Having it all

As I've been doing the big tenure-track job search and finding my way into a capital-c-Career, I've been thinking quite a bit about roles, expectations, and differences.  There was an interesting (if somewhat depressing) study published not long ago that found that men who are married fare better in the academic workplace than other groups, specifically unmarried individuals and married women.  If you're a married woman, you can probably guess the reason- a wife at home takes care of things like housework, kids, schedules, etc.  At least that's the expectation, whether conscious or not, of those making the hiring and promoting decisions. 

The expectation that a woman will be a help-mate to her husband in this day and age makes me want to scream, but you know that already, right?  The flip side of that, of course, is the idea of having it all for women.  It's not seen as the norm, that a woman be able to have both a family and a career, but something special and a mark of having "made it" or somehow being lucky.  For men, having it all is the standard procedure; for women, it's something to be achieved. 

First, why should having it all be something extraordinary and special?!  Secondly, why is the expectation of having it all nearly always couched in terms of wanting children?  What about someone who has no desire for children?  Why is being a successful woman defined in part by being a mom?  Can we just accept the idea that sometimes having it all is having everything that you want, having happiness as you define it?  Isn't that the real desired outcome- agency and choice? 

How about we let individuals decide what's right for them, and judge them on their merit (not some perceived benefit of having another person involved)? 

Invisibility

It's Martin Luther King, Jr. day, unofficial Inauguration Day, and a national day of service.  This year, I felt Kenny was finally old enough to make volunteering of some benefit to him, and possible for me (as a day off from school means I have kid-duty, thank you stereotyped gender roles).  So a couple of weeks ago, I gleefully signed us up for Kent State's Just 4 A Day events, and started talking to him about what we would see and do today.  We read about the sites, we talked about serving others, and we talked about the systems that create need in our society.  We also talked about what we would be missing by participating in Just 4 A Day, and how President Obama fit into the history of MLK and the civil rights tradition (see Dr. Cornel West's piercing appraisal of this topic).

After a few hours of cooking and wrapping desserts to go out to the homeless, we ate our sack lunches and discussed questions that had been placed in each of them as conversation starters.  One question was on invisibility- what does it mean, and what can we do about it- and another question asked what we would sacrifice in order to make the world a better place.  The sacrifice question brought standard answers of food, time, treasure, old clothes/goods, skills, and the like (even today, not one person said they would give up guns/weapons to make the world a better place- we humans are so silly).  The discussion of invisibility was a little more interesting.  One person took the question from her own perspective, saying that invisibility meant serving others in quiet, and without fanfare.  Others mentioned the invisibility of the homeless, trans-people, those with different abilities, and mental health illnesses.

Kenny, always one to mix up questions and answers and come up with something I wasn't expecting, proclaimed that he would sacrifice his voice to make the world a better place.  And it hit me that he's spot on.  Unfortunately, there's a perceived benefit to invisibility.  Invisibility is safe.  Invisibility isn't being spat upon, beat up, or laughed at.  Giving a voice to those who are invisible- by choice or by chance- is to help make their visibility safe.  Giving them a voice let's them be heard, gives them a place at the table, and brings them out into the light of day, while protecting them from the burning rays. 

Of all the great leaders- MLK, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Harvey Milk, and more- a common thread is that they gave their voice to those who had none.  By doing so, they took the burden of silence and the yolk of oppression onto their own shoulders.  Words are powerful, and our voices should speak truth to power. 

Don't tell me what you did today; tell me what those you helped did today, so that I can work to ease their suffering.

(But really, I'd like to hear how you celebrated today as well.  I'm not that heartless.)

New Year, New You

Haven't we all seen that phrase somewhere in recent weeks?  The classic New Year's call for self improvement and re-creation.  This and similar phrases are used by gyms, fitness centers, life coaches, personal organizers, diet/weight loss groups, spas, hairdressers, and so many more venues, and all for the same purpose.  These kindly organizations want to be there for you and me, and help us be the best we can be, right?

Wrong.  They want to help themselves to our wallets.  Mind you, many of them do have honest, positive motivations as well and do actually want to help others, but what about the message that they send, especially when it's one that is so heavily backed with marketing dollars?  Not to mention the whole "self-help" section of the bookstore that is ever-present but highlighted right now.  Is there anything wrong with that message to improve one's self?  Inherently, no, because as humans, most of us have at least some self doubts and confidence lows.  The problem comes when we're bombarded by this message that we *need* to improve ourselves, offering solutions that are a small fortune with little to no evidence, and those offering solutions are bombarding us with false images with which to compare. 

Surrounding us are images of not just models whose livelihood relies on being beautiful, but models whose beauty is often not even real, but airbrushed, Photoshopped, sculpted, and made up.  And I'm sure that at this point in the game, you all know and understand this on the intellectual level.  Of course, there's a big divide between our immediate reaction and what our brain tells us.  That divide is often big enough for our wallet and their product to get through that gap, just in time for buyer's remorse to set in.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who- in a moment of weakness- has added to their collection of diet cookbooks, exercise gadgets and videos, nutritional supplements, self help books, or make up products (pick your favorite poison). 

Even if you feel comfortable in your skin and don't fall prey to bodily self-improvement methods, you've probably made some resolution about spending more time, being more patient, cooking healthier, cleaning better, or some other area where you aren't quite up to snuff.  It's OK, we've all done it, and while we can all do a little better, it's also important to accept who we are.  Last year I found out that I'm on the autism spectrum, and while I still try hard to not use that as a crutch of some sort, it's also given me (in my mind) a reason to not beat myself up when I don't quite fit in or don't quite understand someone. 

Don't get me wrong, it's still frustrating when I just can't seem to coordinate with another person, but I don't take it as an inherent failure on my part.  My brain says that I don't need this or any reason to not beat myself up, but my self says that a reason makes a big difference.  I don't think I'm alone when I say that I tend to hold myself to a higher standard than I do others, and I find it much more simple to frame everything as "I should have..." or "Next time I'll..." which places the blame on myself instead of the other person.  I'm not advocating that we start blaming everyone else for what we do, but be a little nicer to ourselves.  Maybe chalk more things up to no fault, or simply an accident. 

And yes, I've just become the the person I railed against at the beginning of this piece- telling you where you could improve.  At least I'm not selling you anything, I suppose.  As much as I generally try to avoid new year's resolutions, this year I'm making (a belated) one.  In 2013, I resolve to be a little nicer to myself, because regardless of the multitude of memes declaring how our children/partner/relative/friend holds our heart, in all honesty we are the ones who hold our own heart.  If we don't take care of that person holding our heart, how can we expect anyone else to do it for us?  And how can we expect to care for someone else' heart if we can't care for our own?

Will you join me?

Whoa, buddy...

So I've kind of taken a while to digest the events of the last week.  Frankly, they needed time to be digested.  Last Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, was not the first mass shooting, not even the first of 2012.  But it did involve some of the youngest victims of a mass shooting to date, and it has brought up a plethora of concerns from violent video games to guns to mental health.  There has been a lot of talk about guns and gun violence in the past week, and as much as I would love to see better gun regulations in the US, that's not the only thing to think about, and just regulating guns is not going to prevent the next incident like this. 

Mental illness is horribly stigmatized in the US, and diagnosis and treatment are often difficult to access.  We do not provide adequate support for people afflicted with mental illnesses or developmental disorders, and we then make it difficult for family and friends to help those about whom they are concerned.  We use words like "crazy," "insane," "retarded," and "screw loose" as colloquial and derogatory terms.  We most definitely need changes to our mental health care system, but those changes will take time to implement, as well as funding, infrastructure, and a change is societal attitude.

Entertainment today is filled with and glorifies violence and destruction, and we've talked about desensitization of kids for years now.  They have training uses to practice uncommon situations, and they allow gamers to let off some steam in a harmless fashion.  Music and TV shows depicting violence have won awards and prestigious nominations in spite of or because of their violence.  Again, this issue will take time to address and huge outside pressure, as the entertainment industry profiting from these media have solid lobby groups. 

Guns have a legitimate place in our society, and the right to bear arms is a protected right under the second amendment.  Does that mean assault rifles are a right?  Does that mean owning a small armory is a right?  Can guns and ammunition be taxed similarly to cigarettes and alcohol?  Does that mean high capacity magazines should be anywhere and everywhere?  I don't know, but these are discussions that we need to have.  And frankly, this area is the area that has the greatest potential to have fairly quick pay-back on making our society safer.

School security is another area where improvements can be seen fairly quickly, although this would cost and isn't sure-fire.  Columbine had a guard on the campus, as did Virginia Tech.  "Not sure-fire" is a far cry from "won't work" but it is something to remember when considering various options.

Of course, the option isn't simply to ban or not to ban, it isn't even what things to ban.  There's always the options of taxing, registration, fees, and testing/courses.  None of these solutions should- or could- happen in a vacuum, but instead in concert with one another.  This is not a simple problem that we're facing, this epidemic of mass shootings, and a simple solution will not address the matters at hand.  But this is the US.  We can put a person on the moon, we sure can fix this problem, too.  We just have to find the political will to do so.

Briefly...

Like most of the country, I'm still processing the violence in Connecticut from yesterday.

I realize gun violence is a huge trigger for me.  I lost my sister to suicide committed with a handgun, and I was raised a pacifist, so yeah, guns evoke strong feelings in me, more than is rational.  Music is usually my catharsis, and that's no secret.  But when you loose someone close to you to suicide, reminders of what you've lost are everywhere, especially at the holidays.  With gun violence all over the news, trying to relax with a concert titled the "Sibling Rivalry Tour" in this situation is setting yourself up for a wild ride.  At least you are if you're me.  And that was my day yesterday.  Add in a very young child's succumbing to cancer, and whoa, buddy, analytical circuits go into over-drive from all that emotion.  I might be on edge for a bit.

On the up side, Jessica Lea Mayfield, David Mayfield, and Shivering Timbers were a-may-zing last night.  And in a ball of emotion that big, there's bound to be some good ones that pop up, and they're starting to do so. 

Learning Curve

This past Sunday wrapped up our Songs of Hope: Music from Kent to NYC, and boy, howdy, did I learn a lot!  The event was an online fundraiser for victims of superstorm Sandy, posting songs, facts, and links to charities that were doing good work in the clean up, relief, and recovery effort in New York and New Jersey.  We were calling it a "noncert," or concert in digital space, and it appears to have been a success, but not without it's glitches.

First off- there was a decent amount of work on the front end.  Finding charities, songs, data, and figuring out the logistics of the whole thing was not simple, but no where near the work that putting on a benefit concert would have been.  That was definitely a positive aspect of this form of fundraising.  Also on the plus side of the equation was the accessibility of the event.  Being an online (in this case, Facebook) event meant that potentially anyone anywhere in the world could participate.  Of course, the Facebook event aspect also added a ton of unwanted spam for people who have email notifications set to let them know about everything that happens on Facebook.  Nothing I can do to change that, except reconsider possible venues that are better suited to this type of event.  Ning?  Twitter?  A dedicated blog?  I don't know, but it's something to think about.

Another issue in my mind was the reporting issue.  I couldn't figure out a better way than self-reporting to do what we wanted (not have to handle/process money, allow freedom of choice in charities, and try to keep track).  I recognize the limitations of self-report measures, and that makes me a little wary of our numbers.  I like to think that humans are mostly honest, and the fact that most of the reported contributions came from people who were not active in the discussion part consoles me that they were likely not reporting just for recognition. 

All in all, I would call this a tentative success, with 73 people giving $2258 to 12 different charities.  If nothing else, it maybe did a little good, my co-organizers and I learned a lot, and we found some great music.

So how was your Sunday evening?

Edited to add- In other good news, I won the Ear to the Ground music review competition, so it looks like I'll be taking on another semi-regular writing thing.  More exciting- the group I reviewed retweeted and favorited the original tweet with my review.  When all is said and done, I'm still just the teen with a scribbled note from her favorite artist, and totally giddy over this little brush with stars.

Play the Changes...

Unless you stepped out of your TARDIS just yesterday from somewhere else in time and space, or you've been living in a cave, you know that right now in the US we are facing a time of huge changes in the educational system.  Those changes include public school reforms, charter schools, home schooling, huge proliferation of college attendance, declining rates of return on college degrees for many students, and vast tuition rate and fee growth and the commensurate funding changes that go along with that.  In some ways, it would be easier to start building a whole new educational system from the ground up, pre-K through graduate degrees, than face all the changes we are right now.

These have not been fast or easy changes, and will continue to be not fast or easy for the foreseeable future, I would venture to guess.  Even if we consider No Child Left Behind as the beginning of big educational changes- and that's questionable, as NCLB was the legislative result of changes that were already being discussed and attempted- the US has had over a decade facing these educational changes. As old as it makes me feel to admit, I've dealt with students that were raised predominantly in an age of NCLB, and it's definitely changed the way students see classes at the college level.

Financially, the system of the university is also facing drastic changes, as state and federal funds (outside of loans) have been cut drastically, and universities are being forced to run a more business-minded model, which doesn't always fit the goals of university (as I've blogged about previously).  The source of funds that has increased to keep up with tuition is student loans, which currently sit at a national level nearing 1 trillion dollars, a debt level near that of the real estate bubble who's rupture shook the entire US.  As part of these financial changes, many universities are looking to cut and have cut wherever they can, and as in most industries, the place with the most room to cut costs is in compensation.  And like other businesses, many universities are more and more often opting for part-time employees when possible.  Why hire a tenure track assistant professor (~40K annually) when you can hire adjuncts to do the same work of three classes a semester, two semesters a year (~15K annually, for those same class loads). 

Unfortunately, what doesn't get factored into that equation is the loss of teaching quality if teachers are harried, over-worked, under-paid, and stressed about making rent.  Or the loss in high quality researchers, as professors at many universities not only teach but forward their area of expertise by continuing to conduct research.  And there's the loss in the service community, as I have yet to meet an adjunct serving on committees or organizing outreach efforts nearly as much as tenure track professors do.  So students end up paying a premium price for a cut-rate education, and that's a travesty. 

All of this is to say that education in the US at all levels is sorely needing reform, but not in the direction that we're moving, which is taking us back, making education less comprehensive, more cost-prohibitive, and less available, just as we increasingly need an informed and critically thinking electorate.  It's almost enough to make one wonder why one went to grad school in the first place.

Almost, but not quite.