Being Unemployed Part I: Why Collecting Unemployment Isn't Demeaning

In general I write here about North Africa, the Arab world, and women’s rights issues. I a recent post, I wrote about fatshaming, an issue of great interest to me. In this post, I am going to write about being unemployed.

My experience reflects the state of affairs in Virginia. I’ve read a couple of other experiences, and the outcomes differ depending on the state. Different states require different things and provide different things.

I am among the fortunate who have been able to collect unemployment benefits. In another post, I am going to talk about where exactly unemployment benefits come from, because it’s a remarkable program. But for now, I will spare a few words to explain why I, in the eyes of some, demeaned myself and accepted checks from the government when I could have been working somewhere. I will be clear: I do not consider claiming benefits in any form demeaning.

In the state of Virginia, the maximum weekly benefit is about $378. This benefit is taxed. One may collect weekly checks in that amount for 25 weeks. Under a special emergency program, I was able to collect for an additional 19 weeks. I will discuss these programs, and the origins of unemployment funding, in another post. I will claim the final unemployment benefit check for which I am eligible on 29 December 2012.

So let me return to my current point: why did I demean myself and accept checks from the government when I could have been working somewhere? The answer may be explained by a cost/benefit analysis. My last day of full time work was 1 February 2012. Let’s assume I could have obtained work in retail at the VA minimum wage of $7.25 and begin working by 15 February 2012. Although it is extremely unlikely (see McMillan’s, The American Way of Eating, Part II Selling) let’s assume I was able to get a full time appointment. Full time employment in most cases would have made me eligible for health and other benefits. These benefits, should I have elected to claim them, would have required premiums. My gross pay for 40 hours per week would have been $290. That is pre-tax, doesn’t include any premiums for benefits, and doesn’t account for the cost of transportation to the workplace, and incidental expenses such as meals (purchasing onsite or bringing one) and uniforms/shoes.

$378 is more than $290. Even at an hourly rate of $10/hr, with the expenses I mentioned earlier, I would likely take home less per week as a worker than as a person collecting unemployment. And let’s not forget the most valuable (and paradoxically most threatening) benefit of collecting unemployment: time. Time allows me to look for work in my field, prepare high quality applications, participate in networking events, and attend interviews without needing to juggle a work schedule.

Anyway, I would have thought that this previous paragraph was obvious information. And perhaps I am taking things people say to me way too personally. But in case I am not being too sensitive or over analyzing the stuff people say on the subject of working versus collecting unemployment, I hereby offer this post.

This.

In my next post, I am going to write about the scourge of unsolicited advice-giving to job searchers.

TL;DR Collecting unemployment isn’t demeaning, and it gives me time to try to find work in my field.

Reading for pleasure (*snicker*): Sisters by Lynne Cheney

I first learned of Lynne Cheney’s novel Sisters earlier this year from an article at Cracked.com (5 Famous Artists Who Tried To Destroy Their Own Work)

Copies of the text are selling for more than USD 300 on Amazon, so I requested the book from ODU’s interlibrary loan office (my absolute favorite part of ODU, if I am every in a position to endow anyone or thing, it’ll be ILL…or Planned Parenthood…or both). If you search for the book title and author, you will land on a PDF version that you can read online if you are so inclined. I will not link to it here as I am not entirely sure the copy is legal.

Sisters was not the salacious, titillating, Sapphic piece I had hoped for. However, it was an educational read set in Wyoming with a feminist protagonist and a sex-positive message. I am not sure that I’d recommend the book—I found myself skimming large chunks of text. However, Cheney researched the work thoroughly, and her effort shows.

Fatshaming shows up in all sorts of places

I tend to write about issues directly connected to North Africa or the Arab world in this blog. However, since February I have not had the privilege of being paid to read about that region for 45 hours a week. As a result, my exposure has been greatly reduced. In addition to completing my dissertation on the role of illiterate women in political change (which I have written about here), I have been reading in other areas. I have written previously about fatshaming here.

For example, in preparation for my marriage in August, I read several books and blogs to educate myself about the privilege and injustice of the institution. The books include:

Rebecca Mead's One perfect day: the selling of the American wedding (2008)
Bella DePaulo’s Singled Out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored and still live happily ever after (2006)
Tamara Metz’ Untying the knot: marriage, the state, and the case for their divorce (2010)
Stephanie Coontz’ Marriage, a History (2006)

I enjoyed all of the books, and all four provided a basis for my address at the ceremony. I did have a problem with some of DePaulo’s points.

DePaulo analyzed the rhetoric of a CDC press release that measures the correlation between health and marital status. Her goal is to show that being married or ever having been married is erroneously tied to enjoying better health compared to being single. However, she shows that the results of the CDC data conclude that those 'currently married' and those who have always been single are the two groups with the best health indicators. The other groups are cohabiting couples, divorced or separated people and widowed people.

But DePaulo is simply not satisfied that the data back up her hypothesis that marriage does not necessarily make one healthier or lead to a healthier life. No, she must also include a disparaging remark about the rates of obesity. It turns out that those in the "currently married" group have the best health indicators out of the 5 groups measured and also the highest rates of obesity. The group of people who have always been single have the second best indicators for health. DePaulo writes that she would change the title of the press release to "Adults Who Are Currently Married or Have Always Been Single Are the Healthiest". She adds, though, that she is tempted to say "currently married adults are the fattest."

What is she really saying this remark? What I read is, "sure, currently married people are healthier in comparison to other groups, but they're also a bunch of fatties." So what if they are a bunch of fatties? They are healthy fatties, and that is the point. The actual title of the CDC press release was "Married Adults Are Healthiest, New CDC Report Shows." The summary is "A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that married adults are healthier than divorced, widowed, or never-married adults." (page 45)

Considering that never-married adults have the second best health outcomes, the title and summary are certainly misleading, but DePaulo's remarks about obesity are baffling. She reasonably concludes on page 46 that those currently married may have been healthier than others before they were married. There is no proof that marriage causes greater health. So then why does she resort to quasi fat shaming of the marrieds? Why is it remarkable that the marrieds are fatter than the other groups? Marriage most likely didn't cause their fatness just as marriage didn't necessarily cause their better health.

Later in the book (page 154) DePaulo challenges a conclusion that married men consume more fruits and vegetables and less fat and cholesterol than single men. While she is right to challenge the conclusion, which is based on the "women belong in the kitchen" trope, she undermines her point by resorting to obesity=unhealthy=underconsumption of fruits/vegetables trope. She writes, "if married men are getting fed fruits, vegetables, and low-fat and low-cholesterol meals, and single men are not, then why did the CDC study show that married men are fatter?" Easy, because *News FLASH* fatties, like non-fatties, eat fruits and vegetables. A fair point is tainted by sloppy, heavy-handed bias.

This is what all 94,668 words of my dissertation look like

Test

The following presentation demonstrates my skills with Adobe Captivate.

First watch the video below.

After the video, take this quiz to test your skills.

Don't forget to to test your skills!

 

Why education is not a cure all or panacea

On Friday 1 June 2012, I submitted a complete draft of my dissertation to my committee members.  Since then, I got some feedback from my committee chair about removing some items from the 330 page document (or 82,632 words not including footnotes and references).  My next few posts might end up serving a similar purpose to this one--serving as a repository for the rejected prose from my dissertation.

When one sets out to write a book-length project, inspiration comes from everywhere.  That was the case for me, as I read Obama's memoir "Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance" while doing fieldwork in Morocco during 2009-2010.

-----------

            An alternative view to the near universal assumption that education is a quasi panacea is the viewpoint that formal schooling does not provide adequate education to marginalized or minority populations, including the poor and women.  In other words, formal schooling does not teach marginalized or minority students about the world based on their perspectives or experiences.  In one of his memoirs, Obama profiles educator Asante Moran, a character that may represent a composite of more than one real person.  Obama quotes Moran as saying, “Just think about what a real education for these children would involve.  It would start by giving a child an understanding of himself[/herself], his[/her] world, his[/her] culture, his[/her] community.  That’s the starting point of any educational process.  That’s what makes a child hungry to learn—the promise of being part of something, of mastering his[/her] environment.”[1]  While Obama’s character was referring to inner-city minority youths in 1980s Chicago, his thoughts are true and valid for all people, not just inner-city minority youths.  This point speaks to the importance of involving the targets of education (or the products of education, whether failed or inadequate or successful) into the curriculum and program designing process.  Such inclusion is challenging for Moroccan society, where teaching is a low prestige job, and teachers are largely not respected by the state or society.  There is growing research on the positive results of including different voices in designing curriculum and schooling programs.[2]

            The character in Obama’s memoir, Asante Moran, discusses the educational experience of his pupils through the lens of standpoint theory.  The challenge to formal schooling in Obama’s text cites the disconnection between the experience behind the curriculum that is being taught and the experience of the pupils to whom it is being taught.  Obama quotes Moran further, “From day one, what’s he[/she] learning about?  Someone else’s history.  Someone else’s culture, Not only that, this culture [she/]he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him[/her], denied him[/her] his[/her] humanity.”[3]  This second quote is even more relevant to the women of Morocco, and the relevance increases as the intersectional identities increase.  Rural women, poor women, girls and teens (youth is another intersectional identity), Amazigh (Berber) women, single mothers, mentally or physically handicapped women, homosexual women, children born to Moroccan women and non-Moroccan men (this affects issues of nationality and the privileges associated with it), widows, mothers of daughters, non-Muslim women, and others.

            Indeed, inter-subjectively, the marginalized student is not being taught her history while the enfranchised students gets to benefit from an otherwise more robust educational experience when that experience is shared with students from different backgrounds.  Obama points out through his character Moran that, “The flow of culture [runs] in reverse as well.”[4]  The disenfranchised have “their own forms of validation.”  Their “claims of greater deprivation” afford them “greater authenticity.”  Furthermore, their mere presence in the classroom with privileged students provides those privileged students “with an education”[5] from the points of view of the disenfranchised (the poor, the deprived and other areas outside of affluence and privilege).  Inclusion leads to an improved school experience for everyone.


[1] Barack Obama. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. 1st pbk. ed.  New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004. 258.

[2] See for example, International Working Group on Education (IWGE). "Critical Issues in Education for All: Gender Parity, Emergencies," (Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, 2003).

[3] Obama, Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance: 258.

[4] Ibid., 286.

[5] Ibid.

Moroccan women as seen from abroad

I read this article back in 2010 when it was published in Telquel, but I am just now getting to the part of my dissertation where I am able to include it and my thoughts on it.  I thought I'd share those thoughts here, especially in light of the recent article I blogged about yesterday about the Moroccan school girl banned from taking her entrance exam at a prestigious high school in Rabat because she was wearing a hijab.

Anyhow, the Telquel article, in French, is titled "Moroccan women as seen by the Arabs."

The article discusses how across Arab states, the image of the Moroccan woman is anecdotally trademarked, and is associated with being liberated--though interpreting that association is subjective.  While in the West, the quality of being liberated hints at franchise and agency, among Arabs, so-called 'liberated' Moroccan women make ideal prostitutes, resulting in Algerian and Tunisian migrants passing themselves off as Moroccan in order to provide the product their customers are seeking.

Morocco represents the literal and figurative west of the Arab world.  Moroccan women, in the minds of Khaleejis, go out, work, exist, and don't cover themselves from head to toe.  One might mark the historical beginning of women's physical and spatial liberation in 1947.  It was then that Princess Lalla Aicha, paternal aunt of the current king, appeared in 1947 without a veil.

The stereotype of Moroccan women as liberated has led to an ironic reduction of freedom of movement for them. Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca if their resources allow it.  There is also a so-called minor pilgrimage that is not required but is recommended for the devout.  As of 2010 (and likely earlier) an unaccompanied Moroccan woman faces additional obstacles to obtaining the necessary permissions to enter Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.  These new obstacles extend beyond the usual labyrinthine bureaucracy, and are rooted in the stereotype that Moroccan women are too liberated.

In other words, while other Arab countries and cultures regard Moroccan women as being liberated, these same entities are party to restricting their freedom--of movement, of employment, of expression.

What is the origin of this stereotype?  Well, according to the Telquel article, it comes in part form the portrayal of Moroccan women in Middle Eastern film.  I discussed the Moroccan-woman-as-prostitute yesterday in reaction to my rage at seeing illiterate women being essentially blamed for exacerbating prostitution.

The article also brings up an interesting point about language, which is of particular interest to me and to my dissertation.  In the final paragraph, the authors point out that most stereotypes of Moroccans come from non-Arab sources.  

However, "la proximité de la langue aidant, les Marocains regardent plus de chaînes arabophones qu’européennes, et sont donc directement touchés par l’image que leur renvoient leurs frères arabes."
With this thought, the authors are either asserting that Moroccan people watch more Arabic language television channels than they do European ones or that Moroccans watch more Arab channels than European channels.  This latter point means that the Moroccans are not just watching Arabic-speaking channels but also Arab channels which may be in other languages.  Textual ambiguity aside, I would love to know upon what the authors are basing this claim.  I am also interested in what the implications are for literacy in Morocco if Moroccans are watching more Arabic-language programming.

According to the authors, because of the Arabic-language affinity between Moroccans and other Arabs, the negative or stereotypical portrayal of Moroccans is more hurtful when it comes from fellow Arabs than when it comes from European programming.

The authors write:
"Preuve en est que l’épisode de la vidéo koweïtienne a égratigné plus de Marocains que foultitude de sketchs français bourrés de clichés sur le Maroc. C’est bien connu, les coups sont plus douloureux quand ils viennent de la famille."

Thus, the portrayal of Moroccans by Kuwaitis caused more outcry than the portrayal of Moroccans in French shows.  This refers to a Kuwaiti program in which Moroccan women were characterized as scheming witches.  For additional reading, especially if you don't feel like sifting through French, the article I blogged about yesterday discusses this issue, and others, in English.