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?

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."

Privilege Checklists

I suppose since the first "real" post was so topical, this is an opportunity to take a step back and look at the broader theme of being a minority. Just by existing, we are assigned certain traits or labels that help determine our place in society, which is what this blog is all about. Skin color, gender, appearance, gender identity, etc. Sometimes it is difficult for a person in a majority category, like a white person or an able-bodied person, to imagine what it's like to be in the minority category– a person of color or a disabled person.

Enter privilege checklists. Privilege checklists are essentially a way for people who have some sort of privilege to try and understand people who do not have that privilege. The first privilege checklist was introduced in 1988 when Peggy McIntosh published a paper called "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies." An important excerpt to which I will refer can be found here. In the paper, McIntosh listed several things that most white people don't think about that make their lives easier, and which people of color may have to deal with on a regular basis. Some of these things include:

"6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."

"18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race."

"21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group."

"35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race."

These are issues and obstacles which white people don't have to think about; indeed, they may not even know exist. It's a sobering list.

But wait, there's more! Obviously, skin color is not the only indicator of privilege. There are a lot of different types and degrees of privilege– so, naturally, there are a lot of different lists. This post on adult privilege has several links to other good checklists: white, male, able-bodied, average-sized, cisgendered (that is, not transgendered), and neurotypical (that is, without neurological disorders, sometimes specific to autism). The link to the heterosexual privilege one does not work. One of many straight privilege checklists can be found here.

Privilege checklists are not to show people of privilege how mean they are or how they are bad people. It's just to show someone "how the other half lives." There are so many things to think about when dealing with the complicated issues of marginalized or minority people, and checklists are a way to remind people of the different experiences that others have based on who they are.

I encourage readers to take a look at a checklist or two. If you can, look at one where you are the minority and one where you are the majority. Do you agree with the aim of privilege checklists? Did you know they existed at all? Do they apply to you?

Classism - Occupy Wall Street

No war but the class war.

Because, ultimately, that's what a lot of oppression comes down to-- when people are marginalized financially. It makes sense, on a basic level. First, have the ability to hold a job and feed a family. Second, voting rights and the like.

Spurred by an anti-consumerist magazine’s call to action (and operating under the slogan of "We are the 99%), for the past three weeks around 5,000 people have marched on America's most famous symbol of the higher-ups in finance.


But why did they start this? What do they want?

The first question is not terribly difficult to answer. Most of the United States is not in its happy place, economically. People are not very confident in the economy's future, and unemployment is at an undesirable 8.7%. It is certainly not unfathomable that a large amount of people would take to the streets in protest. Again, back to the nucleus of a lot of oppression-- the ability to provide for oneself and one's dependents. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

This leaves the second question: Why? What do they want?

The protest movement has been criticized as unfocused. It is modeled after the Arab Spring, yet the recent Middle Eastern protests seem to have the pretty clear goal of government overthrow/reform. It would be easy to dismiss 5,000 people in the largest city in the country as ignorant, disenchanted youth.

But anyone who calls these protests unfocused is clearly not listening. Occupywallst.org, the "unofficial de facto" voice of the protesters, released both a list of grievances (cleverly modeled after the Declaration of Independence) and a popular but unofficial Proposed List of Demands. The grievances are very broad but include workers' rights, education, and how money is handled; the demands, while equally far-reaching, are mostly for legislation for responsible banking and to minimize the influence of corporations of lobbyists on elections and the democratic process.

Of course, the protests are not as simple as that. There has been some debate over the role of unions in the protests, and many Republican politicians have expressed their contempt for the movement. But is there anything really all that reprehensible in the Occupy Wall Street sentiments? Don't most people agree with the basic tenet that corporate greed is bad? Or are they asking for too much?

I'd love some feedback concerning your personal feelings regarding the protests. Feel free to leave a comment. =)