5 Things We Can Thank Feminists for -- and 5 Areas that Still Need Help By Babble.com I Work + Mone y - Fri, Mar 2, 2012 5:10 PM EST [http://shine.yahoo.com/workmoney/5-things-thank-feminists-5-areas-still-help-2 21000039.html] 5 things we can thank feminists for -- and 5 areas that still need help Oh, those wacky feminists. Always burning their bras and eating granola and asking for equality 'n' stuff. Like, you know, the right to vote, control your own money, and leave a man who beats the crap out of you. Crazy stuff like that. In honor of Women's History Month, we bring you 5 things we can truly thank feminists for -and 5 more things we still need to work on. S Tbings We Can Thank Feminists for lizabeth Cady Stanton, who was instrumental in the passage of the 1848 New York State Married Women's Property ... 1. The right to own property In 1848, the State of New York became the first in the U.S. to pass a law granting married women the right to control their own property. Prior to that, women ceded all legal rights to their husbands upon marriage in a practice called coverture. By 1900, every state had given women substantial control over their property. Senator Hattie Caraway 2. The right to hold public office Although women still couldn't vote in 1788, the United States allowed female citizens to run for election to federal office. In 1932 Hattie Caraway (D-AR) became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate - and she won by a landslide. Currently, 17 of the 100 U.S. Senators are women. Of the 435 members of the U.S. Congress, 76 are women. omen demonstrate for the right to vote in February 1913 3. The right to vote Women achieved the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits any U.S. Citizen to be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex. (Unfortunately, women still cannot vote in Saudi Arabia.) Are you making the most of this right? In the 2008 presidential election, 66 percent of eligible women voters actually voted. (Only 62 percent of eligible men voters did.) But of women aged 18-24, only 52 percent voted. Sigh ... if only we could vote by text message. 4. Access to education The first U.S. college to admit women, men, and people of color all at the same time (gasp!) was Oberlin College in Oberlin, OH. One of Oberlin's most prominent graduates was noted abolitionist and women's rights pioneer Lucy Stone. What was available before Oberlin admitted women in 1833? A handful of single-sex education institutions. One of the first women's colleges was the hilariously named Single Sister's House, which is now Salem College in Winston-Salem, NC. *Note: this right only guaranteed if you are heterosexual. The right to choose whom to marry* -- or not to marry at all 5. The right to choose whom to marry* -- or not to marry at all In 1791, British writer Mary Wallstonecraft became one of the first women to prominently argue that women should not be forced into marriage or traded like property. She also believed that only with a real education could women enter into the contract of marriage with full consent. Currently, the United Nations states that "men and women of full age, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." *Note: the right to choose whom to marry may depend on your state. Congratulations, Marylanders! 6. The right to leave a man who beats the crap out of you Great Britain passed a law in 1878 allowing women to secure a separation from their husbands on the grounds of cruelty, claim custody of their children, and demand spousal and child support. In the U.S. around the same time, women could secure a divorce for causes such as abandonment, infidelity, mental illness, and cruelty. However,the divorce was not granted if it was shown that the woman was also at fault for "causing" the abuse or infidelity, or if she had tacitly or explicitly forgiven the offenses. In the U.S., marital rape was legal in all 50 states until 1976. However, marital rape wasn't made illegal in the UK until 1991. 7. Birth control In 1916, Margaret Sanger opened the first U.S. clinic to provide free birth control in Brooklyn, NY. It was an immediate success, with over 100 women visiting on the first day. A few days after opening, an undercover policewoman purchased a cervical cap at the clinic, and Sanger was arrested. Refusing to walk, Sanger and a co-worker were dragged out of the clinic by police officers. The clinic was shut down, and it was not until 1923 that another birth control clinic was opened in the United States. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy." And while there is very loud opposition to President Obama's policy requiring birth control coverage for all female employees, a recent study showed that 63 percent of Americans favor the policy. 8. Serving our country Military service is not just about patriotism. Serving in the U.S. military offers an equal opportunity for training, education, and life experience that is unparalleled in the civilian world. Women today make up about 15 percent of the U.S. military. In 1970, Colonel Anna Mae Hays, Chief, Army Corps of Nurses, was promoted to Brigadier General, becoming the nation's first woman to hold the officer rank of General. 9. The right to work, choose your profession, and control your earnings The trade profession was opened to unmarried women in Massachusetts in 1787, but it didn't grant married women control over their own earnings until 1874. Elizabeth Blackwell became the first woman doctor in the U.S. in 1849. Arabella Mansfield became the first woman in the U.S. to be admitted to practice law, in Iowa, in 1869. Marie Owens became the first female police officer in the U.S., joining the Chicago police force in 1891. 10. The right not to have your ass slapped as you walk through your office Anita Hill's very public accusation that then-nominee for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her became a turning point in American awareness. Ms. Hill, a law professor, said that while working for Justice Thomas when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, he had harassed her with inappropriate discussions of sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him. Although Justice Thomas was indeed confirmed in the Court, Ms. Hill's powerful testimony raised awareness about this issue like never before. 5 Areas That Still Need Help Let's work on: Child care 1. Let's work on: Child care Finding affordable, quality child care continues to be at the top of the priority list for pretty much every working mother, ever. The average annual cost for child care is $11,600. Let's work on: Buying into the myth that looks are more important than anything else 2. Let's work on: Buying into the myth that looks are more important than anything else According to the American Society for Plastic Surgeons, women had over 12 billion cosmetic procedures done in 2010, ranging from Botox injections to breast augmentations. Despite this craptastic economy, we spend a staggering $10 billion a year on plastic surgery. American women also reportedly spend an additional $7 billion a year on cosmetics and other beauty products, averaging out to $100 a month. I like a new lipstick as much as the next gal, but the Young Women's Christian Association notes that if $100 a month were saved and invested, in five years you'd have enough for a full year of tuition and fees at a public college. Something to think about. Let's work on: Crazy uncomfortable underwear 3. Let's work on: Crazy uncomfortable underwear Foot binding may have ended, but the 1800s called, and they want their underwear back. Apparently, women today live in constant fear that (gasp!) their panty lines will show, or something. The amount of products out there designed to squish our bodies into a specific shape is staggering. Ifyou're trying to be sexy, note that I have never heard a dude say anything remotely like "ooh, baby, those Spanx are so hot." Why the eff do women wear these things? Let's work on: Not cutting each other down 4. Let's work on: Not cutting each other down I have a feeling that the "war" between working moms and stay-at-home moms is almost entirely a myth perpetrated by the media. But it's true that women do a lot of critiquing of other women, whether it's on how we look or how we parent. Try having a conversation about breastfeeding on Facebook if you want to see how vitriolic things can become. Let's work on: Lack of women in politics 5. Let's work on: Lack of women in politics There are clearly not enough women in politics. As proof, I give you the sausage-fest that was last month's Congressional hearing on birth control. The House Oversight Committee, which hosted the hearing, has 40 members, of which only two are women. The panel of witnesses who testified about birth control contained exactly zero people with a uterus. Ifthat doesn't make you sit back and say WTF, I don't know what will. IO'LENC'E' nAGAINST WOMEN VIOLENCE IS NOT ALWAYS VI SlBLE 6. Let's work on: Global women's rights Global women's rights are by far the most serious issue facing women today. Horrors like genital mutilation, forced marriage, human trafficking, and rape victims being stoned to death are occurring every day around the world. Child marriage, which is rampant in many countries, puts girls at tremendous risk. In Saudi Arabia, there is no minimum age for girls to get married - meaning an 8-yearold could legally marry a man in his 60s. (I know, you're like OH MY GAH, right? But let me just point out that in New Hampshire, a girl can get married at age 13 with parental consent.) .I hatez theez dol lz. 7. Let's work on: The absurd early sexualization of girls Yeah, these horrific dolls pretty much sum it up. /,/"" / 8. Let's work on: Encouraging girls to pursue whatever career they want We need to especially focus on the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields where women are traditionally under-represented. It's important that we make sure to keep every possible door open for our daughters. Telling them they're "too pretty to do homework" probably isn't going to get them into MIT. 9. Let's work on: Equal pay Although 40 percent of married women now out-earn their husbands, that's still leaving a lot of single women (and single moms) out in the cold. Wihatever t:his guy he needs to get the hell out of my office. 10. Let's work on: Sexual harassment and violence Yeah ... sexual harassment and violence are both still huge problems in the U.S. Disappointingly, the organization with the biggest sexual harassment problem is the U.S. military. According to a 2003 report, 30 percent of women said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed. However, it should be noted that the 1998 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) takes a huge stance against violent crimes against women, including dating and domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This federal law was re-authorized by Congress in 2000 and again in 2005. The National Organization for Women (NOW) described VAWA as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." How Clinton vs. Trump upended ideas about gender and politics Lisa Belkin 5 hours ago Comments Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email Photo illustration: Yahoo News, photos: AP [3], Getty Images. Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP, Getty Images Among the postmortems of this most unusual election will be the one by academics and advocates who have spent their careers aiming to put a woman in the White House — and who supported getting Hillary Clinton there. Much of what they’d learned over the years about how to run as and against a woman has been turned upside down this time around. That leaves the question of whether the TrumpClinton clash was an exception to the rules or a rewriting of them. “All the years of working toward this goal,” says Marie Wilson, a former head of the Ms. Foundation and the creator of the White House Project, which has trained more than 15,000 women to run for office since 1998, with the ultimate prize being the presidency. “It’s completely different from the race we’d assumed and hoped. And it makes you wonder whether this is a new norm.” Here’s a look at some of the decades of accumulated “rules” and how they’ve recently been broken. _____ You don’t attack a female opponent. Remembering how recently that was regarded as an absolute truth makes everyone interviewed for this story laugh. “Yes, that one used to be ironclad,” says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, which was founded in 1971, back when women held two seats in the U.S. Senate, 13 in the House of Representatives and not a single one in a governor’s mansion. “Every study, every expert, everything we knew about women’s campaigns was clear that when you run against a woman you don’t attack.” Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics, also at Rutgers (and founder of the center that Walsh now runs), agrees: “You can’t attack a woman. How can you run as a man attacking a woman? This would hurt your image — it would turn off voters.” Then, mentioning the many times Donald Trump has done exactly that to Clinton, she adds, “I guess that’s not a problem anymore.” So does this mean all gloves are off for both genders from now on? Not necessarily. While Trump’s attacks on Clinton in general seem to have worked for him, another male candidate was paying the price for similar insults. In the race for Senate in Illinois, Republican incumbent Mark Kirk spoke disparagingly of his Democratic challenger, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, questioning her half-Thai heritage as unpatriotic, even though her ancestors fought with George Washington and she herself is a veteran who lost both legs in battle. He was dinged in the polls. Still, that was an attack seen more as racist than sexist. Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk face off in their first televised debate, on Oct. 27 at the University of Illinois at Springfield, in what is considered a crucial race that could determine which party controls the Senate. (Photo: Seth Perlman/AP) Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk face off on Oct. 27 at the University of Illinois at Springfield in a crucial race that could determine which party controls the Senate. (Photo: Seth Perlman/AP) Which seems to muddy the lesson into something like this: You should be careful attacking a woman unless you are Donald Trump and your brand includes attacking everyone. Women are assumed to be more honest. That has long been a staple of female campaigning: Voters will give de facto credit to a woman candidate for honesty. That was how many of the early successful female candidates positioned themselves, as virtuous outsiders coming to clean up a system filled with corrupt insiders. Not so in this election. Now it is the woman who is seen as the insider and the man who presents himself as the outsider who can fix things and isn’t beholden to outside interest groups or elites. Trump has labeled his opponent “Crooked Hillary” and repeatedly called her a “liar.” It can be argued that he’s made this accusation stick not just to his opponent but to her entire gender. “He’s bundled all women into this untrustworthy category,” says Wilson. By way of example, she cites the high percentage of women reporters Trump publicly accuses of deceit, and the fact that he’s said all the women who’ve accused him of sexual impropriety are lying. Not only is Clinton not presumed to be more honest because of her gender, experts say, but even when there is statistical evidence — Politifact finds that 70 percent of Trump’s statements in this campaign are “mostly false,” “false” or “pants on fire,” compared with 26 percent for Clinton — she still is not accorded the perception of trust. (It should be noted that he isn’t seen as particularly honest either: A recent ABC poll found 46 percent of likely voters describe him that way, while 38 percent say the same about Clinton. Her supporters point out that this is a result not only of Trump’s recent attacks, but also of Republican attacks on her honesty almost since the day she became first lady.) Supporters cheer for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally at the Loudoun County Fairgrounds in the early morning hours on November 7, 2016 in Leesburg, Virginia. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Supporters cheer for Donald Trump during a rally on Nov. 7 in Leesburg, Va. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) “Somehow the man who has been proven to discriminate against minorities in his business, to not pay his contractors, and who has a fraud trial starting after Election Day for Trump University is seen as the honest straight shooter,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and author of “Beyond the Double Bind,” about overcoming obstacles to women’s leadership. At the same time, she says, “people are shouting ‘lock her up’ when she has been investigated more than anyone in history and there have been no resulting charges.” Women have to overcome looking weak and emotional, while men are assumed to be strong and decisive. Again, that was long considered true until it wasn’t. Clinton, Jamieson says, “has more than passed the commander in chief test, where even people who aren’t voting for her say she is capable of that role. You would have suspected that would be the main barrier to a woman for president.” But instead it is presumed that she is prepared for the task — and that preparation is, in turn, an unexpected obstacle. On the other hand, Jamieson argues, Trump has displayed all the behavior that would have been criticized as weak and overly emotional if he were female. Yes, he runs on tough ideas — law and order, building a wall — but at the same time “he fits all the traditional stereotypes that have been used to shut down women,” she says. “He’s thin-skinned, he acts on impulse, he can’t seem to get the details right, he’s scatterbrained and goes off on tangents.” By way of example, she cites Trump’s off-message, often weeklong rants against those he believes have insulted him, his reversal of positions sometimes within days or hours, his denial of having said things that are on video for posterity and his frequent misstatements of fact. Women start small, men start big. Studies and surveys find that women do not believe they are qualified for higher office until they have served at lower levels. Voters seem to expect that of them too. “What’s the first office you are qualified to run for?” asks Laura Liswood, secretary-general of the Council of Women World Leaders, whose membership is 60 women who have led their countries as president or prime minister. “Women say it’s the local school board. Men figure they’ll start with city council, even Congress. Women build their ambition. Men leap to their ambition.” Trump has certainly leaped to his — the first office he’s ever sought is the presidency. But Clinton certainly didn’t start with the school board, either. She took the historically old-fashioned role of first lady and used it as a springboard in a way no woman had ever done before, straight to statewide office, as senator from New York, and then, of course, secretary of state. First lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a conference in 1987 in Little Rock, Ark., as thenGov. Bill Clinton looks on. (Photo: AP) First lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a conference in 1987 in Little Rock as then-Gov. Bill Clinton looks on. (Photo: AP) “Hers is hardly the résumé of most female politicians,” Mandel says. But perhaps having to start at the most local levels of government is, she says, “another assumption that should change.” Yes, or maybe all it means is that there are different rules for a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. “That’s what I am asked most often lately,” says Erin Vilardi, the founder of VoteRunLead, which was originally part of the White House Project and is now a separate entity training women to run for office. “Is this Hillary, or is this all women? Is this just the reality of this campaign, or of all campaigns by women? Is this just the White House, or all the way down the electoral ladder?” Certainly this is a campaign like no other. Trump is a singular candidate, breaking the rules not only of how to run against a woman but of how to run at all. He has an ability to get away with what no other candidate can. To wit, when Marco Rubio attempted to get down in the dirt with him over the size of his hands, it was the beginning of the end of Rubio’s candidacy. Similarly, Clinton is arguably one of a kind, as most firsts in any category tend to be. “It took a unique human being to get here,” Walsh says. “She’s a boundary-crossing leader. So you can’t say that what is true for her will be true for other women who will come after her.” She and other experts interviewed for this article agree that in many ways it would be a good thing if the old stereotypes no longer apply — if women no longer assume the need to start at the bottom, or have to overcome the idea that they are weak or emotional. But this potential silver lining lies within what they see as a dark and worrisome cloud. “Those of us who are schooled in unconscious bias were expecting to spend the election pointing out the sophisticated ways that unseen expectations can work against a woman,” says Gail Evans, who created Working Mother magazine and is a founder of Executive Women for Hillary, a fundraising group. “But this isn’t unconscious anything. This is conscious misogyny. Who would have thought this would be a campaign about women’s bodies, women’s periods, women’s truthfulness?” Donald Trump speaks as Hillary Clinton listens during a presidential town hall debate at Washington University in St. Louis on Oct 9. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Pool/Reuters) Donald Trump speaks as Hillary Clinton listens during a presidential town hall debate at Washington University in St. Louis on Oct. 9. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Pool/Reuters) Says Wilson: “To hear people talking about hurting her, to hear people talking about killing her? All this misogyny that we like to think is not that deep? It is that deep.” Too deep, they worry, to disappear with this campaign. So deep that it will, in fact, influence others to come. If Clinton loses, they fear that will have a chilling effect on other campaigns by women. And if she wins, they assume the vitriol of the campaign will make it tougher for a woman to govern. If the old rules are obsolete, or even dented, they wonder, what should the new conventional wisdom be? “I’d love to see a couple more female self-indulgent, self-described billionaires running for office,” Liswood says. It’s not entirely a joke. New poll: The stunning collapse of opposition to gay marriage By Ryu Spaeth. / The n:eek - 7 hrs ago March 18, 2013 ,, A solid majority of Americans support gay marriage, capping a complete reversal in public opinion in less than a decade A new Washington Post/ ABC News poll shows that a solid 58 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, compared with 36 percent who believe it should be illegal. The findings represent nothing less than a stunning collapse of opposition to gay marriage: As recently as 2003, the numbers were reversed, with 37 percent favoring gay marriage, and 55 percent opposing. _. _ ,,,,,,,, ... .... - -. ...,.,_ _ n"A ' I / - ' " " .. /' .. ... ' -_..:_:-..-..-.--- ., ..... Jn, ,... The polls comes on the same day that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for same-sex marriage, and less than a week after Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, a Republican, said he had switched his position on the issue after he learned that his son was gay. According to the Post, "Americans increasingly see homosexuality not as a choice but as a way some people are." Surprisingly, nearly two-thirds ofrespondents said the legality of gay marriage should be decided on constitutional grounds, rather than leaving it up to individual states to decide. In announcing his support for gay marriage last year, President Obama said he preferred the latter, perhaps an indication that his historic announcement has already fallen behind the pace of popular opinion. Support for gay marriage is stratospherically high among young adults, with a full 81 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 in favor. That is just the latest warning signal for the Republican Party, which could be in danger of alienating a whole generation of voters over its opposition to the issue. Just today, the Republican National Committee released a rebranding plan that called on the GOP to show more flexibility on the issue. "Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays," the report reads, "and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be." A majority of Republicans -59 percent -currently believe gay marriage should be illegal. However, that is down from 72 percent in 2004. One City's Quest to Erase the Gender Pay Gap Boston is trying to ensure female workers earn as much as men by asking local companies to rethink perks like flexibility and child care. • • Elahe Izadi Feb 19, 2014 • http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/02/one-citys-quest-erase-gender-pay-gap/8436/ Women make an average of 77 cents for every dollar a man makes on the job. And, while some Washington lawmakers want to address that gap via legislation, the city of Boston is trying a different method: a voluntary city compact, with specific practices that participating companies can implement. The initiative, called the "100% Talent: The Boston Women's Compact," launched in late 2013, the brainchild of now-former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. With 50 businesses on board, the program has a way to go before measurable progress can be seen. But it has attracted some of the biggest employers in the city, such as the Boston Medical Center and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. Businesses that sign the pledge agree to open their books and self-assess their wage data to see how, statistically, they do on pay parity, that pesky gap between what men and women earn nationally. Then, the companies choose three strategies to put in place. A report from the city offers 33 suggested "interventions," including following gender-blind application processes, standardizing compensation, and offering or subsidizing child care. Every two years, businesses will anonymously share their wage data with a third party, who will compile it for the city to measure overall progress. Boston's gender gap is smaller than the national average, according to a report from the city's Women's Workforce Council, with women earning 83 cents for every dollar men make. Even after eliminating factors such as educational, occupational, and work experience differences, women still earn less than men, according to the council. "The remainder you can't sort of wash away statistically. The remainder has to do with subtle things in the workforce, unconscious bias, things that businesses in the end get as frustrated about as women do, because they don't understand how to deal with them," says Simmons Business School Dean Cathy Minehan, who is leading Boston's initiative. "That remaining aspect of the gender gap is what this effort is all about." Small and large companies have chosen to sign on, including Partners HealthCare, the largest private employer in Massachusetts. CEO Gary Gottlieb says women make up more than threefourths of the company's workforce. The compact doesn't just mirror the company's values, he says, but "it's in our own business interest." "The better that Boston can close that pay gap, the more that Boston becomes a very attractive place for graduates of the higher-education community, four-year colleges and professional schools," Gottlieb says. "That's a labor pool that's accessible to us." Tackling unconscious bias and making wages more transparent will only go so far Gottlieb says his company already has a number of the recommended practices in place, such as child care and positions that offer location and schedule flexibility, so it hasn't had to alter much. Women actually fare quite well at Partners already; the average female employee makes 13.5 percent more than the average man, Gottlieb says, largely due to a higher concentration of women in high-paying jobs. At lower-levels, such as food service, men earn an average of 2.5 percent more than female counterparts; Gottlieb says men at those ranges tend to hold the more senior positions. Tackling unconscious bias and making wages more transparent will only go so far, however, argues Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, who has written extensively on gender and the labor market. In a recent study, she found differences in salaries between men and women could be dramatically reduced if businesses prized output over working long and specific hours, the socalled face-time at the office. The gap between male and female pay is larger in fields with rigid workdays and demanding client-employee relationships, such as law and finance, than those with more flexibility, such as tech. But it's not just businesses' responsibility to combat this problem; some of the gap has to do with market demands. "There are certain cases in which the costs of handing off clients and partners is very expensive, but these costs change over time," Goldin says. Pharmacy work is one example of a field in which workers now can easily substitute for one another, thanks to advances in technology and changes in consumer expectations. Minehan points to some of the practices suggested by the city's compact that encourage greater work flexibility. But only a few months in, the Boston's task force is just beginning to figure out how to measure success. The groupy plans to hold yearly conferences where organizations can share their best practices. "We really were focused on not making this a new law, new regulation, new reporting requirement, but rather something that businesses felt they wanted to do," Minehan says. "There's so much emphasis on what government can do and I'm sure there's lots of things that government ought to be doing, but I think a lot of these issues need to be solved by people on the ground, the workers on the ground and the businesses, rather than a whole new [piece of] legislation." Student Name CMTY 195: Community & Democratic Citizenship WEEK 3: Climate Change, Environment, and Communities Instructor: Professor (or Dr) Chuks Ugochukwu St. Cloud State University St Cloud, MN Date: Feb. 2, 2018 1. Rolf Pendall, “How Access to Cars Could Help the Poor,” 2014 ▪ One of the most important information from the article are that having access to vehicles is both necessary and a hindrance to Americans, especially the poor. Poor Americans who live in high poverty stricken areas need access to cars. One reason is that while the use of public transportation is on the rise, it is inefficient. Furthermore, impoverished Americans who have access to automobiles enjoy a better quality of life. ▪ One key concept to understand from the article is that Americans are buying less cars, and the amount of miles Americans drive has dropped by 8.9% since the peak in 2005. Poor Americans seem to need access to cars more than others. The question of whether government programs should facilitate access to expensive personal vehicles, or should focus on subsidizing car sharing and other forms of public transportation. 2. Bill Moyers, “Bill Moyer’s Journal: America’s Growing Economic Divide,” 2009 ▪ One key point of view not covered in the video is that economic inequality continues to grow in America. A small portion of the population owns most of the wealth. Large corporations pay the top managers hundreds of times more than the average worker. This trend of lower, stagnant pay, and insufficient benefits for middle and working class workers has continued since the 1970’s, when unions began to lose power. Removing private money from politics also contributes to this problem. ▪ One implication, if the article or video line of reasoning is taken seriously is that we need to grow the middle class and working class in America. Otherwise, we will continue to have a large and growing population of impoverished Americans. Compounding the issues is the weak economy. We need to reduce the extreme inequality of wealth in America. Some ways to change direction is to invest in communities and infrastructure, Page 2 of 3 small businesses, and education. The government may need to subsidize these programs, tax the wealthy more, and reduce taxes on the middle and working classes. Finding a balance and effective ways to change the disparities in America and growing the middle class, and keeping it from possibly collapsing, are ongoing and extremely difficult issues. Page 3 of 3