Social Mobility and the American Dream

Most of us, since we were young, have heard the catchphrase of the American Dream, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." It is often said that America is the land of freedom and opportunity, where those with next to nothing can build themselves up to be millionaires, and even billionaires. A few examples that are often given are Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, J.K. Rowling, and more. It is certainly possible for someone born into poverty to beat the odds and rise up on the economic ladder. However, these individuals tend to be the exceptions. Most people in the "land of the free" remain stuck in the social class they were born into for their entire lives.

Source D is a prime example of a person who believes in the American Dream without much evidence to back it up. The author, Yasmina Shaush, is a Ukrainian immigrant who claims that America is "a land where the self-made man is found on every corner... a land where wealth and social status do not inhibit one's potential." While I admire her optimism throughout her story, I do not find it very realistic. She seems to have a very limited perspective on the social class problems in the United States. Because Oprah Winfrey made it to the top, why can't everyone? The problem is, according to Source G, America is both highly unequal, and has especially low social mobility. What Shaush does not consider is that while "hard work and determination are vehicles for success," not everyone who works hard and has determination is successful. And this is not their fault, it is the fault of America's economy.

Source A gives more realistic approach to the debate about class issues and social mobility. The article begins by stating, "the children of the rich perform better in school, on average, than children from middle-class or poor families." There is an immense rich-poor gap in education and test scores, and it is about 40% higher than it was 30 years ago. Why is this? Most likely it is because families with more money can afford better education for their children. As stated in Source B, "clever children were siphoned into special schools and showered with resources." This fact offers an explanation for the low social mobility in America. The rich are given, through education, the opportunities they need to be successful. People living in poverty and lower social classes have less access to a good, solid education. They are then kept in lower-paying jobs, where they have little to no chance to rise up. For many of them, there is a good chance that they will be stuck with this for their entire lives, and the cycle will repeat for future generations.

It would be nice to say that America is a place where everyone who wants to succeed has the same opportunity to, but that is just not the reality of our country. Some people are given a better chance through their social class than others, and that is not something that can be ignored or overlooked.

Social Class

The Christian Science Monitor quiz gave me the result: Middling. The description is as follows: "Your habits and perspectives most resemble those of middle-class Americans. Members of this group tend to be gentle and engaging parents, and if they're native English speakers they probably use some regional idioms and inflections. Your people are mostly college-educated, and you're about equally likely to beg children not to shout "so loudly" as you are to ask them to "read slow" during story time. You're probably a decent judge of others' emotions, and either a non-evangelical Christian, an atheist, or an agnostic. A typical member of this group breastfeeds for three months or less, drinks diet soda, and visits the dentist regularly. If you're a member of this group, there's a good chance that you roll with the flow of technological progress and hate heavy metal music."
I agree with the results of this quiz. Almost all of the points that the quiz brought up about me were accurate. I have always considered my family to be middle class. Both of my parents make an average income and all of my family has been or will be college-educated. My brothers and I have also had access to a very good high school education. 
My experiences with class seem to be very different from the different texts that we've studied in class. My life is not filled with the glamour and swank of the characters in The Great Gatsby, but I do have privileges that many people, like the lower class family in People Like Us, don't have. I have never had to walk 10 and a half miles to get to work or school, and I have never felt embarrassment at my family's social class. This part of the documentary really opened my eyes to the problems facing people in the lower class in America. In reading the different texts, I have also learned how difficult it is to move up the economic ladder. Shadowy Lines That Still Divide shows how bad it really is. Mobility is incredibly low in America for the lower class, which means that the poor stay poor. And while this is true for the lower classes, in the upper classes, mobility is much easier. Ranks may open up in more elite positions, where only the well-connected members of the upper class know about them. This allows people with more money to move up the economic ladder further while people with less money are stuck at the bottom.

Sound and Fury

I found this documentary very thought-provoking. It brought up a lot of points about deafness that I had never considered before. It was interesting to see how the deaf family and hearing family each viewed deafness and deaf culture. I found it difficult to form a definitive opinion on whether it is right or wrong to give a deaf child a cochlear implant and raise it in the hearing world.

Peter and Nita were obviously happy with and proud of their deafness. They loved living in deaf culture and they wanted their family to live in it too. One of the strongest points that Peter, Nita, and other members of the deaf society made is that deafness cannot always be considered a handicap. They were happy with who they were and they had fully functioning lives in the hearing world. They felt that hearing was not necessary for them. They also repeatedly made the point that parents should love their children however they are born, even if they are deaf. The parents should not make the child to get a cochlear implant until he or she is old enough to make a comprehensive decision about it.

On the other hand, Chris and Mari, along with the other families who had children with cochlear implants, had many strong points as well. They believed that being able to hear would make the children's lives a lot easier, because the world does not typically cater to deaf people. It is much harder to find a good deaf school than a good hearing school, so deaf people sometimes do not get great educations. Another strong point that they made was that cochlear implants work the best when children are young. It is much easier for children to develop their language and speech than adults, who might never be able to fully learn how to speak. If a child waits too long to get the implant, it might be too late.

It is hard to say whether it is better to allow a deaf child to grow up deaf, or to give them an implant to make them hear. There are benefits and consequences of both. Many deaf people are proud of their deaf culture and they do not want it taken away from them, but the ability to hear will provide a person with many more opportunities in life. I'd say the best choice is to leave the decision up to the parents, who should be well educated on each stance, and up to the children who are born deaf.

Fear of Spiders

I love to read in my bed. It's warm and comfortable, but is it safe? Not always. Not when, as I turn the page of my book, I see a small dark shape float down in front of my face. When I realize it's a spider, I panic. I shriek, my heart flutters, and I smack the spider out of view. This leads to my next problem: the spider is somewhere in my bed. I stumble out, trying desperately to get away from the horrible creature. Obviously, I'll be sleeping on the couch for the next three days.

I don't understand why I am so afraid of spiders. I know they can't do anything to hurt me, but when I see them crawling around or freaking hanging in the air by their webs, I experience the telltale signs of fear: pounding heart, sweaty palms, short, fast breaths. They are gross and freaky. What are all those legs even for anyway?
Still, my fear is not crippling. I don't faint at the sight of spiders. I'm just wary of them. I try not to be in the same room as them, if I can help it. As long as I have a friend around to squish them or bring them outside or something, I'll be okay.

Assange, Manning, and Snowden

Many people consider Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden to be heroes. Others consider them to be traitors. All three of these people have leaked secret government information to the public, and thus have been accused of espionage and treason. The question that many Americans are asking themselves is: Was it right for these documents to be released, or is it potentially dangerous?

I think the answer to this depends on the circumstances. The First Amendment protects the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press. These rights are given to us to keep the government from hiding secrets from the public. We definitely have the right to know if the government is committing war crimes or being corrupt. The TED Talks video showed a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad that killed two journalists. Especially now, at a time when the media are more concerned with Miley Cyrus’s VMA’s performance that with what the government is doing in secret, it is important for us to get important information from sites such as Wikileaks.

There is a line that can be crossed, though. Wikileaks and other reporters need to be careful about what information they release. In the article Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? it is stated that one of the leaks “contain[ed] the names of Afghan civilians cooperating with the United States. This can be dangerous for anyone who is named and those close to them. Reports like this should be kept censored so no one can get hurt.

As American citizens, we have the right to know what our government is doing. We should not have secrets kept from us, so for the most part I believe that Assange, Manning, and Snowden are heroes. They do need to be careful, though, of the information they release. Anything that could be dangerous to those involved should be kept secret, or at least censored, so it does not fall into the wrong hands.

Truth and Beauty: A Friendship

Truth and Beauty by Ann Patchett is an amazing book. It is funny and thought-provoking and heartbreaking all in one. This book tells the story of Ann and her best friend Lucy Grealy. The two women went to college together, but did not truly get to know each other until they both attended a writer’s workshop together in Iowa. Since they could not afford to have their own apartments, they decided to live together in a condo. This was the moment their whole friendship began unfolding.

Lucy was diagnosed with cancer as a young girl. During her early years, she experienced several treatments, including operations and a lot of chemotherapy. Her surgeries left her with a chunk of her jaw removed from her face. Throughout her life, she received numerous ultimately unsuccessful operations to reconstruct her face. This left Lucy with very low self-esteem.

Lucy and Ann were unlikely friends. In college, Lucy was extremely popular. Ann knew all about her, but Lucy had no idea who Ann was until they began living together. The two had very different personalities. Lucy was outgoing and eccentric while Ann was more calm and down-to-earth. Ann compares their friendship to the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. In this story, the Grasshopper spends the summer singing while the Ant stores food for the winter. Come winter, the Grasshopper has no food and depends on the Ant to survive. Ann says that she and Lucy were like the Grasshopper and the Ant. Lucy was the whimsical one and Ann was the hardworking one. They needed each other to survive.

Following the workshop, Ann and Lucy remained friends. They were separated for a long time when Ann moved to California and Lucy moved to Aberdeen, Scotland. They would still call each other and write letters. I found the letters to be one of my favorite parts of the book. It gave me a wonderful insight into Lucy’s life, and I loved how she put her heart into the letters. The two each moved all over throughout the rest of their lives, but they never lived together again.

Both being writers, the two women applied to numerous workshops and publishers. For a long time, neither of them was accepted, but still they persevered. Finally, Ann was accepted into a workshop in Princeton, Massachusetts and Lucy was accepted into a Yaddo workshop in New York. From there, their careers took off. Lucy published her only book, Autobiography of a Face, in 1994. She also published other works, including poems and essays. Ann wrote a few novels and did some teaching. Their stories prove that one can accomplish their goals through hard work and perseverance.

Lucy was a difficult friend at times. Because of her low self-esteem, depression, and appearance, she faced a hard life. She often felt unloved and unwanted. She would try to use sex to make men love her, but it always left her heartbroken. She also had a habit of needing a lot of attention, and often turned to Ann. She would get jealous of Ann’s boyfriends, and always wanted Ann to say she loved Lucy more. Despite this, Ann was incredibly patient with her. She loved Lucy with her whole heart.

Lucy’s depression led her to become addicted to drugs. She died of an accidental heroin overdose in 2001. She thought she since she survived her cancer and all her operations, she was invincible. Ann says that her biggest mistake is that she had come to believe this too.

This whole book was captivating. It was a beautiful story of two women becoming friends and making their ways through the world. While Lucy’s death was heartbreaking, Ann and Lucy’s friendship will live on forever.

Feminism Essays

I really enjoyed reading these essays about feminism and women’s rights. It was interesting to see how the arguments for feminism developed over time. The first essay by Mary Wollstonecraft was written in 1792. It was a bit hard to get through because the language was so different back then. I was able to get Wollstonecraft’s point, though. She talked mostly about education. During the late 18^th century, women had little to no education, as stated by Wollstonecraft when she says, “the education which women now receive scarcely deserves the name.” She believed that boys and girls should get the same opportunities for education— they should be in the same classes together and learn the same material. She says this would help young men and women learn how to be together in a purely platonic way. During this time period, women were treated like slaves “in a political and civil sense.” Wollstonecraft believed that women should be allowed the same education and government opportunities as men. She acknowledged that these changes would take some time for the world to get used to, but stressed that they were necessary changes to make.

The second essay by Margaret Fuller was a huge rebuttal to the arguments that men made about women’s rights. Like Wollstonecraft, she remarks that men see women as slaves. The men try to justify their treatment of women by saying that giving them rights would cause problems. “The beauty of the home would be destroyed, the delicacy of the sex be violated, the dignity of halls of legislation destroyed, by an attempt to introduce them there. Fuller retorts that women have proven themselves able to “express publicly the fullness of thought and emotion, without losing any of the peculiar beauty of her sex,” as shown by actresses and female Quaker preachers. Fuller goes on to say that women should be the ones representing themselves in the fight for women’s rights, rather than men, because men will not be able to represent women with justice to their concerns. She says that if women gain rights, many problems would be solved and it would “bring forth ravishing harmony.”

My favorite essay was “If Men Could Menstruate” by Gloria Steinem. I had read this essay before, but I was able to gain some new perspective by reading it after the other two essays. I loved Steinem’s use of humor to get her point across. One line that stuck out to me, and sets the stage for the rest of the essay, is this: “Whatever a ‘superior’ group has will be used to justify its plight, Black men were given poorly paid jobs because they were said to be ‘stronger’ than white men, while all women were relegated to poorly paid jobs because they were said to be ‘weaker.’ Logic has nothing to do with oppression.” The privileged groups in power often try to find ways to rationalize and support their power, even if the reasons are completely arbitrary. Steinem says that if men could menstruate and women could not, then men would use their periods as a way to validate their power. They would say things like only men could serve in the military because “You have to give blood to take blood.” Sanitary supplies would be readily available for free. Men would find ways to use science against women by saying that since women don’t biologically measure natural cycles, they wouldn’t have the same sense of time, space, and mathematics as men. One of the most thought-provoking excuses that I read was that religions would say, “Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean.” I found this curious because in real life many religions say that women are unclean when they are menstruating. It’s interesting to think how this would be turned around if men were the ones who menstruated. This whole essay brings up a great point-- that we can’t let people justify their supremacy through completely superficial reasons. We have to stop thinking we are better than others and instead strive for equality.