Wounding Words

            Yesterday I had an excursion from school to listen to a speaker named Jamie Nabozny talk about gay rights and gay-straight alliance (the link to Mr. Nabozny’s website is http://www.jamienabozny.com). In addition to telling us how to deal with homophobia and other types of bullying, he told us a horrific story about how he was bullied for being a homosexual when he was a kid.

Jamie was beaten up everyday in school and was made fun of for being different than all the other little boys. The school administrators and teachers knew about the bullying that was going on, but they did not do anything to resolve the issue. Not even his fellow classmates stood up for him. One day, Jamie was beaten up so badly that he had internal bleeding and actually had to have emergency surgery. The bullying grew so intolerable for Jamie that he attempted to take his own life. Later, he ran away from home because he thought that if he went back to school, he would actually be killed.

Still, bullying towards gays clearly exists, and many U.S. citizens still are homophobic. The biggest example would probably be the expression “that’s so gay”. It has become a common phrase, especially among kids my age, and it means the same thing as saying that something is stupid. It is very degrading to homosexuals and implies that there is something wrong with being gay.

I hear kids making homophobic remarks like this all the time at my school, and what amazes me is that other kids (and even some teachers) do nothing about it. Saying something is  “so gay” is basically the equivalent of saying that something is “so Jewish” or  “so black” with the implication that it is a strongly negative description.  These last two expressions would most certainly be met with much anger and resentment because they imply that there is something wrong with being Jewish or black. People would not allow others to say these two phrases, so why do we allow people to say “that’s so gay”? When we say these things or don’t correct someone who says them, are we agreeing that being gay is wrong? (Please leave comments in the box underneath this post)

Americans are supposed to have the freedom to express themselves in whatever way they want, but if people like Jamie are going to get beaten up for expressing themselves and being different, do we really have this freedom?

It would be unfair for me to end my post here; even though bullying obviously still exists today, things have definitely gotten a lot better.

This is a table that shows the states that have or will likely make changes in their laws regarding same-sex marriages in the next year or so. As you can see, more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and, in general, people are becoming more accepting of gays.

Dream Crusher

Many high school juniors, including myself, took the ACT yesterday. The atmosphere of the classroom before the exam was like nothing I had ever experienced.  Most of the kids were nervously twirling their pencils, sitting in their seats quietly, trying to recall grammatical rules or math formulas they hadn’t studied in years. I was beyond nervous. I just sat there like all the other students, trying to prepare myself for possibly the most important test I had ever taken. Most of us felt, I’m sure, that this test would have be a huge factor in deciding our futures after high school.

            Although this may seem a bit extreme, there is a lot of truth in saying that the ACT decides one’s future. It can open or close educational opportunities and determine whether or not a student gets to go to a college. Colleges claim that the ACT is an essential because it allows them to compare students from different high schools. But in the eyes of many, including myself, the ACT has many flaws. In fact, I think Emily talked about how the ACT plays a part in setting up kids who do not get good scores to be at the bottom of society.

            I read an article this morning, titled “The ACT: Biased, Inaccurate, and Misused” (http://www.fairtest.org/facts/act.html). It talked about how standardized tests, specifically the ACT, are geared towards certain students and how it gives these students an unfair advantage. Kids who come from wealthier families usually have more opportunities to study for the test, and because of this they usually perform better. Their parents are able to give them tutors and pay for prep courses. In many North Shore families (including those of my friends and myself), parents will even pay for their kids to retake the test if they did not get a “satisfactory” score the first time around. Colleges usually are only able to see the test scores you want them to see, so naturally this gives the kids who took the test multiple times an advantage.

            The ACT is also designed for a particular type of student. In the article I read, the author said that the test format “favors males over females.”

This is a table I found comparing the ACT scores of different races and genders. Even though girls have, on average, higher GPAs than boys, guys generally do better on the test (if you compare the dark blue line to the pink line, you can see this). This directly contradicts the purpose of the ACT; colleges use the scores to predict what students’ grades will be like in college. It seems very reasonable to assume that the kids who got the better grades in high school will continue to be successful in college, but I guess the ACT creators, as well as college administrators, do not agree with this.

            Standardized tests, especially the ACT, are an unfair way of deciding who should have the opportunity to go to college. These tests really only tell colleges how good of a test–taker a student is; it does not tell them how intelligent students are.  It reduces kids to a degrading number, and a student’s dreams can be crushed in a matter of hours with the ACT. Therefore, standardized tests need to be replaced with a fairer, more accurate way of evaluating students.

            Is the ACT really necessary? Do you agree with me that it should be abolished? If you agree with me, what are some possible alternatives?

Raising the Roof

By far the most consuming political issue right now is the debt ceiling suspension. In fact, I was watching the news Sunday morning with my mom, and that was the only thing they talked about (for the entire forty minutes that I was watching). I decided to look up a bit more about the issue online and found a great article on Forbes, the link for which is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianjacobsen/2013/10/17/debt-ceiling-deal/.

            The article’s main point was that the “deal sets the stage for future fights,” meaning that no final agreement long-term was really made and that the government is going to have to come back to this issue in a few months. Government officials have just pushed off their final decision and nothing was really accomplished with the shutdown besides a few minor negociations.

I know for sure that it is not just one party’s fault; both are to blame for this issue.  When George Bush was in office, Republicans spent a ton of money for the things they thought were important, and now that the Democrats are mostly in control, they are spending for what they think is most essential.  So the question really isn’t whether or not we are going to spend – spending is inevitable.  The question is what do we want to spend money on.

            I found this comic and thought it really illustrated the lack of ability to compromise that the two parties have.  If one party wants to cut back spending on something, the other one will refuse.  We cannot agree on what needs to be cut, and we are getting a taller and taller ceiling because we cannot compromise.

            This spending theme is not just in the government - it is a common trait of most Americans in general.  Many people, especially on the North Shore, buy nice cars and houses and don’t save much for the future. I am also guilty of spending more than I should; if I make $100 dollars mowing lawns, chances are that I am only going to save about 25% of it, at the very most. We only worry about the present, and don’t plan ahead for the future.  Sooner or later, all this spending is going to catch up with us and we are going to have a big inflation problem on our hands. Devaluing the dollar will be the only way to dig our way out of debt.

           

            Please respond with your thoughts on the suspension or any other ideas about inflation or spending. Thanks!

Lay Off The Juice!

For all you sports fans out there, I’m sure most of you have heard about the A-Rod situation that’s been going on for the past few months. For those that haven’t, I’ll briefly explain.  In August, the New York Yankees’ superstar Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) was accused of having used performance-enhancing drugs and was issued a 211 – game suspension, the longest suspension ever issued in the MLB. He was also accused of participating in Biogenesis, an anti-aging clinic. He is now trying to prove that these accusations are not true.

            But it isn’t just A-Rod who has been juicing. In an article I read on CNN.com (the link for which is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/21/us/alex-rodriguez-mlb-suspension/index.html?hpt=hp_t4), it is stated that twelve other MLB players were suspended for 50 games for the same offenses. However, according to the article, A-Rod is the only player who has decided to appeal his suspension.

            Taking performance-enhancing drugs is illegal not only because it gives the player an unfair advantage over other players who do not take the drugs, but also because of the many harmful effects on the body that these drugs have.  A few of the most horrific problems that can be caused are heart attacks, strokes, kidney disease, and brain cancer. An article from muscleandstrength.com that talks about all of the harmful effects of steroids can be found here: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/steroids-and-their-harmful-side-effects.html.

The fact that an increasing number of baseball players, the idols of so many young kids, are juicing is a huge problem. These players who use steroids set a poor example for the kids and are basically telling them that cheating is okay and that winning is more important than their health. I understand that players have a desire to live up to their expectations and their salaries, but achieving these things by compromising moral values, health, and the respect of their teammates and fans is unacceptable.

Whenever I hear that a record-setting baseball player has been found guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs, I think of his accomplishments as tarnished greatly.  They almost don’t seem to count in my book once I hear that. I think that if a baseball player is convicted of taking PEDs, then his records should be removed from the books.  What do you think?

Nursing - A Man's Job?

In my American Studies class the other day, we were talking about professions that were stereotyped as being a man’s job or a woman’s job.  For example, the stereotypical depiction of a nurse is almost always of a woman. Recently, however, increasing amounts of men have gone into the profession, and as this has happened, the overall earnings of a nurse have gone up.  As a result of this discussion in class, I began to wonder about why that could be.  I was also curious as to whether or not a male nurse makes more money than a female nurse in general.

I found an interesting article from CBS News titled “Number of male U.S. nurses triple since 1970”, the link for which can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57571330/number-of-male-u.s-nurses-triple-since-1970/. Ryan Jaslow, the author, wrote “for all types of nursing, men earned, on average, $60,700 per year, while women earned $51,100 per year.”  He also mentioned that among the same nursing jobs, men still make more than women. When I heard this, I immediately assumed that this difference must be the result of sexism.

However, upon reading the article a second time, I noticed some key points.  Although men only make up about 10 percent of the nurse population, 41 percent of nurse anesthetists (by far the highest paid job in the field) are men.  This explains why the difference in pay from males to females is so great. But now the question is why are there so many more men involved in anesthesia.

I can see why many people would be inclined to think that this is a direct result of sexism, however, I must disagree.  If anything, I think the sexism would go against the man; according to the article I referenced, men were not allowed into many nursing schools until recently.  I think that men just choose to pick a higher paying and more demanding job than women because traditionally (and still to this day in most families), men are expected to make most of the family’s income.  Also, women usually have demanding responsibilities around the house and it is usually their job to take care of the children, so they sometimes don’t have as much time for an additional demanding job.  This explanation would account for why there is a difference in pay for the two genders even among nurses of the same specialty; female nurses do not have the time to work as many hours as the male nurses and therefore are not paid as much.  Choice plays a significant role in this disparity – women may prioritize family over work, while men may do the opposite.

I know my theory may not be correct, so please comment if you have other explanations or ideas.