Book Life 22: Never Drink Your Rich Roommate's Champagne, or Rural Boy Goes Ivy League, A Semi-Tragedy (Plus One Awesome Chunk of News)

As a book geek of massive proportions, I have been suffering a deep blue funk over the closing of Borders. While I try to shop my local used bookstores for the most part, sometimes you gotta hit up the big shiny bookstore, you know? And Borders was the best of the ones I'm familiar with. I found the book I'm blogging on there in the bargain section slashed another 50% because my beloved Borders is going under. I'm glad to be able to afford a few books I've been wanting because they are so cheap, but I hate the reasons for it. But I digress...

Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overacheiver by Walter Kirn

If you are at all familiar with this blog, you know that I am from a low SES rural background (and continue to be) and have had some difficulties adjusting to life in a town seemingly stuffed with entitled, pretentious people. (My previous rantings on the subject can be found listed under the "poverty" tag in the cloud to your right.) So when I saw this book, I snatched it up immediately, thinking I'd found some wonderful if distant authorial soul mate. Eh, not really.

Though I enjoyed the read, I found myself constantly searching for the thing the title and blurb promised. I understand why he included early memories, because after all, it is a memoir. However, most of it didn't seem to click with the expectations an initial glance gives you. Once he arrived at Princeton, it appears with his first roommates, a snobby group of over-privileged people I wanted to smack and other classmates wandering about in the background of the narrative. It falls away again shortly thereafter only to resurface here and there in the second half of the book, in between drug addled hazes and what looks to be an exhaustion-based disconnection with reality. As I've said about many a memoir I have read, I was not there and can make no claims about what did and did not happen and how it affected the author. But in many places, it seemed less to be the overwhelming nature of being thrown into the company of a class he was unfamiliar with than his own preexisting issues.

Knowledge is a reckoning...a way to assess your location, your true position, not a strategy for improving your position. (p.23)

Having said that, I did find a few places in which I was nodding in agreement. It isn't that it was a bad or poorly conceived book. (I think more people from rural, low income areas/backgrounds need to express these things, hence the reason I am always ranting on about them and reading this book.) I simply think that if he wanted to write a memoir about his discombobulation and how he dealt with the upper class twilight zone he ended up in, he could have done a much better job. I wanted more of the actual conflict and how he proposed to combat it. I don't mean to give anything away, but at the end when he finds himself deeper in an upper class arena than before, he makes no mention of it. It's presented as a moment of "whoo hoo! I got this!" rather than what could prove to be a shove into an even more pretentious pit of vipers. I know he couldn't conceivably go on forever; a book must end somewhere, after all. I just wish he could have acknowledged the depth of the issue and the effects it would have on him in the future or even how it has affected him now that he's all grown up and distanced from the actual events.

In the end, if you're looking for a more eloquent and extensive discussion of the problems I ramble on about on occasion, this isn't exactly it, but read it anyway. It does have its moments.

And now for something you'll really like...

In other book related news, it pays to follow authors you like on Facebook. Why is that, you ask? Because sometimes they post interesting and awesome things. Take yesterday for example. Chuck Palahniuk posted an opportunity for bloggers: all you had to do was email Double Day with your blog and physical address for a chance to read and review his new book Damned before it hits shelves in October. As you may have surmised, I will be one of the lucky ones. It isn't as if I've become entitled to an exclusive audience with the book, but it is pretty darn cool nonetheless. I have no idea when it may arrive, but rest assured you will know when it does. Stay tuned.

We Was Po' Revisited: Sign Me Up

Okay, so I've blogged about this before (see "We Was Po', part ii" from August 2010), but another article has popped up on yahoo related to this same topic. If you haven't seen it, it's a list of the worst paying college degrees of 2011. Of course, religious studies is included along with social work and several education degrees. For those of us lost in the throws of passion for the study of religion, this really isn't a surprise. As I've said before, if you come to the study of religion in any form expecting to get rich, you have been lied to, my friend. We do it because it's relevant and interesting and awesome, but this is not my point.

What made me come back to this again is a conversation I had on Facebook with an acquaintance. They asked me what I graduated with, and after I told them, they promptly sent me to the above article and basically declared me a fool in not so many words. Not only do I possess a degree on a list of so-called "low-payers," I have two other BA's in subjects equally (to their mind) as useless. Of course, by useless they meant that I will likely never become a millionaire doing it. My response was the following:

You ridicule my choices in degrees because they won't make me a ton of money and even pity me because of it, but I pity you because you seem to only be able to value the possibility of money. Yes, I need money to live in this society. Capitalism is mostly evil, but it is what it is; and I have accepted that fact. Yes, I know my particular areas of study, despite their salience, will not allow me to own 4 houses, a fleet of cars, and whatever else it is for which you need that much money. However, what you are looking at as a pittance of a salary seems miraculous to me. My first job netted me less than half of the lowest salary on that list in a year. My wife, though better paid than we were then, still makes less than half of that in a year. If I were to land a position teaching my subjects and managed to pull in the "low" salary of around $30,000, I would be ecstatic and suddenly be operating on twice the budget we have now. If I were to have a job making that much, my wife could quit work because we would be able to pay all our bills. She could do whatever she wished in school and take her time finding a job doing what she wants to do. Once she got a job (which would net her nearly $30,000 as well), we would be rich based on how we were raised, the areas we grew up in, and our lives up to that point. Life would be much smoother financially. Hell, we might be able to actually think about buying a house and a car made in a closer to current year. In short, I would be divinely happy with that. So, remind me again what the problem is with that figure.

Was your last job with IHS?: A Feminist Rages

A friend of ours recently had an ultrasound done and found out she has a cyst. She shuffled off to the gynecologist to follow up and the following ensued--reconstructed from what I was told. (It is salient to note that she is African-American and of a lower socio-economic status.)

Dr: Do you have children?

Friend: Two.
Dr: Where do you work?

Friend: (insert low paying job here)

Dr: Okay, we need to go ahead and take out both ovaries and tubes as soon as possible. (He meant next week, and keep in mind here that he has no blood work, no biospy, and the ultrasound people told her to just come back in 6 months.) You already have two kids, and you don't need to bring anymore "into this society."

WHAT? This doctor has no reason whatsoever to think that the cyst requires any further scrutiny, and yet he suggested fairly radical surgery and told her only after asking about her job that she didn't need to have anymore. And this was not some weird, ancient clinic doc. No, he's part of a well-known and (I thought) well-respected women's health care group here in town. My first thought was of the sterilization of poor women of color on reservations and elsewhere. If she had been white or had a better paying job, would he have suggested this? My guess is no, no he would not.

Regardless of my own personal beliefs about overpopulation, etc., this is ridiculous and unacceptable. Aside from the fact that he immediately suggested surgery for something that may not even need any intervention, he took it upon himself to decide that she shouldn't have more children apparently based on nothing more than her race and SES. 2011, and we're still at this point...

Blog. Short. Too. Angry.

So, when I finish my application filling for the day, I go answer questions at one of those stupid "text us anything" sites for two cents an answer. I think I have made about $1.20 in two days, but that's not the point. This person sent in "Is it unethical to buy $200 sunglasses?" We could debate this particular issue for hours, but again, not the point. The point is that this ass just asked if spending $200 on regular sunglasses (not prescription) was unethical to a person making TWO CENTS an answer! Pardon me while I scream and drive my blood pressure up.

Dispatches from a Refugee in the Land of Privilege, Episode 3: Note to Self, Must Buy Hat

There is something about poverty that smells like death.

--Zora Neale Hurston

For those who know me, it will come as no surprise for me to say that I am broke(n) in many ways , financially being the most salient one of them here. While I do blame certain outside factors on this situation, I want to make it clear (before some irate person jumps all over me) that I do understand that my poor economic skills contribute to the problem. However bad they may be, though, they are not the only cause. Anyway, this blog is being brought to you by a bougey woman at my landlord's office and an article on yahoo...

"My wallet's too small for my fifties, and my diamond shoes are too tight!"

--Chandler Bing

I went in today to pay the rent, which yes, was late, but I called them 2 weeks ago and arranged this. While I was waiting, I wrote out the money order and overheard the receptionist's conversation with another tenant. She was digging in her expensive purse going on and on about her upcoming expensive vacation and the new car they just bought and etc etc etc. Normally, this would be nothing important...everyone here seems to be more affluent than we are, and I am quite used to hearing these sorts of conversations. The problem started when I got to the counter and was talking to her myself. I apologized for being late again and commented that next month's ought to be on time for once (*insert embarrassed laugh*). She decided that was an excellent segway to complaining about how damn hard it is to work where you have to call (poor) people all day to get them to pay their rent. "It really takes it out of you," she said. Now, I'm sure that calling around to ensure payment of rent is one of the least pleasurable portions of her job. I dont' dispute this; it sucks. BUT the fact of the matter is that it is no easier being the person who has to call every other month and beg a few extra days on the rent. Lately, I've begun to feel like I should carry an old fedora in my purse to twist in my hands at appropriate moments. I can assure you, ma'am, as one of those people you have to call sometimes, that our part sucks worse than yours ever will. Here's why: while your job is uncomfortable, it is simply what you are paid to do. Our lot, on the other hand, is to be the perpetually impoverished, begging for understanding from those with more money and power than ourselves. Also, given your tone and demeanor when discussing the topic, you are obviously not among our number, making your little whine-fest the ridiculous ramblings of the privileged. (I do realize that as a receptionist in a real estate office, she is not exactly pulling in six figures here, but can we agree that she is comfortable and no where near the level of most of the people she is complaining about?) I wanted to reach across the counter, grab her by her lapels, and explain loudly and clearly that HELLO, we do not enjoy being poor and late with the rent (or anything else). I'm sure there is some ass out there who has to get an extension on bills because they spend too much partying or some such nonsense...but most of us are simply trying to make it on what we have and do not need your bullshit to make us feel worse about it.

Poverty must not be a bar to learning and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

--Lyndon Johnson

On to the Yahoo article: Apparently a significant portion of college presidents are of the opinion that higher education is so affordable that most students could pay for it themselves (sans loans and grants). Excuse me, but WHAT? Just as an example, let us look at my recent foray into academia. For the first couple of years back, I was paying out of state tuition (because someone in an office was misinformed...) which means I was charged approximately $2000 per class, bringing my total to over $8000 before textbooks and supplies. After the mistake with my residency was cleared up, classes dropped to a little less than $500 each, plus books, etc. I understand that there are people who were raised in families which apparently have this sort of money lying about for just such an occasion, but I am not one of them. The term "college fund" was one of those phrases I associated only with sitcom families (literally), and it was understood that if I was to earn a degree, it would be on scholarships, grants, and federal loans. Otherwise, no college. And while I rant about the privilege that constantly smacks me in the face here, it is not lost on me that I am not alone in my loan-dependence. If the federal loan/grant program was suddenly to be taken away, no one below a certain tax bracket would ever be able to attend college. It's already rare enough for people who grew up similar to myself and others like me to earn a degree without boot stomping our last chances into the pavement.

Poverty is no disgrace to a man, but it is confoundedly inconvenient.

--Sydney Smith

This blog is unusually scattered for me, but I simply have no idea right now what to do with this information. Does this mean that people of my particular socioeconomic class and lower should simply forget college all together? What then? There aren't enough jobs that don't require degrees to go around if you hadn't noticed. And what about the attitudes of those more privileged than us? Are we really, in the 21st century, still in this feudal mindset of the poor being ridiculously inferior and distasteful to deal with?

Dispatches from a Refugee in the Land of Privilege, Episode 2: Drugs, Welfare, and Other Unrelated Issues

Florida House Passes Welfare Drug Testing Requirement

An acquaintance posted this article on facebook with the comment "NICE!" I was immediately enraged, as I still am. This was, of course, backed by the GOP, and opponents cited a similar case in Michigan in which this sort of bill was struck down. I can only pray that the same happens here.

Let's take this apart piece by piece: the welfare applicant would be forced not only to take the drug test but to PAY FOR IT themselves! They claim that the people would be reimbursed, but can we discuss how ridiculous the entire thing is? If you are applying for welfare, disposable income is not really a known universe to you. Therefore, you would not be able to take the test and, as a consequence, to receive assistance. So what we have here is a situation in which the poorest are being doubly punished for being that poor. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is NOT what the welfare program is meant to do.

While I don't think my family was ever on welfare, we did receive food stamps on a number of occasions. If this regulation had been in place them, I know that if my mother had applied, we likely would not have had the cash for her to take the test. She wasn't on drugs, but without the test, no welfare. So she and her family (including 2 kids) would have suffered.

The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.

-Avram Noam Chomsky

What this is is yet another example of the over-privileged dictating what happens to the least privileged of all. How is this okay? On what level is this supposed to be right? And there are a lot of people in this misbegotten state who likely support this travesty in the name of "protecting the interests of the taxpayers." What this translates to in normal language is: "further lining the pockets of the already rich by preventing the poor from having anything." WAKE UP! Defending this bill with the "there are drug users abusing the welfare system"card is the exact same as "I won't help the homeless because there are those who want to be where they are" (for my rant on that topic, see this blog post). You are not protecting anything except those who do not need protecting.

Dispatches from a Refugee in the Land of Privilege, Episode 1: Homelessness Isn''t My Problem

For article/essay technique class yesterday we read Barabara Kingsolver's "Household Words" (found in her essay collection Small Wonders), and I spent most of the class shocked and horrified. If you haven't read it, Kingsolver uses an incident she witnessed while in traffic (an apparently homeless man beating on an apparently homeless woman) and which she did nothing about to discuss homelessness in the United States and Americans' complicity in it. It's an excellent essay, of course; everything Kingsolver writes is amazing. She goes through all the American "fuzzy-blanket myths" related to homelessness, such as "anyone who works hard can make it in the US" and "most homeless people want to be that way." Statements like these seem obviously ridiculous to me, but the people in my class apparently disagree. They proceeded to give every one of the reasons she was arguing against as valid and reasonable.

Can we talk about apathy for just a minute? They pasted the "poverty is more complicated than just handing a dollar to a guy. it's way too big for me to fix it." argument over their lack of give-a-damn and expect that to cover it. I call shenanigans. No one ever said that one person can or should be able to fix poverty and homelessness single-handedly. I wish that was possible, but it's just not. However, it is possible to help one person at a time, thereby making the world just a little bit brighter in the process.

But this post isn't about my belief in positive energy and its ability to change the world. It's about privilege. When I spoke up and said, "Well, I've been so close to their position that regardless of what they eventually use the money for, I will always give them money if I have it. If for no other reason than I would hope that if it was me with the cardboard sign on the side of the road, someone would help me." They not only basically said that there was no way I had ever been close to homeless (because they themselves had never been) but also then spent the next ten minutes recounting tales of homeless people who refused to be helped, etc. I'm not sure where this line of thought is going except that I didn't think people actually thought this way. Where I was raised, people generally didn't think this way, and I don't know how to take this.

Ode to Roseanne

Let's be honest here: I am a Netflix addict. I love being able to pull up random movies and tv shows whenever I want. I've seen awesome documentaries and a ton of movies from my childhood that I had completely forgotten about. Tonight I was super excited to discover that they have all the seasons of Roseanne on instant watch. So of course, I started with episode 1, procrastinating my ass off in the worst way. I had forgotten just how much I love this show!

When I was younger, I loved all the family sitcoms, but I particularly loved Roseanne. While I was jealous as hell of the Huxtables and all those other families, I turned on Roseanne because it was the one family in which I could see myself reflected. Even though some of the other sitcom families weren't exactly perfect; Danny Tanner was a widower whose friends had to step in and help raise the kids, for instance. But all of the rest of them never seemed to have any financial issues. I don't remember one single episode where the Tanners or the Owens were worried about groceries or the bills. For me, that was certainly far from reality. Even when I lived with Mema, who owned her house and car, we were living on a Social Security budget, and she ruled the bank with an iron fist forged in Great Depression. (Too bad I never picked that lesson up, right?) From my perspective, the Connors were the only normal family on tv.

I don't think there's really a point to this except to say that I'm thankful for Roseanne. She made me feel like less of an oddball among the DJ Tanners and Vanessa Huxtables of prime time.

Book Life 12: Geeky Revisited, Awe, and We Was Po': Another Voice

Once again, it's that magical time of year--those few weeks when, even though one semester has ended and another has yet to begin, there is wonder in the air. What? No, not the holiday season. I mean that small span of time in which there is no homework and I can read whatever I want! I've already gone through 7 books with way too many more waiting in line. Hence, time for another book life blog!

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." -Douglas Adams

Even though I've read them before (many times before, as a matter of fact), the five books comprising the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy never fail to amaze me. (And yes, for those of you unfortunate enough not to have read these novels, I did say five books and trilogy.) Funny as hell and just plain well-written. If you've never read them, please do. You will thank me later, and remember "Deep in the fundamental heart of mind and Universe, "said Slartibartfast, "there is a reason."

Just plain beautiful.

I have never met a Sherman Alexie book I did not love and whose children I did not want to bear. War Dances is no different. Gorgeous poetry and awesome stories. That is all.

Down Home Economics

The last book in this post is Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War. Essentially the author, Joe Bageant, moves back home to his small Virginia hometown after about 20 or so years and explores the lower working class culture in which he grew up. While I wasn't thrilled with the underlying tone he took when talking about his brethren at a few points, it was overall a really good discussion of issues not usually covered. The rural poor are generally ignored in favor of highlighting the urban poor. This is not to say that either is more important or poor than the other; both situations have their own peculiar obstacles to overcome. It's just that in academic and political discussions of poverty, the plight of the rural poor is generally overlooked or assumed to be covered under the umbrella of "poverty" which is really just urban. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with some of his views about gun control and a few minor details, but as a whole, this is an excellent book--particularly for those of us from this sort of background lost on planets not of our making. For my fellow religion geeks, he does a fairly good job of incorporating fundamentalism into his observations. And the chapter on the Social Security system, healthcare, and the poor elderly is amazing.

"He would say that my soul is troubling me and that I need to be washed in the blood and redeemed by the grace of him who bled for our sins. I'd say that I am troubled by the distinct impression of approaching trihorned fascism--part Christian, part military, part corporate."--J. Bageant

We Was Po', Part III: Choices and Possibilities

I've written about privilege and dealing with it in academia before, so I will try not to repeat myself. This past week I've had a sort of panicky time of uncertainty about my future in the academic world. While discussing Annie Dillard in religion class Thursday, we had a short conversation about her background and how this affects her writing. She was raised in a wealthy family, and my argument was that given this, her choice of a life of pure introspection and writing was possible. People who are raised in low income environments are less likely to assume that such a life is a career choice. Now, this isn't to say that it isn't possible, just that it is not necessarily seen as a choice. The rest of the class did not agree. It was at this moment that I had my crisis point.

How can I reconcile my background and beliefs with a life among people who truly believe that a low SES background doesn't generally cause exclusions from the beginning or that a privileged background doesn't mean more possibilities than low SES? This is the very reason I decided against a graduate career in women's studies. I was constantly interjecting a low SES rural perspective into conversations mostly to no avail. I couldn't stomach the thought of spending the rest of my life beating my head against that wall. Now, true to my fears, I am facing the same issue in religion.

The major problem is what to do about it. I love, I mean absolutely love, the idea of making a living studying religion, writing about it, and teaching people about it. That, to me, sounds like a good time. However, if I continue along this path, will it mean an eventual nervous breakdown when my brain has to repeatedly bash against these issues of privilege? If so, what else can I do? I don't want to do social work, because I fear ending up in some tangentially governmental office being forced to perpetuate a cycle I would rather destroy. Yes, I know there are plenty of other job possibilities within social work, but still...I thought about library science. I do so love books, and I could maybe work in a public library helping kids love to read. I could be a public school teacher, but it's a bit late in my undergraduate career to start that.

We was po', part ii: in which a low SES girl discusses salary...

A friend and fellow religion major posted this chart on his facebook feed today...As Religious Studies people we come in at 12th worst paid, and one of my other loves, Women's Studies (listed as Interdisciplinary Studies), comes in at 15th. His comment was that we don't do it for the money, and that's true. No one becomes a religion scholar hoping to make the big bucks. It just doesn't happen, and if you are someone who thought this, you've been lied to, my friend. So, I agree with him, BUT (you knew that was coming, right?) I have a serious issue with the entire thing...

The starting pay for Religious Studies was listed as $34,700. For someone raised in an upper middle to upper class home, this may seem a paltry amount. However, as someone raised in a lower SES home and an economically depressed area and who spent seven years in an even more economically depressed rural area, I'm here to tell you, $34,700 sounds like a fortune. That is, in fact, almost exactly three times what I made at my retail and hospitality jobs in the aforementioned rural area. As my lovely wife pointed out, I am aware that once you spend all this time and money (that you will be paying back until the end of time) getting a degree, maybe some people expect a lot more. I will also grant you that people from my background do attend college to make a better life than that of family who possibly did not get a degree and spent their lives struggling financially. All of this is true, but when I remind myself of this, there is a little nagging at the back of my mind that still protests...

When I returned to college after my little hiatus, I realized quickly that I had stepped into a world where a large portion of the people were speaking an entirely different language. (For more on this, see my post HERE.) This has not changed over the couple of years since then; it has actually become even more apparent. Now, let me say that the people I go to school with are not all bad; i like many of them, even the ones from this other planet called "well-off." It's just that the further I progress, the more like I feel I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. I dropped Women's Studies as a career path for this very reason. Every single WST class I took it seemed I spent half my time attempting to interject a low SES rural point of view into the discussion. I just could not see spending my entire career doing that. Now I'm afraid that Religion will be the same...

I suppose that given a certain kind of upbringing, 35 grand a year might not cut it, but as for me, where do i sign?

The High Price of Being Gay...a commentary on the NYTimes

NYTimes article

Okay, so I read this article this morning through a blog I frequent. In theory, I love that they took the time to run all these numbers and show the world the financial hardships associated with being a non-existent couple. Health insurance, taxes, etc...they covered it. BUT I have an issue with their calculations. They based the numbers on a best-case and a worst-case scenario: best--both partners make $70,000 a year, worst--one makes $110,000 and the other makes $30,000. While they say that these are based on averages in the three states most full of gayness (California, Florida, and New York) for college-educated couples in their 30s-40s raising kids under 18, I would have to venture a guess and say that a segment of the gay population lucky enough to be making gobs of money skewed those averages. None of the gay couples I know make anywhere near that amount of money. What I would like to see is an analysis of the problems of gay couples living in near-poverty or at least in low-income circumstances. You get into a whole 'nother set of problems there--none of which I am sure they examined....i'm just saying...

Solving Rural Obesity, a Primer

I just read an article at the Huffington Post about obesity in the U.S. Apparently, Mississippi is still the "fattest", but Alabama is closing in quickly. The researchers in the article were like, "we should improve school lunches and sidewalks so the people can walk their neighborhoods instead of driving." What? Okay, the school lunch thing is spot on, because there are areas where that may be all or nearly all that a kid gets to eat that day. But sidewalks? That will work in large cities--Birmingham, etc., but most of Alabama and Mississippi are rural. Sidewalks are not going to help at all. Even if you have sidewalks running all over the place, things are too far apart to bother.

I'll tell you how to solve the obesity problem in the rural South: GIVE PEOPLE OPTIONS. I have always maintained that if you give someone on food stamps or even just a very low income healthy choices for prices they can afford, they will pick them over the unhealthy ones. For example, say you have exactly $20 for groceries, money or food stamps, to last you a week or two. Are you going to buy $1 pizzas and 8 for $1 ramen noodles that will last or a small amount of fresh produce that won't? No matter how much better for you the veggies are, the math simply doesn't work. If farmer's markets and healthy food were made available, accessible, and most of all affordable for the rural poor, they would take it. No one wants their kids to be obese and increase their risks for health problems, but in a choice between healthy and hungry or full but heavier, what do you think will be the choice?

Of course, economic development, sex education, higher literacy rates, and being paid a living wage would help more...but that's a whole 'nother blog.

You can't catch poor, and an adult looks back at harriet the spy

For my Global Women's Issues class, we are reading Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy edited by the fabulous Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild. Ehrenreich's article mostly discussed the franchise maid industry (Merry Maids, The Maids--for which Anna worked for a while, etc.), and there's a lot about live-in nannies, mostly immigrant women. These articles caused so many things to run through my mind, but two appeared in particular.

Maids and cleaning services are apparently on the rise like crazy. The square-footage of people's houses is huge, almost normally at a point at which they can't handle the care themselves. Enter The Maids (or whoever). Sorry ass wages that do not count driving time and ending clean-up time and basic anonymity to the clients who pay a ton per hour, ostensibly assuming that the workers get this money. Wrong. Cleaning is considered one of the lowest occupations on the ladder, though it is necessary. People assume you are uneducated and somehow dirty and unworthy of any respect if you work in these jobs. Having briefly worked as a housekeeper in a hotel, I know all about this. You mention you cleaned hotel rooms (or anything) and a look of pity and/or horror creeps into the other person's face. It's like they think they can catch poor...

The second thought was about Harriet the Spy. This has been one of my very favorite books since I was like 10. The Nickelodeon movie was good, but anyway...what made me think of it is Golly, Harriet's nanny. As a kid, you just think "wow, Golly is super cool" (even if she isn't supposed to look like Rosie O'Donnell, who plays her in the flick), and her mom kinda sucks. Thinking back, you see the ridiculous way she was fired. (She had been with the family since Harriet was born, and they fired her based on one incident, which was way overblown in the first place.) Then you see her visiting her mother, who was apparently mentally incapacitated in some way (cut out of the movie completely), and Golly only got to see her once in a while because of her hours with the Welsch's. It seems almost idyllic to a kid. Parents kinda distant to the point that they leave you alone and an awesome nanny to give cool advice and such. As an adult, you see how Golly was exploited and the issues surrounding live-in nannies, even if Golly was white...

just some thoughts....

We poor people are pissed off for a reason...and here it is

Courtesy of my more-well-read-in-news-than-I friend Meghan, there's this article on poverty in America:

The High Cost of Poverty: Why the Poor Pay More

I definitely agree with Meg's facebook posting note: "read this. and then reread it and reread it and reread it and forward it to anyone you know who does not understand what it means to be poor." There are soooo many people running around just fsu that have no clue whatsoever what the true meaning of poor is. They think that poor means being unable to go shopping every weekend. I would not wish poverty on anyone, but they should at least have to really learn what it means to be truly poor. And this is not a phenomenon limited to spoiled college kids. Unfortunately, most adults have no real idea either. Until everyone understands this, there is no hope for any substantial and lasting help for people living in poverty or near poverty. And Goddess knows it is needed.

For those of us who are or ever were in the category "poor" or "near poor", this article is nothing new. What is so sad to me is that all of this needed explaining at all. I know that many people never grew up wondering if the lights were going to be cut off or if the rent had been late enough times that you'd be moving again soon, but one misguidedly hoped that as people got older, they saw the true face of the bulk of the U.S. Apparently not. My only serious critique of the article is that it, like almost everything in this subject, is focused on the urban poor, who in some cases actually have much better options than the rural poor ever hoped to have. Rural poverty is overlooked all the time, and as someone who calls a rural area well below the poverty line home, this disturbs me. Look into it people...you might be surprised.

damn the man

okay, can we talk about elitist corporate waste for just a minute...on magnolia and park avenue there was this little house that anna was obsessed with...and honestly, it was a perfectly nice little house...it didn't appear to have anything seriously wrong with it, but it was apparently abandoned...so someone bought the property and TORE THE HOUSE DOWN...they're building something as yet unannounced, but the point of the matter is that it was a perfectly serviceable house. there was no functional reason to tear it down except that it didn't fit the layout of whatever useless redundant corporate crap they wanna put there...it just irks me no end to see something that so many people need destroyed for no good reason...*sigh* i hate waste

oooh, a scam

it's that time of year again...finals, and that means buyback season. in case you don't know, at the end of each semester, the bookstores buyback textbooks for cash...for some, this is just extra drinking money and is just an easy way to get rid of textbooks they don't want and/or need anymore. for others, such as myself, this is much needed budget padding. not to mention that some of us actually like the books we use in some of our classes, and we realllly don't want to part with them. in fact, i have been known to sell a book in a moment of particular brokeness and then have to buy it right back because i need to use it. but when you are flat broke, this seems like a logical solution. the problem lies in the bookstore...

let me explain...at the beginning of this semester, i purchased a ton of books, but i'll use three as an example. one cost $35, one was $40, and one was $50, give or take a dollar. so, those three cost me a total of $125...we happen to be extremely po' right now, so i trotted them over to bill's bookstore. i walked out with $6 and one of the books. now, i didn't want to sell these three books to begin with, so it's twice as bad. i lost $119, and the bookstores act as if they are doing us a huuuge favor.

now, i have worked for a campus bookstore before. i know that the amount offered depends on whether the text is being used again, whether they have too many already, and oh, i don't know, whether the crow is flying south southeast...i understand that they are not in this to actually help us. they are here for a profit. but give me a freakin break. bill's gave me $6 for two of those books. okay, so one of them is being used this summer, which means they will sell it for around $30 or $40, making 7 or 10 times what they gave me for it. the other is not being used, but they will send it back to the publisher for credit or money. basically, THEY SCAMMED ME as they scam all of us every year. what's worse is, some of us have no choice...we need the money...in a nutshell, they have us by the short and curlies...and there isn't much we can do about it...

"We was po' ": College and a Low SES girl go head to head

She meant nothing by it. I know that, hence the reason I won't name her or rail against her personally. However, a few things must be said. A girl in one of my religion classes was commenting on something or other and made the following statement, "His family was fairly well-off, upper middle class, as all of us are." Maybe she felt safe in assuming, but...

I resent being assumed to be in one of these upper brackets. Now, don't get me wrong. I am in no way romanticizing poverty or the state of semi-poverty that we generally find ourselves in. Struggling sucks. A lot. I would much rather not live paycheck-to-paycheck, but such is our lot for now and the largest part of our lives up until now. But there are expectations of certain ideas when assuming economic class. People assume that your belief structures and experiences are built on the same foundations as theirs, and that simply isn't true.

"Impoverished" and "poor" are not separate planets from "upper middle class", but they can seem so. And I never saw as much distance between the groups (ideologically at least) until coming back to college. And maybe it's not the same everywhere, but at Florida State, there is this huge majority of well-off upper-middle (and maybe middle-middle) class kids. To the point that I think I know one person here who did not grow up that way. Many people I've talked to use such a different version of vocabulary that I find it impossible to talk to them.

Before someone jumps down my throat for the following examples, let me clarify that they are all from actual conversations.

1. "Broke"--me: no money or just enough to put gas in the car if we roll change. them: "I can buy the $150 bag, but not the $200 shoes to match."
2. "My checking account is all fucked up."--me: "We're overdrawn by a lot and have no way of fixing it." them: "I had to dip into my savings/trust fund/stock/$100 buffer to go out partying."
3. "I have, like, no food."--me: "really, none, well maybe some Ramen or something." them: "I ran out of chips/beer/Coke."
4. "I have no [financial aid] money left after tuition."--me: "really, I don't. I hope the financial aid office finds me enough to pay for books." them: "I only had enough to pay all of my bills for the entire semester,so I couldn't go shopping [or at least not where I really wanted to]."
5. "So this is how the other half lives."--me: we had $30-40 left over this week, or we unexpectedly came into a couple hundred dollars. them: "we had to eat Ramen last week until my dad came up and bought us groceries for the month."

Now, lots of kids here work and go to school so they can pay rent and such. Not everyone's parents pay their way, but they seem to think that this Ramen-noodle pseudo poverty qualifies them for some "welfare club" and it does not.

I'm not saying all this to get a pity party started. We have been too broke for too long for me to even give a damn about really feeling sorry for myself over it. We're just low income/poor/broke ass/low SES, and that's it. I hope to one day work up out of that, but it's reality for now. The whole point of this long-ass post is best made by the following:

I mentioned in a conversation in some random class or other that I am considering using whatever graduate degrees I get to work with low income women in the rural south (Alabama to be more precise). I don't know what or how yet, but it's a possibility. They replied, "That sounds interesting. I've always been fascinated with how those people function and deal...blah blah blah...I think I want to do something in an area I'm unfamiliar with too." [emphasis mine] Okay, first off, "those people' pissed me off, but...I promptly informed this sadly misinformed trust fund baby (she really was) that I was thinking of this because it's where I come from. "Those people" are my people--my family and friends. Not some alien race I would be descending from my ivory
tower to study and assist. We are them, just shifted to this weird planet temporarily. She had the good sense to look relatively ashamed, and then just said, "I'm sorry. I guess you poor people do need to stick together, huh?"

What do you really say to people with these mentalities?

What worries me is that this will only get worse as I progress in my studies. Grad school is even worse. Barbara Ehrenreich mentions a book in one of her fabulous books about attending grad school coming from low SES background. The author has terrible troubles adjusting to the environment and even has friends from similar backgrounds that had nervous breakdowns. The expectations and general belief structures among peers in those groups are so much different than what they were used to at home and what they were struggling not so much to overcome as to keep but with a higher salary that they just snapped. Goddess knows, if grad school is anything worse than this elitist snake pit, nervous breakdown is a possibility.