i'm quitting facebook

as loyal readers would know, i have a problem with facebook. in fact, i was so steadfastly adamant about not joining it that my eventual giving-in was seen as weakness, hypocrisy and a sign of the apocalypse by some. in retrospect, i was grievously nostalgic and afraid of losing touch with college classmates when i made the decision to jump my happy ship and enter into the facebook-enabled abyss. but now, i'm considering quitting, FOR GOOD.

as i write this, i am afraid Facebook is watching (yes, i capitalized the F because it has now become an Entity). i've been doing a lot of reading this week, esp. concerning the topic of Facebook and its thinning privacy policy, and it's making me feel like i have no choice. i know, Facebook and its success are based on the gratuitous overshare of information; but holy geez, i only want to share what i want to and choose to share. it can't have all of me!

as the years of Facebook use have gone on, it's changed the way people see themselves, each other, and the right to people's personal information. The Age of Facebook has been one of oversharing and a gross sense of entitlement to people's personal business. Facebook has rendered us incapable as friends, and made us better voyeurs.

i've seen it in my own use of Facebook: i started out with little information, just my name and college, one profile picture that obscured my face, and a limited list of friends that had to be real friends (people i actually talk to and have spent qual. time with). but then it grew into adding a list of interests, joining a few groups, starting photo albums and tagging people in them, adding applications, and adding friends, from ppl i maybe talked to once in college or contacts i made thru different organizations, to now adding people i've never even met and even actually dislike in real life because i was just interested in seeing what they are up to nowadays. in short, i went from being Facebook-aloof to being a Facebook junkie. and i think it's burgeoning into a big problem:

now, every time i get on the internet, i check facebook. i check my notifications, check friends' statuses, comment on photos, etc. and by the time i emerge from my Facebook-sustained coma, an hour, two hours, a whole afternoon has passed! coming to work is such a productivity-fest because the acceptable use policy strictly bans Facebook, and thank god! i can actually get work done!

Facebook almost ruined my family! (not really, but it has hurt my relationships with people i actually care about in a genuine, real-life way.)

and now, i am finding out that Mark Zuckerberg, that King of A-holes, is making himself the youngest billionaire ever, by selling our information to advertisers and third parties. i'm not sure how it works (and that's part of the evil plan, to make it as confusing as possible), but i guess when you log on to Facebook, when you give it your email address, it keeps a record of all the websites you visit to determine your interests and catalog personal data on you, so it can sell your interests to advertisers who can better exploit you.

this article sums up the history of Facebook's privacy policy quite nicely, but this was the part that most alarmed me:

"If you are uncomfortable with [information] being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not providing) the information."

so basically, Facebook has no responsibility to protect our information, because we forfeit that right the moment we decide to use it. and protecting information is the user's responsibility, despite the ever-changing and ever-eroding privacy policies. this website does a nice job of graphically representing the growing circle of information now available to users and abusers of Facebook.

furthermore, Facebook invites you to tailor your own "ad experience," choosing how your information should be exploited best. is this what i joined Facebook for?

the point is, i'm getting sick of this information age. it's the wrong kind of information we are increasingly exposed to. i want demand to know how the BP oil spill happened and what the government is going to do to stop it and future oil spills from happening. i want to know how we're going to fix public education and restore civic health. i don't need to know all the microscopic details of all my friends' lives the very second they occur. i would like life to resume the way it was, when some things were better left up to the imagination, and ppl lived their lives in private and shared really important things with one another in secret conversations.

my initial gripe with Facebook and its antecedents has always been that i believe it ruins people's ability to communicate with one another: people are constantly on their smart phones on Facebook chatting in traffic – this is the new experience. and i honestly believe it is ruining our society (a whole generation of tweens raised on the iPod and iPhone, incapable of functioning in a real-time social situation with unpredictable and erratic individuals – this is the failure of our modern age manifest in a classroom on any given day).

and now i am learning that the dissolution of our relationships, our communicability, is simultaneously eroding our privacy, and that we're all complicit in this, because we are oblivious, or worse, because we choose to continue using it anyway. has it gotten to the point in American history when we will wage a war on terror in the name of defending our civil liberties, but willingly give up our right to privacy for the sake of social networking? i tell you, we are choosing a sad fate for ourselves: death by distraction.

the group QuitFacebookDay.com is urging ppl to quit Facebook on May 31, and in the three or four days since i had the window up and first started reading articles in preparation for this post, they have gained membership, from a little over three thousand a few days ago, to over eleven thousand this morning when i checked again. impressive growth, but considering the number of Facebook users/ potential quitters, i am sad they are not doing better.

for me, it's a matter of respect. Facebook doesn't care if it abuses its privilege to our information, and it will continue helping itself to more and more of it because it has proven profitable. Facebook users should not have to choose between keeping in touch with their friends or keeping their information private/ not being harassed by advertisers. there are plenty of other sites (flickr, twitter, tumblr, blogger, gmail, etc) that can do the same things as facebook but without the creepy prying. i'm tired of the idea of my information being fed to third parties so they can learn how to better manipulate and exploit me.

so, i'm quitting facebook. if you're a real friend, you'll know where to find me.
-stephan!e

"integrity, there is none."

it's true: i joined facebook.

is it ok if i say i did it just for the reactions?

and what great reactions they were! check 'em out (note that they are in reverse chronological order):

"i'm going to clutch the world around me and hope to god this is not a sign of the apocalypse.""you have GOT to be kidding me... my world is literally collapsing..."

"integrity, there is none.""the world no longer has any virtue."

hahaha's and squirms at once,
stephanie

dear Hillary and Obama (if you're listening): i live in Ohio, and i'm voting for Nader.

=UGLY! (boo hiss!)

"When again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let's vote, and not till then."

~ W.E.B. DuBois

i love that quote. after spending the majority of my Spring semester reading about democratic philosophy and theorizing about the meaning of democracy in modern America, looking for hope that the youth of America are becoming more engaged in their communities and are participating in political activity, i feel obligated to watch the democratic debates, even though i LOATHE them.

nevermind that most of it rapidly, inevitably devolves into immature bickering and quibbling, or that they NEVER answer the questions, or that they're always using the same empty rhetoric over and over ("Change" vs. "Experience" - as if they're completely separate and we can only have one!) ...

most of all, i hate the spectacle that politics has become. i gave this debate an honest shot. i took half an hour out of my already really packed day to watch the debate in the hopes i'd find something redeeming in either one of the candidates. because we're voting here in Ohio in less than a week, this undecided independent young adult minority woman (an important demographic, i believe?) needs to decide how to get her vote on!

i've been following the debates and the campaigns, with ever-growing disdain and distaste and disinterest and complete lack of faith in our political system. it was tolerable back when John Edwards was still in it. he was sensible, well-spoken, and miraculously managed to diffuse the awkward tension and animosity between Barack and Hillary. but let's face it, the media machine never even gave him a chance, it's always been Obama vs. Clinton from the beginning. and now look at the mess we're in! it doesn't matter who gets the nomination at this point, they're not going to pick each other as running mates (which leaves... Kucinich? if only...) and all this nonsense mud-slinging is doing nothing to get anyone excited about voting for either of their sorry asses!

this is exactly why youth, across the board, in surveys and polls on civic engagement, continually abstain from political activity. BECAUSE IT'S UGLY! why would we want to participate in a system that continually reeks of corruption, greed, equivocation, and disregard for real issues in the name of competition? i hate having to watch adults - full-blown grown-ups dressed up in power suits fer cryin' out loud! - whining and picking on each other to try to win sympathy from a (let's face it) apathetic crowd. these are our supposed leaders in D.C. and i can't even trust them to sit there and have a civilized, well-reasoned discussion for half an hour?! and you want me to vote for them??!!! i can't even believe i made the foolish mistake of turning on the TV to watch this garbage when i didn't even eat dinner today because i had so much work to do, i was worried leaving my room to grab a sandwich would be too much precious time lost. clearly i don't have any sense of propriety!

not that the idea of political theatre should be news to my generation. no, on the contrary, we should be pros at spotting it now. i'll admit i'm exceedingly suspicious of Obama because of all the media hype he's getting. it's almost trendy to be in support of his campaign. now, i can remember maybe 2 years ago or more hearing about the young junior senator from Chicago who was a great orator, and being kinda excited. but after that the spark faded. and when Hillary brought up his inclination to vote "present" on bills, rather than taking a side, that really turned me off. i want stances, not easy passes. and i'm still wary of his predilection to play it safe, taking neutral positions and employing flavorless rhetoric in an effort to offend as little as possible. the tendency to play the middle road reminds me of the mass media industry's practice of producing homogenized, low-quality, formulaic media fare in the interest of accumulating mass audiences, at the expense of accuracy, progress, and authentic representation. you can spin it as "unification," but it looks more to me like ball-less neutrality, and we all know you can't be neutral on a moving train...

at some point in the debate, Hillary and Barack were bickering and talking over the moderators trying to interject their various points of contention (what else is new? yawn yawn, right?) the camera cut to some slick-looking NBC guy, while Hillary was still talking, as he tried to cut to a commercial break (which would be incidentally filled with campaign commercials), saying "TELEVISION DOESN'T STOP!" indeed, it's apparent now, this spectacle does not stop, not for anyone. even if we want it to. we've got to jump off!

so screw it, i've had it. clearly politics are theatre and this theatre is vaudeville. worse, it's bad television!

i've always said a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. so maybe i'll just vote for (*gasp!*) Huckabee. because there is no way in hell our next Chief is going to be called "President Huckabee" (sorry, Mike!)

feeling disenfranchised,
stephan!e

the precariousness of blogging: thoughts on internet anonymity and authenticity

i got an interesting reality check today, when two of my teach for america contacts called me to discuss my last blog post.

obviously, i was embarrassed. i felt like an utter ass having to talk to future co-workers and/or bosses about my flippant gut-rxn post about their organization (or is it our organization?... i guess i'm part of it too now, which makes me kind of a hypocrite and kind of a horrible colleague...)

then, i was confused: i heard the phrase "media sweep" (apparently Teach For America runs these regularly to see what's being said about them and i got caught up in the dredge [sic] report). later, i checked my sitemeter stats and realized i'd been receiving record traffic to the site today for my latest post, and felt a little overwhelmed at the sudden inadvertent attention my blog was attracting, and a little upset to realize my writing was becoming an issue of concern. (panic would hit later, when it occurred to me if they're reading this, what else are they finding about me? would they disapprove of what i was saying, would they try to censor me, or worse, ask me to censor myself?)

i was suspicious, too. i figured TFA had PR managers (if you're reading this, "hello!") and that they'd eventually catch wind of my blog and would be reading it for clues into my character or political leanings (in fact, it surprises me that i wasn't contacted earlier about it...) but there's something utterly jarring about talking to your future on the phone, and having to discuss your blog. i mean, having a conversation about my blog is always a strange thing for me. even when my friends and relatives allude to my writing here, it startles me. it seems private, even though i know it's not. there's a cathartic purpose to my writing, i leave it here, let it live and let it die, and it's always strange to me to have it brought up in my real life. i know that probably makes little sense, but i think that in many ways the identity i am forging here is different from the one i live day-to-day. maybe more honest, maybe more flippant, maybe freer, less tied down to institutional loyalties and less sensitive to organizational commitments. i guess the internet provides the freedom to publish without having to own up to anything... this is a persona i've created, this isn't me.

i say things here without thinking about how it may affect my life, but maybe even occasionally with the hope that it will. it's a delicate and vulnerable intimacy that i've chosen to share with the world in this public and exposed space. i've always been well aware of the precariousness of such a set-up, but never have i felt so unnerved having to integrate the two parallel worlds i've created for myself. and it seems that lately these are growing ever farther apart from each other.

i mean, i want to teach, and i want to change the world. the only reason i even bothered applying to TFA in the first place was that it seemed like a good way to do both right out of college. i am extremely happy and glad to be invited into the corps. when it occurred to me that i could have been dismissed because of my recent writing, i was devastated and extremely regretful. but, i meant everything i said. only now i realize that i spoke too soon, too dramatically and with too little information. (TFA and Americorps refuse to pay you for hours of political activity done in your free time, but that certainly doesn't condemn political activity in its entirety.)

this is all merely to serve as a public disclaimer* to my previous post. though i meant everything i said about political activity and its importance to one's education, i don't think Teach for America is entirely encouraging political withdrawal (tho, realistically, they should also consider the message they're sending to recent college graduates, who are extremely sensitive to material threats and already possess predilections for political apathy - any threat of disciplinary action against political activity could be the death blow to political progress). and even though their "media sweeping" has me a little unnerved and uncomfortable (uh, "Big Brother" anyone?), i don't want visitors and devoted readers to think poorly on Teach For America and their policies. and of course, i applaud TFA for endeavoring to change the lives of our youth. they're right to recognize that hope for change and progress must occur in the schools.

after all, i'm a company (wo)man now, gotta toe the line...
-stephanie


*disclaimer #2: even with the knowledge that TFA ppl will probably be monitoring my blog on a regular basis from here on, i am going to continue trying to make this a safe space for my expression and reflection.

**disclaimer #3: even after all this, i am most grateful to TFA for having the patience and understanding to excuse my last post, and to have the integrity not to dismiss me after the brash things i said. it truly reflects well on the character and dedication of the program that they were concerned for my feelings and sought to clarify miscommunication, rather than writing me off immediately. i was extremely impressed with them for being so forgiving and understanding, because i know that they didn't have to be. and for that reason, i think we're going to get along, and i am happy and proud to consider myself a part of the corps.

QUIT SPLEENING ME, BILL!

EAT YR SHORT SHORTS AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

an update from the front lines of my senior project HELL (Bill litters my first 30 pages with hyperbolic vitriol, even though the dean of my college loved my use of personal voice, Bill believes there is "no room for introspection in an academic paper." pls, Bill. just b/c you don't have any inner feelings to explore doesn't mean i shouldn't be allowed to reflect on mine! anyway, check out my response, after this):

Stephanie,

The good news is that your words flow smoothly and (when you're not caught up in leftwing jargon) your writing is engaging; also, you're clearly passionate about your topic, which draws readers in, and you connect your personal experience thoroughly to what few sources you use from the professional literature.
The bad news is, as my in-text comments indicate, that you start by skating along the boundary of an acceptable senior project (making heavy use of an extended personal statement in what should be a substantive chapter) for the first six pages, only to veer off into an anti-intellectual rant on page seven at which point you abandon (consistent with your rejection of formal education) connections to professional literature, adopt an uncompromising left-wing political stance by page nine, and descend on page ten into a no-holds-barred political diatribe. Much of the rest of the chapter is about Stephanie and what few sources you even acknowledge are exclusively from the student organizing political literature.
My impression is that you started out trying to be responsive both to the academic demands of the course and to your own political/educational commitments, but you got caught up in and carried away by the rhetoric, and decided to say "to hell with the demands of formal education." It's also evident to me that you've made no attempt to research any sources that might challenge your ideological convictions (or even your presumptions about facts), and you have no intention of writing for anyone other than those who already agree with you. Even-handedness and persuasion be damned!
You've got a choice to make. You are, of course, free to reject Western's academic standards and write a totally biased, ideologically based, reductionist, anti-intellectual, anti-interdisciplinary diatribe—in which case, to be consistent, you must also choose to avoid being tainted by a bachelor's degree. Or you can decide that, maybe your brief is not against all of formal education—after all, you worked hard to save Western, which offers a formal education—and perhaps you can gain insights that would be useful skills for activist organizing by learning how to engage in formal scholarship about social activism, write a project that meets the academic standards of the institution, complete the requirements for the degree, and graduate. We discussed this choice quite openly at the beginning of the semester, and I could have sworn you decided for the latter. Did you change your mind?
Normally I would return a draft this unacceptable and request a revision before our three-way meeting, but my hunch is that you might benefit from talking with us (again) before starting your revision. If, of course, you wish to revise. The choice is yours.

Bill

---

Dear Bill,

After spending most of the evening and morning reflecting on your recent comments, I can see where you are coming from, and understand that my writing failed to convey a persuasive argument. I don't believe your vitriolic tone was justified, but your use of hyperbole was perhaps necessary to get me to understand my own distasteful use of exaggeration.

I admit that I erred, for once, on the side of punctuality, deciding to try to meet the deadline before I was ready to submit a thoroughly reasoned and researched paper. I compromised the content and quality of my paper, in addition to my reliability as a narrator.

I would like to point out that the senior project is a learning process, and I am certainly not opposed to learning from my mistakes. I am finding my voice along the way, and though it's not always the voice of reason, I would like you to respect my efforts in the process, and not be so quick to dismiss me. Furthermore, I believe education should be a collaborative process, and your consistently combative approach to my work does little to encourage my continued engagement. I hope you will take my feedback as seriously as I am taking yours, and reciprocate my efforts to change.

That said, I'd like to thank you for your comments. I look forward to our continued discussion tomorrow.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Lee

satire isn't dead!

my faith in the college student specious has been restored! (and College Humor,which until now had always been a sight to avoid, if only b/c it always confirmed my suspicions that the college male had nothing better to do than get stinking wasted at parties and ogle braindead females)

AND the world benefits from an all-too-plausible parody of - get this! - both Hollywood and Facebook!??!! (the other axes of evil)



my day just got a whole lot brighter.
-stephan!e

i just bring out the best in people...

is it me, or do the denizens of Miami University just seem particularly starved for attn, so much so that they'll lash out at anyone hopeful enough to make compassionate appeals to them?

well, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. and boy, do i got lots o it!

but first, the call to arms:

---
Please join Students for Staff and economists, Dr.'s Stephanie Luce and Christian Weller, for a Living Wage Forum.

TOMORROW, TUESDAY APRIL 10TH

Fisk Lounge, Ogden Hall, above Bell Tower Dining Hall
4:30 PM

- talks by living wage expert Dr. Stephanie Luce and economist Dr. Christian Weller
- discussion with students and staff to follow

FREE FOOD AND DRINK PROVIDED

---

Students for Staff
FAIR WAGES = FAIR MIAMI
http://musfs.org/

---

Sponsors:
The Bishop Debate Society (Miami University)
The Center for American Progress ( http://www.americanprogress.org/)

---

and now, the pudding [*notice that i am no longer removing emails to protect non-innocents. use this info to your discretion. but do not let them know who told you... ;-) ]:

--- JT <hatfiejt@muohio.edu> wrote:
How the hell did you get this email address? Take me off your stupid hippy listserve, or I swear to god I will see to it that every single MU staff member will die cold, hungry, and alone. And naked. Make it happen.

--- Dave Sorrell <sorrelldave@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please do not pollute my inbox with your socialist drivel. I did not ask to be put on your mailing list, so please remove me immediately and do not send me any further messages. Thank you.

---
to which i replied:

You're not on any listserv or mailing list. I got your email from Miami.

You should know Miami also sells your email to spammers. Ironic, considering they also pollute your mailbox with Barracuda Spam Quarantine Summaries.

Have a good day,
Stephanie
---

and i didn't even mention how Mother Miami also sells our phone numbers to telemarketers. i thot too much truth in one day might just kill them.

love!
-stephan!e

p.s. interestingly, i remember JT from high school. he was the mopey lanky kid with a muffin cut who sat in the back of math class and never talked to anyone. now i like to think of him as the self-aggrandizing shmuck who was in my Media Aesthetics class who had to drop b/c he couldn't pull his lazy ass out of bed at 9 am 3 days a week, who saunters around campus in a camel hair overcoat, looking much too full of himself for his own good. i'd love to punch him in the neck. kids with parents with that much money and no heart really don't deserve to speak of hard-working honest people in that way. sorry. it wasn't worth holding all that in...

the hits they keep on coming

as is my usual practice, whenever my favorite student activist group (Students for Staff) has events on campus, i plug it like hell in all my classes and daily conversations. i send mass emails to everyone i can think of, and make (perhaps) excessive use of all the BlackBoard class email banks, where i've discovered i can easily send one announcement to something like 400+ honors kids at a time.

after doing this for the last 2 events, i've gotten to expect maybe one or two angry responses to my spamming. most are wondering who i am, and how i got their email, not realizing that Miami has a history of favoring spammers over the privacy of its students (in fact, Mother Miami sells our information to spammers and telemarketers. ironic since one of the frequent complaints of the Miami student specious is the excessive barrage of Barracuda Spam Quarantine Summary emails.)

well this most recent spam session resulted in the quickest deluge of responses yet. those clever honors kids! they're so sun-starved and attention-hungry, just chomping at the bit to engage in meaningful interaction with any fellow human being, that their anger pours forth like effervescent steaming magma, spewing in my face.

but no matter. little do they realize that i'm more than willing to bite back. mine is a rhetorical fight, and i am ruthless.

below, a sampling of the rantings i found pleasantly awaiting me in my inbox, a mere 5 minutes after the first wave of emails. [angry Honors kid's response, followed by mine]

but first, the context:

----

The campus org Students for Staff, in conjunction with the Center for American Progress and the Bishop Debate Society, has organized a week of events for discussing and taking action for a living wage in our community. We invite you to attend the following events on April 10 & April 12 as we explore the intersections of work, wages, class, and economic disparity at Miami University.

TUESDAY, APRIL 10TH
LIVING WAGE FORUM
- talks by living wage expert Dr. Stephanie Luce and economist Dr.
Christian Weller
- discussion with students and staff to follow
Fisk Lounge, Ogden Hall, above Bell Tower Dining Hall
4:30 PM
FREE FOOD AND DRINK PROVIDED

---

THURSDAY, APRIL 12TH
LIVING WAGE RALLY!
come show your support for a living wage!
4:30 PM, the patio behind Shriver
FREE DINNER

----


chomp chomp,
stephan!e

--- Matt Kern [email removed] wrote:

Stephanie,

You realize this is two days, and not a week's worth
of events, yes?

Can I also ask how you got my email address?

and who is the Bishop Debate Society? I've never heard of them
before. Do they have meetings?

thanks for your response...whenever it comes.
-matt kern

--- Stephanie Lee wrote:

Matt,

The Bishop Debate Society is, in my most basic
understanding, a funding source that provides
assistance to student groups who bring speakers
to campus. It was created, I assume, in the spirit
of dialog and community-engagement.

I probably got your email address from one of the
many BlackBoard sites. Miami makes it easy for all
student groups to advertise for their events this way,
and it is no form of trickery on my part.

And you are correct, 2 days does fall short of a week.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.

-Stephanie


===========

---Tim Nordquist wrote:

The more we pay them the more they will charge us to
go there. [sic]


---Stephanie Lee wrote:

That is definitely not true. Tuition has been rising the maximum amount every year, regardless of increases in wages.

As someone concerned about rising tuition, you should be wondering where all your money is going, and asking why your money is being used to pay sub-poverty wages.


=========

--- Preston Parry wrote:

Have you done any research into the economics of
living wage laws? There's a lot of factual research out
there, available widely on the internet, or through the
library's databases. It would be wise of you as the leader of
this movement to know any and all arguments you will
come up against.

Also, how much work have you done with the actual
staff members themselves? Have you tried hard to
understand their position, to get to know them as
human beings, or just as a single entity that serves
as an outlet for you and your group? I'm just curious,
because not once have I ever heard a staff member
mention to me that they weren't getting paid enough,
or that they in any way disliked their job. Maybe my
sample's just too small, but I was curious how much
research you had into this area as well.


---Stephanie Lee wrote:

Preston,

I have indeed been speaking to workers, as have other members of Students for Staff. It is our invested conversations and relationships with workers that drive many of us to continue working toward a living wage. While we could not possibly speak with all 1,600 of the Classified staff (hourly employees) at Miami, we have made an effort to get to know as many as possible, and have been working diligently in conjunction with many staff liaisons, and have met with staff advisory committees such as CPAC, in order to better understand the staff as a whole.

As someone working diligently on writing and researching my thesis, I can assure you that we do not do this for our own amusement, but because we care very much for the health of our community, and the individuals therein.

I'm glad to hear you've been talking to staff on your own, and that you've been "getting to know them as human beings." I encourage you to continue doing so.

I also encourage you to attend the Forum on Tuesday April 10th for the economics research on living wages. There will be two prominent economists from Washington DC and U Mass-Amherst who will speak to the very concerns you mentioned.

-Stephanie

living wage discourse

hey all -
i wanted to share a brief exchange that's been occuring on the western listserv (in response to my last post) that has helped me to clarify my stance on the living wage campaign on campus.

sometimes criticism can help you redefine your purpose, so i encourage all of you to go out and engage others in similar discussions. stir people up, get in debates, create a little friction. their discomfort and uncertainty is what stimulates breakthroughs!

love,
stephanie

------

> Stephanie:
>
> Please define sub-poverty wages. How much are these
> people making, what work
> do they do, what hours do they work, etc.? Are they
> primary jobs, or second
> incomes for people whose primary work is done
> somewhere else? If they are
> eligible for food stamps, do they get them?
>
> This is quite an inflammatory claim to make, and as
> someone hearing it for
> the first time I would like to know the specifics.
>
> I realize that I don't have the stats -- I don't
> know who makes what on the
> Miami staff, or what the average wage is. But if 98%
> of Miami workers make
> above poverty wages, then that doesn't sound much
> like oppression to me.
>
> [name removed]

---

[name removed] and others:

"Sub-poverty wages" means exactly what it implies: the wages paid by Miami for FULL-TIME work are below the federally defined poverty line. That is, assuming Miami wages are the primary source of income for these workers, they would be living in poverty. Furthermore, as research and opinion from Butler County social workers indicates, the federally defined poverty lines are grossly inappropriate for predicting poverty in Butler Co. because the cost of living is much higher than national averages. The more accurate estimate of poverty in Butler Co. would be 200% (twice) the federally defined wage.

What this says to me is that Miami does not respect the work or dedication of our staff members. Anyone who gives 40+ hours a week for our PUBLIC university should not be in a position where they qualify for government assistance.

It's not a matter of "if they get food stamps" or not. What matters is what these wages symbolize, which is respect and gratitude for work done, and time and energy spent. The current wage situation suggests to me that Miami does not value its staff. And this is a huge injustice that affects, and should offend, all of us in the university community.

You said "But if 98% of Miami workers make above poverty wages, then that doesn't sound much like oppression to me."

I ask you to reconsider that statement. For though it seems like a small number, it is no less significant. These are 32 individual employees who are potentially living in poverty, DESPITE the fact that they are working FULL-TIME. There are 112 full-time staff who might be needing food stamps to feed their families.

Yes, 98% is an overwhelming majority. But why should we accept that 2% are still potentially living in poverty? Is it acceptable for poverty to exist at all in our community?

Instead of thinking 32 ppl in poverty is not that bad, think of it this way: if it is such a small number of ppl potentially in poverty, then it would take even less effort from the university to make a change. For a university that continues to raise tuition and that has $47+ million in net assets, this should not be an impossible change to make.

We should not continue to sanction poverty and, yes, oppression when it affects those in our own community.

-Stephanie

hah. blogger activism wins again.

an update on the facebook ludicrous i posted on earlier.

it was only a matter of time before the scum were shut down and (hopefully) kicked off facebook for life. a small punishment for bigotry and violent prejudice, but a good step in the right direction.

there is also a reactionary group that formed to call attn to the ignorance of the prior group, regrettably called "the group 'laws women will abide by' makes me want to cry" (i was hoping for something a little stronger, but whatever.)

funnily enough, if you do a search on facebook now for the group, a feminist group shows up in its place:


the only "law women will abide by" now?

1. Doing as they please as the equals of men.

now how's that for justice?


my work here is done,
stephanie

this makes me lose all hope

UPDATE: as of 10:35 EST on wednesday, december 13, the group was taken down. yes!!


[note: this post contains some objectionable and deeply upsetting content. proceed forewarned...]

[DISCLAIMER: i DO NOT, and do not desire to, have a facebook account. i borrowed a friend's to do the necessary research for this post.]

i saw this today while i was taking a break from finals: an article about a facebook group called "laws women will abide by"

it's ostensibly the most sexist, racist, disgusting piece of college frat boy manifest mentality i have ever read. i spent an hour sifting thru the chauvinistic garbage these boys are peddling as good fun and humor at the expense of women's rights, and wanted to either vomit in my mouth and drown in it from sadness, or hunt each and every one of them down with a blunted rusty spoon and gouge their eyes out before cutting their balls off and feeding it to them with it (apologies for the violent language, but when you read on you will understand...)

understand, i already hate facebook on firm philosophical grounds (i don't believe an online network of creeps will help keep me closer to my friends. if they're my friends, i should hope we can maintain our friendships via more substantial means. moreover, it's from the guy who brought us wonders such as Hot or Not, a website that made superficiality into a sporting event, at the expense of personal privacy rights, damaged self-esteems, and real human interactions.)

but when i found out that this group was permitted to exist on the facebook, allowing mysoginists and women-batterers and racists to convene and encourage eachother's narrow-minded beliefs and behaviors, indeed, even invoking violent attitudes towards women and minorities, that was enough to spark a personal vendetta against the facebook for life.

here's a taste of the things being said on this group's "discussion board" (the script to my personal hell, the mental/theoretical equivalent to 50 drunk frat boys physically violating me):

the only thing your good for is to be someones cum receptacle.
i want to kick these girls in the face with a steel-toed boot on new years morning to start the year off on the right foot
there they go again rambling about some college and grammar. ill be sure to tip you when you finish with my sandwich.
shell never be a good wife cuz she cant make a sandwich just wonton soup and her uncle tsos chicken
I heard Frank tried killing meredith...you know why? He caught her trying to cook one of his dogs
its probably a dykey korean thing
yea your right.. your slanty ass eyes would confuse me too much.. i would never know if you were awake or not.. plus chinese food gets old. and im sure thats all u can cook.. learn to make a sandwich then talk to me.
chainsaw or a blow torch. her choice
im going to finger your mom with a chainsaw
meredith could be my first gook
come on guys we probably should stop making jokes about lesbians, seriously. because if i have to keep on seeing who wrote the last comment from wellesley i might turn gay from the way they look!

here's a sampling of the heinous "laws"* the group proposes:

Law 1. Never...Fuckin ever...will women be permitted to wear leggings under a skirt. Leggings wll be permitted by themselves if the female in question is under 130 pounds.
Law 3. Women will always consider stilettos as the primary footwear option.
Law 4. Women will only drive if there are no men present. However, if the only male present is blind or fully retarded, the woman can drive. If the male is only partially retarded, he will be given driving privileges over the woman.
Law 8. Women over 150 pounds will always wear pants...ALWAYS.
Law 9. Women who have a cup size of AAA, AA, or A will refrain from wearing low cut shirts.
Law 10. Any woman caught wearing a belly shirt while having any type of fat or skin hangin over their pants will be killed...they have the choice between the electric chair and the gas chamber.
Law 11. Women will clean whatever men ask them to clean.
Law 12. Women will cook for men.
Law 13. Women will wash clothing for men.
Law 15. Women will only speak when spoken to.
Law 17. Women will no longer go the bathroom in groups. It gives the impression that dyke type activity is occurring inside the bathroom.
Law 19. Women will not request a particular drink from a male. They will accept whatever a man offers them. A complaint about a free drink is punishable by a donkey punch at a later point in time.

ugh. that's all i can stand to post. i feel so deeply upset now that i don't know how i can finish my work. what's the point? if there are people like this, COLLEGE-EDUCATED PEOPLE who are still thinking like this, who do not see the obvious wrong in this kind of thinking, then what hope is there for positive social change?

i'd say that until the facebook forcibly removes the group and bans these users from the service for the rest of their pathetic lives, everyone i know and all their friends too should boycott (screw that, GIRLcott) the facebook until it's willing to recognize that it's enabling and condoning violent racist and sexist behaviors.

i want an apology from mark fucking zuckerburg, to women and minorities of all kinds, and to humanity in general, by the end of the year.

ugh. and ugh again.
then vomit to clean your palate of the taste.
-stephanie


*according to the group's site: "This is a compilation of laws made by men and women that are to be enforced on women. It is not meant to be sexist in any way, shape, or form. It is intended to guide women in finding their true place in the world and to inform them of what they should truly be." o yum. nothing i love more than patriarchal standards applied and enforced on my way of life and my perception of purpose. hand me a fucking shovel, someone please. so i may beat their heads to a pulp then bury them with it.