Keeping up with the Joneses?

Stemming from reading The Great Gatsby, my American Studies class has been discussing class and classism. We discussed the possible sources of class and the influences on class. One major influence on class is one's "group of aspiration", or the social group that they desire to be in. Maybe this group of aspiration is not so much what group we want to be in as what group we want to appear to be in. Joe Queenan, a journalist for the New York Times and the Atlantic, claims that there is "a desire in this country to be perceived as being one step ahead" (PBS, People Like Us). The word perceived in Queenan's argument jumps out to me as one of much importance. He claims that we want to appear to be wealthier than others, even if we are not. This thirst for an elevated perception of our own social class made me wonder: what price do we pay for class (or perceived class that is). This seemed to be demonstrated during the 2008 housing crisis when 3.1 million foreclosure filings were issued (Christie). 

Allow me to explain. In the early 2000's the government lowered the credit rating needed to take out a loan, making it easier for people to borrow huge sums of money in order to buy a home. People, who otherwise wouldn't have been trusted to repay the loans, could now borrow sums of money that they may or may not realistically be able to pay back. With these loans buyers bought houses that were otherwise unaffordable. The graphic shown here mocks the "McMansions" that such people purchased during the time. Because hey if you have a loan for so much money why not buy your dream home!? Well the answer to this is also demonstrated in the graphic with the big fat "foreclosure" sigh plastered on the regal columns. The opulent columns as well as the "McMan$ion" sign serve to demonstrate the excessiveness of the home. Clearly these people did not need houses of such a size, so they must have been reaching for the purpose of appearing higher on the class ranks. After the bank's "here take the money and spend" spree, the market crashed, and the people who were supposed to pay the banks back couldn't (read more). This caused thousands of homes nationwide to also go into foreclosure. While many blame the irresponsible loan takers, it is also argue that this crash should be to the banks for making the risky loans in the first place. Upon whomever the blame may fall, it is apparent to many, as well as exaggerated in the photo, that these mansions were owned by people who could not afford them. 

This graphic seems to illustrate perfectly the connection between Queenan's theory that everyone is always wanting to seem to be wealthier than their neighbors. I would argue that class competition made these families take out these loans in the first place that they knew were shaky, and eventually cause them to end up in foreclosures. It seems to me that some Americans are willing to risk everything to be perceived as higher class. 

Excessively Career Orientated or Properly Prioritizing?

Upon reading The Great Gatsby and discussing class, wealth and power in my American Studies class, I have been thinking a lot about American's priorities. One thing in particular that I have picked up on is the concept of people's dreams, and the American dream in general. It seems that many people's motivations are revolved around acquiring money and thereby "succeeding" in the work place. But another American dream centers around the idea of raising a family. So I wondered, at what cost do American's sacrifice their family centered dreams for their career centered dreams? And is there one that people generally value over the other.

A recent Bloomberg article covered a hot new trend that to me demonstrates the prioritizing of these two dreams- family and work. It is called "freezing eggs". Freezing eggs is a newish technology that allows women to extract eggs from their bodies and have them medically frozen until they want to use them to have a child. Brigitte Adams, a women interviewed in the article, says that freezing her eggs "bought [her] time and the possibility of having children in the future." Brigitte is a marketing executive, and like many other wealthy, career oriented women, paid $10,000 for the opportunity to put establishing a family off several years.

I first took the whole concept as a demonstration of Americans not valuing family but career above anything else. Wanting to work first rather than establish a family. However, after more thinking I have come to the conclusion that by these freezing their eggs they are actually doing the opposite- putting family above career. While they may be deciding to tackle their career first, they are spending large sums of money so that they can have a family eventually. They fear that if they "Work hard, put off kids, [they] might find [themselves] at 40 hearing a fertility doctor deliver the bad news." These women freeze their  eggs in fear of never having the ability to live their other American dream of raising an American family, which in turn demonstrates the fact that they care about the family values.

Do you feel as of these women are putting their values of having a family in front of or behind their career? Do you think there is a general American trend regarding the ranking of people's workplace and family dreams? 

Aware of The Truth?

        Just last weekend Wilmette hosted a 5k breast cancer awareness run at Gilson park. Pink was all around and ribbons covered everyone's tee shirt. People support these walks to feel good about donating to a cause of such a perceivably deadly disease. In a 1997 survey when asked what the leading cause of death in women was, 44% responded breast cancer (Jamieson). If I had partaken in the survey, I probably would have answered the same thing. To my surprise, however, the perception that breast cancer kills more women than any other disease is incorrect. 

If fact, heart disease is nine times as likely to kill a women. The book Unspun points out this misconception that many hold, and explains. It claims that though ironic, "breast cancer gets so much attention partly because so many women survive it"(Jamieson, 91). Not only is heart disease fatal to nine times as many women as breast cancer, but other diseases such as lung cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and stroke, kill more than breast cancer. 

When there are so many survivors, there are more people who try to advocate for the prevention and thereby raise awareness. It should be noted that I am not, in any way, trying to simplify the fatalities of breast cancer, because it is such a terrible disease. But I would make the argument that make the argument that breast cancer is way more publicized than other medical conditions which should receive equal, if not more, awareness. 

It was so eye opening, to me, to read that breast cancer wasn't the number one cause (nor was it close) of death in women. I think that like many Americans, I have gotten myself caught up in being charitable to the one cause, and never really gave a second thought to other causes that deserve as much attention. I would also make the claim that many Americans don't really question the facts behind such touchy subjects, and therefore never really receive the whole story when they think they do. No one would want to hold up a breast cancer awareness walk to say that they should also raise awareness for heart disease! While the survival rate of breast cancer was a pleasant surprise, I think the awareness and funds that its advocates have raised need to be similarly reflected in the advocacies of other diseases as well, so more people can survive these in the long run. 

The PAC to End all PACs?

        I have recently become quite the expert on Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs are orginizations that pool campaign donations from donors and give the funds to a specific candidate in order for the canidate to have success in their election. The people who run and contribute to the PACs contain beliefs that they want represented in congress, and by putting all their money to a common candidate's campaign, they are able to get these beliefs in the house (in the form of the elected official). While hearing this may make one feel giddy seeing teamwork being used in a productive manor; others understand that there comes a lot of possible corruption behind these PACs. 

        One such man opposer of these PACs is Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessing. Lessing has "long opposed 'big-money' in politics". And today, Lessing announced his plan to start his own PAC to end all PACs: he tells us to "laugh at the irony" (Derrek Willis). You can read the full article here with the details of how Lessing plans to make his dream PAC a reality. 

        Upon reading this article I quickly saw a link that made me question American morals. While I understand and appreciate the determination of the American people to fight for their say in congress, I do feel as if the monetary aspect of PACs tells us something. When we want something to be done, it is simple, just get a ton of money and throw it at the problem. Yes this is much easier said than done, but it seems to me that fundamentally this is what PACs are doing. It seems that a lot of times we have the mentality to make a connection between money and success. If we want our problem to be resolved in order for us to succeed we could try spending more. If we earn more we are more successful. Is it having money that grants us success, because we can then throw money at our problems. While it may sound a bit far fetched, I would argue that many people have this mentality. "If I were richer this wouldn't be a problem!" So can money really solve our problems? 

Which Came First: the Chicken or the Egg?

          While I may be thinking about American polarization way more than the average Joe, due to my seemingly endless junior theme research, I have come across many interesting thoughts stemming from the theme of polarization. My theme specifically focuses on political polarization in our country, the gap between the democrats and the republicans, but when researching political polarization it is nearly impossible to run into other types of polarization as well. 

          The book "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State" by Andrew Gelman looks at the geographic divisions caused by political divisions. Where people who live in certain states are classified as "red" or "blue". While these divisions may seem second nature to anyone who has watched the states light up on the election night news, there is more then initially meets the eye. Gelman argues that richer states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are blue states, or vote democratically. Where as poorer states, such as Mississippi, New Mexico and Arkansas, were red states, or republican states. Even within these state lines, are districts that are either red or blue. This shows proof of geographic polarization especially people living in areas with people who agree with them politically. 

          So what came first, I ask myself, Political Polarization or Geographic Polarization? In other words, do people live where they do, be it states or districts, because people in the area agree with their political views? Or are people polarized politically because where they live. The book "Red Families v. Blue Families" discusses how family values and views on social issues divides us politically, and therefore geographically. So with our morals, political views and geographic location all playing a part in who we are, I ask: which causes which? I would be interested in hearing anyones anwser to this question, but while I continue to research I begin to think that maybe there isn't an anwser. 

Inter Party Marriage?

          As you may recall from my last post, the topic I have decided to take on for my "Junior theme" research paper is political polarization in America and the growing partisan gap. While the topic in name may seem to center around congress and politicans over in Washington, what really stood out to me, and the reason I ultimatly choose the topic, was the fact that political polarization is so prevalent in our culture and some don't even realize it. Okay well maybe most people can attest to hearing political extremists on the news, or enduring a long dinner discussion of two avid political buffs who can't seem to agree on the same issue, or even families that won't allow their children to marry someone of the other political party. Yes, you heard me alright. According to CQ Researcher, a study from YouGov Poll in 2010 stated that about 50% of republicans and 35% of democrats said they would be unhappy if their child marrried someone from the other party. The same poll taken in 1960 found that only 5% of republicans and 4% of democrats would be unhappy with this.

          Like I stated, this fact was one that caused me discontempt. How could our society be so shallow, I thought. But two weeks and piles of books and articles later, I have discovered that there is way more to politics and the polarization of them then just the way some elected officials vote on laws. The polarization runs in a deep culture divide where morals are tested against eachother: social and political principles that people have increasingly become loyal to. It has started to occur to me that maybe the reason parents have increasingly not approved of inter party marrige is because they feel that their childrens' morals are being swayed by the oposing party spouse. Do you think that it is bad for parents to put these kinds of pressures on their child to marry one of the same political party? Or do you think that they are just trying to make sure that their future son/daughter in-law has the same values? 

The Path to the Real US?

LBGT Rights by Country

       When approached with the daunting task of coming up with a topic to write the world renowned "Junior Theme" paper on, I explored many issues and came up with the topic of political polarization and the partisan gap in America. While it seemed exhausting reading materials for days in search of a final topic, I did manage to find some fascinating things along the way. And though I didn't choose to write my theme on my findings from www.path2usa.com, I did think it was worthy of note.
       Path "2" USA is a website made for people from India who plan to visit or immigrate to the US. One section of the website lists what to do and not to do upon visiting our country. I urge everyone to take a look at this list. It is fascinating to see customs that are second nature to us, written out in a step by step guide for foreigners.
       One theme I noticed throughout the list was dos and don'ts that involved homosexuality. "Do not walk or sit with arms around the shoulders of someone of the same sex. You may be mistaken to be a "a Gay" or "a Lesbian"" was one that stuck out to me. Also the sites clear warning to not wear a pink shirt unless you want to be perceived as gay.
       It seemed to me that through the emphasis put on avoiding looking homosexual in American society, the site is making a statement on the amount of prejudice toward those who associate as gay in the US. The way that they used the words "a Gay" instead of just "gay" makes it seem like homosexuals are in a separate race of their own, and that Americans always have an eye out trying to spot someone who could associate with this group. 
       While the US has more freedom regarding same sex marrige than many countries in the world demonstrated by the map shown here, my findings make Americans out to seem homophobic and judgmental. Most interestingly enough, the people that that the post are targeted at are emmigrating from a country where it is deemed a "penalty" for being homosexual. Do you think that the US is more homophobic than other nations, regardless of the fact that we federally rocognize same sex marriage? How do you see us globally compared to other countries on this issue?