppression are all connected, and takes special interest in people who identify with more than one minority group: black women, disabled trans people, etc.)

A member of my family was very fortunate last summer to get a well-paying job in software consultation. With the knowledge that they were on a significant number of medications to control Type I Bipolar Disorder, I asked my mother if she thought the company's healthcare plan would cover our family member's medical needs. My mother informed me that there would probably never be a job that would cover all of their healthcare needs, and some of it would always have to be covered by personal cost and insurance.

Surprise! Having a mental illness— incidentally, most of all bipolar disorder —is really, really expensive. The lifetime cost per case of bipolar disorder for chronic or non-responsive bipolar can be up to $624,785. That's about fourteen years of an Ivy League-caliber college. Few people have that money simply lying around.

The other issue with poverty and mental illness is its cyclical nature. At first, it can seem like a chicken-and-egg question— are people poor because they're mentally ill and therefore have a harder time holding a job and paying for treatment, or are people mentally ill because they're poor and feel that they have few prospects for the future? Of course, each person's case is unique. But in the end, the cause itself is not as important as the fact that when a mentally ill person falls on hard times, its extremely difficult to escape.

How many times have we, walking down the street, written off a homeless person as a "crazy bum," when perhaps in a different situation they could be any other middle-class wage-earner? After all, 20-25% of the American homeless population is severely mentally ill (compared to 6% of the country as a whole). Homelessness can also complicate the consistency and availability of treatment of mentally ill people.


Though the cycle can be a downwards spiral, it can also be a positive pattern. For example, better mental health services can also combat homelessness. It also can see overall jail times decrease. Perhaps by better funding mental health services, we can actually save money as a society by lowering the number of people who rely on the state through food services or even incarceration. As a sort of preventative medicine, providing job resources for the mentally ill and mental health resources for the poor can make sure that no one gets caught in a vicious cycle.

Ron Paul and "Honest Rape"

I should preface this with my honest, completely biased opinion– I dislike and have always disliked Ron Paul.

I think some people who are Ron Paul supporters are very attracted by his anti-war stance, one of his many libertarian views for which he is famous. Others like his soft on marijuana position, though he doesn't think that full-out legalization is possible right now. Some people are repelled by the fact that he's signed off on racist newsletters, or just find his economic opinions. Depending on what's important to you, all of those are pretty valid opinions to like or dislike the man, as long as you recognize the whole picture.

On Friday, Ron Paul was interviewed (transcript here) on Piers Morgan about his life, his political views, and his election run, especially impressed with his popularity with young people.

(Video from YouTube.)

At one point, Morgan brought up Paul's stance on abortion. Morgan posed the dilemma that if one of Paul's five children or eighteen grandchildren were raped, would he force them to carry the baby to term? Paul simultaneously asserted that "life does begin at conception" and then went on a rambling tangent about the complexity of the issue (recognizing there are no clear lines, indirectly mentioning the morning-after pill) but ultimately did not come to a satisfying conclusion. He did acknowledge that "It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there."

Regardless of the stumbles that he made on abortion, there was one moment of shockingly poor word choice.

MORGAN: But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

Morgan did not go on to ask Paul to clarify on what he believed was an "honest rape." This poses a lot of awkward questions: what is "honest rape?" Moreover, what is "dishonest rape?" 

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs on the different opinions on when life begins.  But I think in this quote and this interview, Ron Paul is showing a dangerous disdain for rape victims. An "honest rape" is not just one where the girl is single and a virgin and a Christian, and she was held at gunpoint in a dark alley, and she didn't know her rapist (probably a person of color, knowing Paul). Rape victims can be drunk. They can be married. They can be male. They can be of any age, race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic class.

There is no such thing as an "honest rape" or a "dishonest rape." There is only rape, and the fact that people should not have to deal with its horrible consequences after the attack.

Book Review: Enlightened Sexism

(Image from Bitch Magazine)

I chose to read this book after a classmate, Graicey (who has her own blog about feminism) couldn't  put it down while we were working on our English research papers last year. I asked for it for my birthday this past summer but got too bogged down to read it immediately, but when we were assigned over to read and review a book relevant to our blog, I knew exactly what I was doing.

Enlightened Sexism, by Susan J. Douglas, is based on the premise that women are shown as "having it all" in movies and TV shows, and therefore people think that feminism is outdated or unneeded. However, Douglas argues that the media overestimates how successful women are, and that people are ignoring the fact that sexism is still very much a real thing. "It's a powerful choke leash, letting women venture out, offering us fantasies of power, control, and love, and then pulling us back in" (17). The term "enlightened sexism" comes from the idea that people think they are somehow "above" or "past" sexism, so sexist jokes and stereotypes are being used as amusing or in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" way...when in fact, they're still sexist. It also examines the still-constant pressure that now along with powerful and accomplished, women still have to be beautiful. This is demonstrated through the exhaustive inspection of recent media, especially TV shows and occasionally magazines.

First off, you will find no argument from me about Douglas' ideas themselves; that should be obvious from the theme of this blog. She is also a very talented writer: able to be smart yet not condescending, not shying away from quoting or mocking vulgarities when the time calls for it, and switching effortlessly between colloquialisms and more academic writing. Overall, the style of her writing was an absolute pleasure to read.

However, it was how the ideas were presented that I had some issue with. Much of the book (the first half at least) was thus formatted– within each chapter, a TV show was introduced, summarized, and examined, and at the end the shows featured in the chapter were tied together and the "big ideas" were established. Many of the TV shows that Douglas talked about were from the 1990s. In the 90s, I was watching Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon. Whereas an older viewer who might have been more familiar with the shows may have skimmed the summaries, I had to slow down and  comprehend every single TV show and character mentioned. After awhile, having to try and read summary after summary, plotline after plotline got a bit dull. In fairness to Douglas, she was straddling a fine line– though the constant explanations clogged up the book a little, at the same time, leaving these out would leave readers in the dark when they weren't familiar with the material. The second portion of the book was a  more palatable examination of news media, but again focuses on the early 2000s when this is less relevant for my life. It became clear to me that this book was perhaps not intended for a seventeen-year-old, that the pop culture references were not over my head but before my time.

Having said that, Douglas's book is an awesome resource for anyone who wants a hard look at media and who is willing to reconsider just what is "feminism" as we know it– or as it has been presented to us.

United States on LGBT People Around the World

For the entirety of my blog, I have been playing a sort of game with myself– how long can I go without making a post about LGBT rights? I have finally lost, but perhaps my readers will find it a winning topic.

On December 6th, President Obama issued a memorandum with seven points on protecting LGBT rights abroad, saying that gay rights were an important part of human rights and stating that they were a major part of the human rights and foreign policies of the United States. A short time after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech in Switzerland to celebrate December 10th, which marks both Human Rights Day and the signing of the Geneva Convention. She expanded upon President Obama's memo and also announced that the U.S. is making a $3 million "global equality fund" to support organizations who advance these goals around the world.

(Fun fact, which I didn't know before looking at Sec. Clinton's speech: Before the 6-3 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, there were still "sodomy laws" in place in thirteen states. Oh yeah, that was in 2003. 2003!)

The response to this speech was overwhelmingly positive. Dan Savage, creator of the "It Gets Better" campaign (and admittedly under fire for some controversial remarks about trans*-people) echoed the sentiments of many LGBT activists when he said "The check I was planning to write to Obama's reelection campaign just acquired another zero." Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, said that "Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people." Clearly, some big names in LGBT rights are really happy about this new development in gay rights and foreign policy.

The favorable reaction shocked me. Sure, I'm glad that our administration is paying attention to human rights and gay people. But it seemed to me to be kind of a backhanded move concerning domestic politics. Remember, folks, President Obama supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage. This seemed like an almost hypocritical way for Obama to pander to the LGBT crowd without actually taking any decisive stance on the freedoms of his own citizens. The more that I think about it, of course this action is going to be popular– few people are going to say that they think defending human rights is a bad thing. But it really rubs me the wrong way to see an inconsistency between actions at home and abroad, especially when it is so obviously a tactic to get gays to the polls.

I hope that if President Obama is elected for a second term, he will take a more decisive stance on the rights of LGBT people in America.

"Happy Holidays!"

Recently, I turned on the radio in my car, and something compelled me to turn on 93.9 FM, which around my parts is Lite FM. This station is not on my regular presets, but it is one click away from 94.3, which I call Jesus Radio. In between songs, I heard a prerecorded message that said something along the lines of, "From all of us at Lite FM, have a Happy Holidays!"

I actually said out loud, "I am so sure."

I found it ironic that a station that makes a point to play nonstop Christmas music would still say "Happy Holidays." Perhaps I missed something on their website?

It's even on their Google result!

This perhaps-mildly-amusing anecdote hopefully provides a segue into the idea that Christmas in America has really become more of a commercial or secular holiday than a religious one, and this really freaks some people out. Securalization of the season has even been called the "War on Christmas." The timeline for the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate is difficult, because there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" as a first instinct, Christians who say "Happy Holidays" to try and be inclusive, and there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" with secularization in mind who are purposefully trying to "Keep the 'Christ in Christmas'" or something of the sort.

As it turns out, around 60% of surveyed Americans prefer "Merry Christmas" to 23%'s "Happy Holidays, although when given an option, 45% said it didn't matter. The results followed along age, party, and religious lines, with older people, Republicans, and Evangelical Christians more likely to be supportive of "Merry Christmas" or public displays of religious symbols (although even President Bush wished people a "Happy Holidays" in office). One author quoted in The Huffington Post suggested saying "Merry Christmas" where the vast majority of people are Christian and "Happy Holidays" in more diverse areas.

Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian. But as one 2004 Reason Magazine blogger put it, instead of complaining about secularization, "the answer is in giving more time and attention to religious and charitable activities, not in demanding more Christian symbolism at the place where you shop. Macy's is not a temple." Indeed, the effort in "Happy Holidays"– in what some people perceive as a culture war –is not to belittle or take away Christmas from Christians. The effort is to try and recognize and account for the one-quarter of Americans who aren't Christian.

I identify as Christian and even I find this a little ridiculous. Christians are hardly an oppressed minority in America. We saw it recently with Rick Perry's infamous and homophobic advertisement, in which he proudly stated that "I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian." Big deal! Although he said this before the Rick Perry spot came out (which may be a testament to the extent and ridiculousness of Christians' perceived oppression in America) I think Jon Stewart put this one best– "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

And to all my readers, Happy Holidays.

Veteran's Day

(Cartoon from the AAEC).

I was thinking of how I could fit Veteran's Day into the theme of my blog– women veterans? Integration of the military? Don't ask, don't tell? Then I figured, why not just veterans in general?

It seems kind of strange to think of veterans as a minority group. Then again, veterans make up less than 1% of the general population of the United States, and veteran status is protected in many university nondiscrimination policies.

The state of veterans, especially today, is rather depressing. It hardly matters whether or not one supports the United States' current military action in foreign countries. Clearly, life is a lot worse for veterans than for non-veterans. The suicide rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans using VA (Veterans Affairs) healthcare is more than triple that of the general population. The unemployment rate for the general population is 9.1%; for veterans, 12.1%. This number only gets worse when we look at only veterans aged 18-24, who have a 30.4% unemployment rate. Perhaps the previously mentioned suicide numbers are exacerbated by the fact that there are so few prospects available for young veterans, a hopelessness which only adds on to the trauma of going to war.

How could this be? What is happening in our country that veterans suffer so much, especially from unemployment? Well, one answer is that the current employment crisis has been particularly hard on those in rural areas, those with only a college education, and/or those who work for the government– demographics that represent quite a few recent veterans. Few of those people are eligible to work in computer programming jobs, or other positions in currently booming industries.

Luckily, there is some hope for veterans. The Senate just passed a bill that offers tax incentives to businesses that hire veterans, and the House is expected to pass it as well. Then again, with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, we could see another unexpected influx of primarily young, high school-educated men and women into the job market, and many of them will still have a hard time finding jobs.

Veteran's Day has passed. However, the problems facing veterans occur every day. If you know a veteran, take the time to thank them for their service. The battle is not over when a veteran comes home.

Race and Class in College Admissions

Recently, college applicants all over the country breathed a sigh of relief as November 1st passed, and the nearly-universal Early Decision deadline was behind us.

Now, what does that have to do with this blog?

First of all, many of the people reading this blog are either applying to college or college-educated. Even if they are not, tax dollars still go to fund public universities. Second of all, race is a controversial subject in college admissions.

At many colleges, there is an optional portion where you can identify yourself as belonging to a certain race. Different colleges have different levels of specificity for races. With all other things being equal, it is easier for people of African-American and Hispanic descent to be accepted into college than people of White or Asian descent (although that particular site's graphs do not show it, Native Americans are also noted for race). This is an affirmative action policy that is based on the premise that people of certain races face more obstacles than other races in life, and are therefore given a boost in college admissions to combat any inequality or obstacles that people of other races do not face.

This assumption– regardless of whether or not it is true –has caused a lot of uproar. The state of California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which said that public colleges could not consider race or ethnicity in their admissions process. There have been recent, failed attempts to overturn this measure. On the flip side, a 2003 Supreme Court court case regarding the University of Michigan Law School, Grutter v. Bollinger, stated that while there should not be quotas for race, race could be considered in college admissions to create a "critical mass" of minority students. The case was brought up by two White students who thought that their race directly contributed to their denial from the university. In essence, Grutter v. Bollinger stated that the University of Michigan was allowed to use affirmative action.

There has also been some talk of affirmative action for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. These students cannot take the SAT or ACT prep courses that other students can, they cannot afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they cannot even necessarily afford college. Some colleges The Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University argues that "[i]f we limit working-class students’ access to selective colleges, we also limit their access to the best jobs and to social networks that have significant power in American politics and business." Indeed, it is often said that poverty is a cycle. Those who cannot afford to go to college will often be denied the chance to acquire skills to move up in the world.

Critics of affirmative action might actually accuse it of discriminating against white people. Keep clutching those pearls, because African-American students still make up less than 10% of the population of most of the nation's top schools. Yes, minority students are being given some advantage. But it is completely paranoid and inaccurate to picture White and Asian students as being somehow shut out of elite colleges. Just under 60% of Hispanic students enroll in college right after high school, compared to 92.2% of Asians.

Clearly, there are those who are being under-served. As one Columbia sociology professor put it, "There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides."