Two things right up front: I have worked as a domestic employee for nearly five years now and I have refused to see The Help. And on we go...
The Help came out last year, and this weekend it was nominated for a fair few Oscars. Now, the reason I haven't seen this film is because I think it's harmful. I hear that it greatly sugarcoats the absolute misery of Jim Crow America and largely reduces the African American maids to supporting roles for the young white star. Maybe I should see it and decide these things for myself, but in general I don't like spending money on things that misrepresent history.
All of this has been discussed before, particularly with great eloquence by Melissa Harris-Perry; if you haven't watched her new weekend MSNBC show, you should start. So I'll move along to my point. What The Help has done well is shine a light on domestic workers. While the movie (and book, of course) was about African American maids in the first half of the last century, there are still many issues facing domestics today.
In only one state (New York) is there real protection for domestic workers, and that did not come about until 2010. This was not come by easily, either; groups like the National Domestic Works Alliance launched worked for years to pass the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights. The same group is currently pushing a similar bill through in California. Domestic workers were excluded from parts of the National Labor Relations Act during FDR's presidency to appease Southern segregationists. The fact that this has not changed in any state but New York is absolutely despicable and terrifying.
As a nanny myself, I spend a lot of time in playgrounds with other nannies. While I may make an absurd amount, I have sat with women who make less than minimum wage with no overtime despite working far more than 40 hours per week. They don't have health insurance or paid time off, despite often having children of their own to care for. Nothing regulates this, and we all benefit from it and are hurt by it. We may love being paid under the table, but every now and then things happen that make us really wish we were accounted for somewhere as an employee. That someone was held responsible.
I'm one of the lucky ones. The worst experiences I've ever had have been sexual harassment from fathers, a few unpaid hours, and the general annoyances of working for bizarre people in their homes. I am paid a decent wage and get to return home to my own apartment at the end of the day. This is not true for most, and it will continue being a distant dream for them as long as they remain underrepresented.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I had so many vasectomy jokes!
...but they've all fallen by the wayside, because other people have already said them. What a bummer! I still don't know how to link to things, so here is what I'm commenting on: http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/pdfs/AbortionomicsFINALReport.pdf
So this new article is out, titled "Abortionomics: When Choice is a Necessity," and it's pretty amazing. I should preface this post by saying that I am very much pro choice, and believe very strongly in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I've also been everywhere from dismayed to downright terrified by the recent discussions of contraception in the national conversation. Imagine my excitement, then, when I found Abortionomics!
This article brings together a number of studies to show that as the economy flounders, more low income women and families have to opt for abortions rather than carry a fetus to term. Shocking! Not only do they opt for abortions, but they rely more heavily upon contraceptives and vasectomies (trivia: which of these three options has not been attacked by the Great White Men of Congress?).
It is not surprising that abortion rates are higher among low income women; while at a national level the number of abortions has fallen steadily since Roe v. Wade in 1973, between 1994 and 2000 the only group whose abortion rate rose was that of low income women. Financial strain is usually a driving force behind deciding to end a pregnancy. As income level increases, the rate of abortion decreases. It's not tough to find the correlation.
So what's the answer? Let's not defund family planning institutions. Let's stop debating whether or not contraception (used by something like 98% of sexually active women, right?) should be covered by insurance policies. Let's wage war on vasectomies! I jest about that last one. Let's all read the above report. LET'S TRUST WOMEN.
Oh and let's watch last weekend's SNL Weekend Update segment "REALLY? With Seth And Amy" because Amy Poehler is a gift from Yahweh.
So this new article is out, titled "Abortionomics: When Choice is a Necessity," and it's pretty amazing. I should preface this post by saying that I am very much pro choice, and believe very strongly in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. I've also been everywhere from dismayed to downright terrified by the recent discussions of contraception in the national conversation. Imagine my excitement, then, when I found Abortionomics!
This article brings together a number of studies to show that as the economy flounders, more low income women and families have to opt for abortions rather than carry a fetus to term. Shocking! Not only do they opt for abortions, but they rely more heavily upon contraceptives and vasectomies (trivia: which of these three options has not been attacked by the Great White Men of Congress?).
It is not surprising that abortion rates are higher among low income women; while at a national level the number of abortions has fallen steadily since Roe v. Wade in 1973, between 1994 and 2000 the only group whose abortion rate rose was that of low income women. Financial strain is usually a driving force behind deciding to end a pregnancy. As income level increases, the rate of abortion decreases. It's not tough to find the correlation.
So what's the answer? Let's not defund family planning institutions. Let's stop debating whether or not contraception (used by something like 98% of sexually active women, right?) should be covered by insurance policies. Let's wage war on vasectomies! I jest about that last one. Let's all read the above report. LET'S TRUST WOMEN.
Oh and let's watch last weekend's SNL Weekend Update segment "REALLY? With Seth And Amy" because Amy Poehler is a gift from Yahweh.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
White Poverty
This week there were two New York Times articles that caught my eye. If I knew how to link to them, I'd do just that - unfortunately I do not. One, titled "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It" looks at a particular county in Minnesota where workers are depending on tax refunds like the Earned Income Tax Credit, but disavowing the programs themselves. The other article, "The White Underclass," by op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof, uses his own hometown in rural Oregon to examine the larger issues of white poverty in America.
In "Even Critics..." the emphasis is obviously on the hypocrisy of these people being afforded 'government handouts' while decrying them. Some profiled say they are not asking for the credits, that they could easily get along without them. The issue here is that these people can get along without them - what about the rest of the country? Of course the rural poor face different obstacles than the urban poor, but so do the Caucasian poor vs the minority poor. I in no way mean to disrespect the hardships of the men and women and families in this article, simply to point out that while one or two of them alludes to not needing the government, others do.
Kristof's article had less that spoke to me, but it echoed the issue I found in the first article: what is so special about white poverty? While I believe all people struggling should be represented, I often feel like writing on income inequality is so racially or ethnically divided that it never gets to issues at the heart of poverty; it merely lingers on the fringes, pitting one group against another. I recognize differences in the way various people experience poverty, but I also think there has to be a way to discuss these issues without a game of who-has-it-worse.
In "Even Critics..." the emphasis is obviously on the hypocrisy of these people being afforded 'government handouts' while decrying them. Some profiled say they are not asking for the credits, that they could easily get along without them. The issue here is that these people can get along without them - what about the rest of the country? Of course the rural poor face different obstacles than the urban poor, but so do the Caucasian poor vs the minority poor. I in no way mean to disrespect the hardships of the men and women and families in this article, simply to point out that while one or two of them alludes to not needing the government, others do.
Kristof's article had less that spoke to me, but it echoed the issue I found in the first article: what is so special about white poverty? While I believe all people struggling should be represented, I often feel like writing on income inequality is so racially or ethnically divided that it never gets to issues at the heart of poverty; it merely lingers on the fringes, pitting one group against another. I recognize differences in the way various people experience poverty, but I also think there has to be a way to discuss these issues without a game of who-has-it-worse.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Pennsylvania and the price of schooling
The school district for the towns of Chester and Upland in southeastern Pennsylvania is broke. Well, it will be by the end of the month. Teachers are currently working without pay while officials attempt to work toward a solution to the district's $20 million of debt.
As if this miserable situation needed a further complication, the local charter school (which also receives state funding) educates roughly 50% of the area's students and is suing the district for unpaid bills - bills the district obviously can't pay. While the charter school counterpart can provide laptops to students, the public schools are struggling to keep the lights on.
The issue here is that the district is poor. According to the New York Times, Chester Upland receives 70% of their financing from the state - local taxes just aren't cutting it. A nearby wealthier district require only 10% of their budget to be state funded, because the median income is roughly $50,000 higher. While the district has made huge cuts to their teaching force and critical programs like art and languages, the charter school has remained unaffected. These two schools co-exist in the same depressed district, yet one triumphs as the other flounders.
There is discussion of dissolving the district. I don't know exactly what that would mean for the families living in the towns this district serves, but I can't imagine it being anything good. At the end of the day, there is no reason children shouldn't be educated simply because their parents make less money than the parents two towns away. Pennsylvania has a lot to figure out before the month is up.
As if this miserable situation needed a further complication, the local charter school (which also receives state funding) educates roughly 50% of the area's students and is suing the district for unpaid bills - bills the district obviously can't pay. While the charter school counterpart can provide laptops to students, the public schools are struggling to keep the lights on.
The issue here is that the district is poor. According to the New York Times, Chester Upland receives 70% of their financing from the state - local taxes just aren't cutting it. A nearby wealthier district require only 10% of their budget to be state funded, because the median income is roughly $50,000 higher. While the district has made huge cuts to their teaching force and critical programs like art and languages, the charter school has remained unaffected. These two schools co-exist in the same depressed district, yet one triumphs as the other flounders.
There is discussion of dissolving the district. I don't know exactly what that would mean for the families living in the towns this district serves, but I can't imagine it being anything good. At the end of the day, there is no reason children shouldn't be educated simply because their parents make less money than the parents two towns away. Pennsylvania has a lot to figure out before the month is up.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Mitt Romney and the "very poor"
Last Wednesday, in the gaffe heard 'round the nation, Mitt Romney said "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there - if it needs repair, I'll fix it..." in an interview with Soledad O'Brien of CNN. While it's really nothing new in the Republican race to have low income Americans thrown under the bus, the candidates are not always so transparent about their disconnect from the people they claim to desire to represent.
To say you are not concerned with the estimated 46.2 million Americans living below the poverty line (not to mention the many above said line who are still just scraping by) while seeking the highest office in the land is unconscionable. These are people who pay taxes, who work, who send children through the public school systems you are hoping to be in charge of. Through the release of his tax information, we all now know that Romney pulls in roughly $57,000 each day - perhaps if he was supporting a family of four on that annually, he would begin to empathize with the "very poor" he can't bother to be concerned with.
To say you are not concerned with the estimated 46.2 million Americans living below the poverty line (not to mention the many above said line who are still just scraping by) while seeking the highest office in the land is unconscionable. These are people who pay taxes, who work, who send children through the public school systems you are hoping to be in charge of. Through the release of his tax information, we all now know that Romney pulls in roughly $57,000 each day - perhaps if he was supporting a family of four on that annually, he would begin to empathize with the "very poor" he can't bother to be concerned with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)