Masuma Ahuja
Young journalist, blogger. Recent grad from Oxford. Lived on three continents. Passionate about digital media and its intersection with global politics. Always looking for innovative ways to enact social change. Get in touch: masuma (dot) ahuja (at) gmail
(Photo Courtesy of petesimon)
My Writing- My Blog
- Twitter
-
Posts
- Selling Ourselves Online
January 10, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today
In early November, I read an article by William Deresiewicz in the New York Times that tried to characterize my generation, the millennial generation; Deresiewicz called us ‘Generation Sell’.
I haven’t been able to get the article out of my mind. Not because I entirely agree with it, but rather because one sentence rung too true: ‘We use social media to create a product — to create a brand — and the product is us’.
That sentence sums up my post-university experience almost too accurately.
Over the past few months, as I have navigated the characteristic challenges of a recent graduate – from networking to applying for new opportunities – it’s inevitable that I’ve had to sell myself – why should I write for the blog? Why do I deserve the job?
But I’ve found, not just for me, but also for most of my peers, that selling ourselves extends far beyond the cover letter and the CV – we’re also a sum of Google results and social media profiles.
Think about it. When was the last time you met someone interesting and didn’t go home and Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter him or her?
We have so many profiles – so many versions of ourselves – readily available on the Internet, from the photos of a vacation, to the links to articles we like, to the names of our favorite bands. Since every like, dislike, and experience has the opportunity to be (and often is) chronicled, we are constantly compelled to sell ourselves.
I have many friends who are terrified by the public image portrayed on the internet: they have deactivated Facebook, stay away from Twitter, and refuse to blog for fear that a future employer or significant other might discover their potentially controversial opinions or life experiences.
While I definitely agree that there has to be a clear and distinct line between the public (that’s shared) and the private (that remains offline), I’ve found that it’s better to embrace the opportunities to sell myself – from setting up a website, to Tweeting, blogging or Facebook-ing – than to shy away from creating an online, Google-able version of myself.
While my peers and I are definitely preoccupied with selling ourselves online, more than anything else, I think it’s important to remember that we stay plugged in because it’s fun and a great way to stay connected. After all, who doesn’t want to know what Daily Mail articles their Facebook friends are reading? - More Millennial Women Going Back to School, Could Boost Future U.S. Economy
January 3, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
Over the last two and a half years, over 400,000 women have dropped out of the labor force.
The staggering number is worrying and indicative of a larger and more interesting trend: As employment opportunities remain dismal, especially for millennials, young women are choosing to go to school to get more qualifications instead of getting a job. In fact, there are more young women enrolled in school now than there are in the work force.
The shift in what young women are doing is interesting not only because it is telling about the current, gendered economic situation, but also because it predicts the changing role of women in our future economy.
This trend – particularly the gendered aspect of it, where women, not men, are choosing to return to school – reflects the differences in opportunities for young men and women in the workforce.Data shows that in the 2.5 years since the recovery began, men between the ages of 16 and 24 have gained 178,000 jobs, whereas women in the same category have lost 255,000 jobs.
The numbers say it all – it isn’t just harder for young women to gain employment compared to young men, these women are actually losing jobs while their male counterparts are gaining employment.
Further, the earnings gap – the fact that women earn disproportionately less than men – is an additional incentive to pursue more education that could lead to higher paying jobs, especially in today’s economy, where job options are few and far between.
It is easy to understand why young women are going back to school in the current, dire economic climate, and the effects of this trend are going to have an incredible impact on the role women play in tomorrow’s economy and workforce: They will be more employable, more qualified, and more likely to be the driving force behind economic booms.
Perhaps for the first time ever, women in our generation might be more qualified, maybe even more employable, than their male cohorts.
Some have predicted that this return to school could result in an economic boom since people are getting better qualifications and improving their skills, similar to when World War II veterans returned from war and went to school with the help of the G.I. Bill, instead of searching for jobs. If true, women could be the driving force behind an economic boom, drastically changing their role in the economy.
These broad economic predictions, of course, might not hold, but the overarching effects of women going back to school are significant and should not be ignored: By gaining more educational qualifications, young women might be able to go from being paid and employed less to being more qualified and getting better jobs than their male counterparts.
- An Oxford Thanksgiving
January 3, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today
A few weeks ago, I returned to Oxford for thanksgiving, for the first time since finals. At the airport, I had butterflies in my stomach. I was nervous about returning – for the first time as a visitor, not a student.
But as the coach pulled into Gloucester Green, I was hit by the overwhelming familiarity – dragging an all-too-heavy suitcase to the front of college, the fearless cyclists, and the lively, dressed-up crew dates-goers: so little had changed.
I expected that just as my life had changed drastically over the last few months, Oxford (and the people I knew here) would have too.
But over the course of my visit, I found myself slowly settling back into the comfort of returning to the familiar – not just the friendly faces and streets, but also the same routines, similar conversations.
And even though most of my friends are done with studying at Oxford and off doing various things – from laboring through 14-hour nursing shifts to handling social media for a charity – though we no longer had the same essay crises and problem sheets to worry about, I was relieved to find that our lives were surprisingly similar. We shared the common struggles of recent graduates and often, the common nostalgia for everything strange and special about Oxford.
One night during my visit, sitting around a table, sharing a home-cooked thanksgiving dinner (turkey, pumpkin pie, and all) with about 20 others, it became increasingly clear that even though I was across an ocean, living a vastly different and exciting post-university life, I would always find comfort in returning to Oxford and the people I met here – the only ones who understand why carnations make me nervous and nauseous and why I long to go punting when the sun comes out.
Back in New York, people are intrigued by my stories about university – how dinner was like Harry Potter, with a high table and gowns, how we had boat races not football games, crew dates not frat parties.
Perhaps because Oxford is so different from American universities, or because it was an important experience for many who attended the University, across the Atlantic, I have found that the alumni network here is strong and supportive. Oxford graduates I have spoken to (often responding to my out-of-the-blue emails for career advice) are usually warm and eager to reminisce together about the weird and wonderful bits of Oxford. Some I’ve shared tutors with; others laugh with me about the college cat; and then some will mention things everyone knew all-too-well: the incomprehensible lecturers, the awful bops, and the sleepy mornings in the Bod.
So, even as I encounter new experiences and build new bonds, excited as I pace forward from Oxford and student life, it still makes me smile when, after an introduction, someone asks, and what college were you at? - The Social Media Evolution: Facebook Timeline Scrapbooks Our Lives
December 15, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
Yesterday, news websites and status updates exploded in despair and awe: Facebook had finally changed for American users; the much-anticipated timeline is here.
The timeline is as much an elegant redesign as it is a rethinking of the Facebook profile page, and this is what makes it important: The timeline is the next logical step to ensure that Facebook continues to dominate our internet interactions and is going to enable the social network to become even more ingrained in our lives.
To understand why the timeline is so important, it’s first necessary to understand what the timeline is and how it is different.
On the old Facebook profile page, the most recent stories of an individual’s activity, as well as recent posts from their friends, appear on the profile. Information quickly gets buried and finding activity a few months or years old takes digging.
With the timeline, however, a user can filter by year and month, able to see a progression – a literal, visual timeline – of activity and posts.
So, what’s significant about this change is not that it enables users to create content or changes how much is seen, but rather that it changes what a profile page is. It’s even worth noting that the timeline isn’t changing what can be seen but rather how easily it can be found. Since users have the power to determine what is seen and how their activity and their lives appear on the profile page, it becomes a more natural personal homepage, scrapbook, and portfolio.
However, the reason the timeline is so powerful is not only because it makes sharing information easier, but also because it has been launched in the era of the Facebook app.
Due to the rising popularity of apps, Facebook has become the natural internet aggregator of personal data. Now, Facebook doesn’t just keep record of our status updates and photo albums, it also has a detailed history of where we’ve checked in, who we’ve been with, what we’re tweeting, what music we’ve been listening to, what news stories we’ve been reading, and what comments we’ve been leaving on PolicyMic.
Since most significant websites or digital services have an add-on Facebook app, our digital lives have found a natural home on Facebook. The old profile page, however, was outdated. It was less of a personal profile and more of a personal newsfeed – often clogged up with articles read and songs listened to over the past few days. The timeline is the much-needed update.
The new page doesn’t make it easier for our digital activity to live on Facebook, rather, it makes it easier to present ourselves – tweets, Spotify playlists, Washington Post articles and all – online. It is undeniable now, for better or for worse, that our digital existence is increasingly dependent on Facebook.
- Rick Perry Website Stolen By Ron Paul Campaign
December 7, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
If you try going to RickPerry.com, you’re in for a surprise. You don’t end up at the Texas governor’s website, but rather at fellow Texan, Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign website.
No, Perry hasn’t dropped out of the race (yet). No, he is not endorsing Paul. Perry’s official website is RickPerry.org. While candidates and corporations often buy all domains similar to their own in order to ensure that supporters who mistype are redirected to the correct website – Perry and other GOP presidential contenders have neglected to do so.
In Perry’s case, this neglect is going to cost him – mistyping supporters aren’t just left hanging as is often the case (try newtgingrich.com) – but they’re redirected to another candidate who they could lend their support.
This amusing campaign mischief is telling about the changing landscape of campaigns and how candidates are going to fall behind if they don’t get on board with the internet, and quickly.
While a TV or print advertisement can tell you why Paul is better or why Perry is worse, that is all it can do. With this website however, we aren’t being told which candidate is better or worse. Instead, when people go searching for Perry, they just end up finding Paul.
Further, what is particularly interesting thing about RickPerry.com is that the Paul campaign claims that it isn’t their work. Whomever owns RickPerry.com controls where the website is forwarded to. This means that anybody with the foresight to buy these domains also has the power to influence and redirect supporters.
While this mishap and redirect don’t necessarily point in favor of the Paul campaign, they are yet another sign that some of the current GOP candidates could learn a lot about how to use the internet to their advantage – just take a look at Romney’s sponsored tweets and Jon Huntsman’s daughters’ viral YouTube video.
- For Good News, Turn to the Avon Ladies of Bangladesh
December 5, 2011 - originally published on fem 2.0
The stories we hear of women in developing countries are often heart breaking – they’re the stories of struggle, of lack of empowerment – like the one from this past week about theAfghan woman expected to marry her rapist.
It’s not only heartening and inspiring – but also incredibly important – when we hear about people like the ‘Avon ladies’ of Bangladesh. These incredible women are breaking cultural barriers and redefining their role in society. Their work might not be revolutionary – they are the Bangladeshi equivalent of traveling, door-to-door salesmen, working through a partnership between Unilever, Danone, and BIC and Care International – to sell products ranging from soaps and razors to cosmetics.
In a country where a mere 4% of women work for a wage, where they earn less than their male counterparts, and where it is accepted that a woman’s place is in the home, not at work – these women, selling soap, sachets, and shampoo – are the true revolutionaries.
The program, of course, has faced its fair share of criticism on a broad range of issues: the low turnover rate, the fact that the program still restricts women to the domestic sphere, the fact that these products aren’t locally made … the list is long and is not without merit.
But it’s worth taking a second to notice the nature of the complaints. The conversation itself is shifting – albeit slowly – from one which questions what the place of women in developing societies is and whether they will be able to leave the domestic sphere and join the workforce – to one that accepts their role in the workplace, that accepts their role as door-to-door sales women, and questions, instead, the nature of the products they sell.
While the program might not be perfect, it’s undoubtedly a step in the right direction, because it is these grassroots efforts that are going to carve a new role for women in the developing world – one that changes the nature of the conversation and imagines a space for women both at home and at work.
The ‘Avon ladies’ of course aren’t alone. They are part of a much larger story of empowerment. The larger story includes the 97% of Grameen bank borrowers who are women – starting small projects and working their way out of poverty; the women who are victims of human trafficking and have learned crafts – such as jewelry making as a tool to enable economic independence and empowerment; and the women at the bottom of the caste pyramid in North India who have created a weekly newspaper.
As each of these individual efforts – like that of the ‘Avon ladies’ – changes the conversation to one about what women are doing in developing contexts instead of one about whether they will be able to get involved – we make small strides toward empowerment and equality.
- #Men Call Me Things – Online Gendered Abuse
November 16, 2011 - originally published on fem 2.0
“You come to expect the vitriol, the insults, the death threats,” writes Laurie Penny of The Independent.
What has Penny done to deserve the barrage of attack and abuse? Oh, well, she’s a woman writer.
Over the past weeks, women bloggers and writers including Penny have taken to Twitter (#mencallmethings) to share their stories of the abuse they have faced as women writing online.
Scrolling through the thousands of tweets and blog posts emerging about the topic, themes start to emerge: rape, “slut,” “hoe”… you get the picture. The threats and insults these women have faced are often graphic, often sexual, and almost always unwarranted and hurtful.
The theme of trolls leaving unsavory comments on websites of course isn’t new, or exclusive to women writing online. Part of the deal when writing on the internet – man or woman – is opening yourself up to criticism and comments. The issue here, though, isn’t criticism. It’s the misogyny veiled as criticism. Calling a woman a ‘slut’ in response to a political post or threatening to rape her isn’t criticism. It’s abusive.
Further while the internet has blurred boundaries and most content produced online falls under free speech, as Helen Lewis-Hastley of the New Statesman makes an important distinction – that the right to free speech is not the right to make threats against another person.
These comments are worrying not only because they make the internet feel a little less safe, but also because they are telling about society. That some deem it acceptable to criticize a writer based on gender, to comment with threats of sexual violence is worrying. And that someone’s gender can be seen by trolls and critics as a writer’s weak spot – an easy target to attack – is just appalling.
The price that women pay for sharing their opinions should not be threats and abuse, and equally importantly, should not be sexualized threats and gender-based abuse.
Many bloggers – often those who have faced such comments – have spoken up in recent weeks about #mencallmethings and the abuse that they face. While anger from these women is expected and universal, that they often argue that these trolls are an expected part our reality is a harsh truth.
For example, Kate Smurthwaite of Cruellablog writes, “These comments reveal a deep-seated hatred towards women. I find that unsurprising in our culture. Violent, extreme pornography is normal internet fare. Gang rape and prostitution are subjects for popular music. At least 95% of actual rapists are on the streets.” #mencallmethings is just the tip of a very big iceberg – it’s indicative of bigger problems in society – that “we still live in a sexist society, [and] any woman who sticks her head above the parapet will encounter misogynistic abuse,” according to Natalie Dzerins ofForty Shades of Grey.
It’s worth noting, of course, that while the internet has in a sense enabled this trolls – giving them an easy voice, these trolls are not representative of all commentators.
Just look at the solidarity found on #mencallmethings. Just as there are critics and abusers, there are many offering comfort and calling out for change.
And as the women who face vitriol share their struggles and their stories, they further an important discussion, not only about comments on the internet, but about the underlying causes for these comments in society. By discussing the opinions and stereotypes fueling this abuse, we take another step toward tackling the misogyny behind it.
- Huntsman Daughters Bring Much Needed Media Attention to Campaign
November 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, GOP presidential nominee Jon Huntsman announced that he would drop out of the race if the New Hampshire primary does not go well for him and his campaign. His chances don’t look good, as he has consistently been polling nationally in the single digits. However, Huntsman’s saving grace could be his three oldest daughters, who have recently come into the media spotlight, as they tweet and YouTube, often controversially and perhaps only for media attention, about their father’s campaign. Whatever their motives, though, one thing is clear: Huntsman’s three daughters have brought his campaign more attention than anything else has.
Huntsman has largely been ignored by mainstream media and voters alike as Herman Cain and Mitt Romney speed ahead, both in terms of recognition and likability. This might be surprising considering that Huntsman ended his term as Utah governor with an 80% approval rating and that the New York Times’ Nate Silvers predicts Huntsman as the GOP contender most likely to win the popular vote under any economic scenario. Yet, few have been talking about this former ambassador and his presidential aspirations.
Now, this is all changing as Mary Anne, Abby, and Liddy – the Huntsman daughters – take matters into their own hands. The girls gained fame when they put on big glasses and fake mustaches and parodied Herman Cain’s campaign manager, Mark Block blowing cigarette smoke at the camera in Cain’s infamous and controversial campaign ad.
Since then, the girls have developed a Twitter following with their @jon2012girls account of nearly 9,000 people. Through social media they’ve been vocal about their father and the GOP race, bringing both humor and a surprising honesty to the campaign. They have become the most prominent voice of the campaign, known, for example, for famously saying, “How does Romney know anything about China? He’s only been there once and that was for the Olympics. Panda Express doesn’t count.”
Many in the media have speculated that the trio has sought media attention only to build their own personal following. They wouldn’t be the first family to capitalize on presidential aspirations; they would be following in the footsteps of the Sarah Palin’s family – which has provided fodder for tabloids and gone on to make a reality show since the election or Meghan McCain, whose blogging career took off with her father’s 2008 presidential bid.
Whatever their future intentions, for now, the three daughters join in a line of candidates’ children who have defended their parents and campaigned furiously for them, including Chelsea Clinton, who campaigned actively for her mother in 2008, even angrily fielding questions about the Lewinsky scandal.
And with their efforts, Abby, Liddy, and Marry Anne have succeeded, at least, in bringing much-needed media attention to Huntsman and his efforts, as many on Twitter and even the New Yorker, Jezebel, and many others begin talking about Huntsman and the trio.
- Learning to live plugged in
October 31, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today
Like most recent grads, affordable living is high on my list of priorities – which means I’ve sacrificed comfort for a life spent commuting. As much as I complain about the many long hours I spend on the train, this time is special because it is the only time of day – as my train whizzes past suburban New Jersey and under bustling New York City – that I am disconnected. No cell phone service, no internet.
At work, I’m plugged in – I work at a start-up political news analysis website, so keeping up with what’s going on and being online are both not just expected, but also required.
Away from work, my iPhone and laptop are always buzzing with new messages, unread emails.
As I’m beginning to adjust to this new, ‘adult’ life – where pub trips and bops are replaced with happy hours and brunches – I’m learning to strike the balance of meeting new and exciting people whilst trying to maintain relationships with old friends.
Making the transition to the ‘real world’ isn’t so different from first year at university – there are lots of drinks with strangers; awkward moments with forgotten names; and, sometimes, real connections.
Trying to stay in touch, on the other hand, is, in many ways, uncharted territory. Without plans of returning to England soon and in an effort to avoid crazy international phone bills – means I have to turn friendships, formed over late-night chats in the JCR and burnt meals in halls, into e-friendships, relying almost entirely on Facebook and GChat.
I don’t just read status updates and look at photo albums, I now hear important news on the internet as well: an email from a friend coming out, a Facebook update about an acquaintance passing away.
Suddenly, I have started crying to and comforting a screen.
Distance makes it harder, and I’m glad that I still hear gossip and news within the week, but there’s something to be said for the fact that so many of our post-university relationships survive on social media. I’m now beginning to find that we’re growing more comfortable typing than we are talking, preferring emoticons to even the grainy pictures on Skype.
I’m adjusting to life after university slowly – enjoying the vibrant world of New York and the daily excitement working at a start-up brings, but remembering at the same time to update my status and email my friends about all my adventures. - Is Wall Street vs. Main Street Fueling Our Partisan Divide?
October 21, 2011 - originally published on No Labels
Recent news that President Barack Obama raised a whopping $43 million dollars from July through September for his reelection campaign puts into the spotlight the issue of who is donating to presidential campaigns and which candidates these donors are backing in 2012.
While Obama has raised an enormous sum of $99 million this election season, there’s been one notable exception from his camp of donors: Wall Street. While the financial sector backed and donated more $42 million to Obama’s campaign in 2008, this time around, they are supporting former governor and Wall Street CEO Mitt Romney.
In a political environment where money means influence, this shift of allegiances is telling about the increasingly partisan nature of U.S. politics.
The numbers say it all: Until now, 52% of Obama’s fundraising has come from small donations, while only 22% of it falls under the category of $2,500 donations (the maximum amount that can be given). By contrast, a staggering 61% of Romney’s money has come from donations of $2,500, while only 10% has come from small donations.
Even more indicative of the difference between Obama and Romney is the composition of the donor-pool for the two candidates. Romney’s number one campaign contributor has been Goldman Sachs, whose employees and their spouses have given over seven times more to Romney than to Obama. Goldman’s preference for Romney is part of a larger trend; while 23% of Romney’s money has come from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors, less than 5 percent of Obama’s is from the same group.
This split may not come as a surprise. In 2008, Obama was the candidate who transcended partisan politics. Wall Street donated to him. Young people campaigned for him. Unions supported him. But, since his election, he’s lost Wall Street’s support by backing financial reform and even calling Wall Street “immoral.” On the other hand, Romney has furiously defended the industry, insisting that “corporations are people.”
But given this split, what also should not be surprising is the increasingly partisan nature of Washington politics. When entire industries, such as the financial sector, are choosing to support one party and candidate rather than spread their donations more evenly across parties, it’s natural that our politicians will cater to interest groups and divide across party lines. The issue is not simply that Wall Street is supporting Romney, but rather that they are not also supporting Obama.
In today’s polarized political atmosphere in which compromise is a dirty word, the growing gap between who funds our political parties and candidates leaves little hope that Washington will get any less partisan any time soon.
- Cornel West Arrest Leads to Questions About OWS Leadership
October 17, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
On Sunday, at a “Stop the Machine” protest outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., prominent author and Princeton professor Cornel West was one of 19 people arrested.
The protest was one of the 1,420 similar “Meet-ups” around the world and was in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests, taking a stance against corporate greed.
As the new international movement Occupy Together gains traction, the fact that thought leaders such as West are lending their voices to the movement is telling about the future of the protests’ political leadership – if it chooses to adopt any at all. OWS, whether it continues to protest against the system or attempts to reform it from within, will inevitably include influential figures such as West.
Despite the liberal leanings of Occupy Wall Street, it is increasingly clear that the movement will not be absorbed by the Democratic Party. It will instead have to form its own leadership.
OWS has been a vocal critic of the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama. West, for example claimed that Obama is “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.”
Because OWS’ criticism has been aimed at the political and economic system, including politicians, the movement will likely seek leadership outside of the current political establishment.
Until now, OWS has largely been leaderless and without a coherent message. Many, including West, have argued that the movement does not need a single message since it is meant to signify the general dissatisfaction and discontent with corporate greed, poverty, and the economic condition of the nation. The over-arching and unfocused movement has chosen to let all protesters have an equal voice, refraining from electing a particular leader.
However, in order to provide a legitimate alternative to the existing political structure, the movement has begun an initiative to elect leaders from its own movement to “all levels of government and get rid of greed and corruption on Wall Street, in our corporations, and in our government, ” according to its “Occupy Party” website.
That the movement has adopted a two-pronged approach – both protesting in an attempt to ask government to change and at the same time searching for possible leaders to change the system – raises questions about what the movement is exactly trying to accomplish. OWS should either focus on changing the system or providing a legitimate alternative in the upcoming elections.
While the movement contemplates whether to select leaders who will voice their concerns in government, it is clear that they must focus their resources and energy on either protesting against government or electing leaders to government.
Whatever direction and form the leadership of the movement takes, one thing is certain: It is sure to include prominent voices such as West’s in its efforts to reform the system. No longer will OWS be a leaderless protest.
- Blackberry Outage Raises Questions About Our Tech Dependence in 2011
October 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
After three days of interrupted service, empty inboxes, and no internet connectivity, millions of Blackberry users’ service is finally being restored. Blackberry’s problems spanned the globe, with users from the Middle East to Canada left offline.
With Twitter exploding over the past few days with irate users struggling to find answers and urging Blackberry to restore service quickly, the widespread disruption makes one thing clear: We must think about the impact our dependence, as a society, on a single device such as the Blackberry.
The service disruption made work slower for those who rely on Blackberry e-mails; for example,congressional staffers struggled during the 12-hour debate on the Senate floor about free trade agreements to coordinate between aides on the floor and in Senate offices. While the outage did not stop government business, it did slow it down and highlight dependence on mobile e-mail.
One wonders, even, if our commander-in-chief, famous for his Blackberry addiction, was left helpless and disconnected.
Similarly, business on Wall Street slowed as bankers were hindered without mobile access. Many banks, like Barclay’s Capital, for example, issue only Blackberry’s to their employees – making the disruption’s impact inevitably disastrous.
Blackberry’s stock has been plummeting – the recent outage will do little to help it.
Twitter and Facebook feeds over the past few days have been cluttered with grief, outrage, and humor, all about the outage.
It is evident, especially over the past few months, that technology has an incredible power to empower people, with social media and blackberry messaging enabling protests and riots alike.
However, our dependence, as a society, on a single device, is frightening. The fact that our financial institutions’ and government’s functioning effectively could be hindered by lack of internet on mobile phones highlights not only our reliance, but also the incredible power that these companies hold.
If Blackberry service completely shut down, would Wall Street and the hill, too, slow to a complete halt?
Perhaps the answer is simply to diversify our mobile phone options. Or maybe we need to hold Blackberry, as a company providing society a necessity, more accountable. Whatever move we take, we, as a society, need to realize that smart phone outages will keep coming; it is up to us to decide how best we prepare to deal with them.
- People Who Fight Against Sex Trafficking
October 10, 2011 - originally published on fem 2.0
If you take a snapshot of the world as it stands today, a few things come to mind: our population is exploding as we hit seven billion this month, the Middle East is erupting with protests and calls for democracy and human rights, and the GOP candidates are debating weekly on how they can best improve our economy and country.
However, few of the images we conjure include the $8 billion industry that involves about 12 million people a year, the third largest illegal trade after drugs and arms: sex trafficking.
By definition, sex trafficking is a specific form of human trafficking – when people are involuntarily transported, abducted, or harbored and exploited for sexual purposes.
The definition might seem technical and dry, but the stories of victims are far from it – sex trafficking includes the teenage girls who cross the border from Mexico to the United States in hopes of finding a better life but find instead a brothel; the children who are sold for 15-minute slots throughout the day; the runaways who are abducted and sold.
These stories aren’t just heart-wrenching accounts from the third world. They are the stories from small towns and big cities across America. The shocking numbers tell all: Tens of thousands of women and children are trafficked from Mexico to the United States every year and many American children, estimates run as high as 100,000, who are often runaways but also those from ‘good’ families – are abducted, coerced, or lured away from home and then sold for sex.
The problem we face is not only the horrific reality that people are trafficked and that there is a market, both in the United States and around the world, that exists to exploit these people, but also that we know so little about the problem and its magnitude.
And so, it’s the people who are making noise about sex trafficking who are the ones making a difference. The people like Triveni Acharya, who runs the Rescue Foundation in India, where she rescues and rehabilitates young girls who are victims of sex trafficking. By taking on the prostitution rings and pimps on a daily basis, Acharya doesn’t just make change, she also makes the headlines, raising awareness with her raids and rehabilitation program.
And it’s people like Lydia Cacho, a courageous journalist who has tried to tell the story of sex trafficking from every angle – not only by interviewing extensively, but by going undercover as well, who are raising awareness by raising their voices.
- Netflix Plans to Nix Qwikster, As the People Wanted
October 10, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
This morning, Netflix CEO Reed Hastingsannounced on the company’s blog that it would abandon plans to divide the company into two – with streaming and DVD rentals both remaining at Netflix.
The company’s decision to hold off on launching Qwikster is in response to consumer dissatisfaction expressed on the internet and points to the power social media has in enabling people to express their opinions and in allowing companies to respond to the needs and wants of the market.
The move is one in a long line of changes implemented by the company.
The first was Netflix’ price hike – from $10 to $16 a month – for both streaming and DVD rentals. While users expressed anger at the increase in prices, two months later, Netflix exacerbated consumer dissatisfaction and announced a new plan to divide the company into two – with streaming of videos remaining at Netflix and DVD rentals moving to a new company, Qwikster.
The new company would have required consumers to use two separate websites and maintain two different accounts, a change that many were dissatisfied with. Consumer outrage at the plan from Qwikster was evident on Twitter, Facebook, and comments on Netflix’s blog that announced the changes.
Consumers’ comments ranged from expression of dissatisfaction to threats of cancelling their subscriptions. “I just got your email, and, as a long-time customer, quite frankly found it to be offensive. And perhaps a devastating miscalculation for your business,” one user, David Isaacson, commented – to 4764 likes – on Netflix’s blog.
Netflix users’ outrage was evidently the driving force behind the decision to maintain one website, and it points to the growing power of social media. With comments and Tweets, consumers are able to not only relate their desires and dislikes to companies, but also to hold them accountable.
The launch of Qwikster would have come not to eager anticipation but rather a barrage of criticism. Instead of launching an unsuccessful and unwanted service, the company was instead able to respond to consumer criticism and renege on its plans for a likely disastrous venture.
- A Case for Mandatory HPV Vaccines
September 22, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
Last week, at the CNN Tea Party Express debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came under fire for his mandate as governor that required all girls and young women in Texas to be vaccinated against HPV, with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R–Minn.) exclaiming that “to have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong.”
Ignoring Bachmann’s ill-informed tirade about side-effects of the vaccine and Perry’s connections with drug companies, the debate about the HPV vaccine that followed has raised an important question: Should governments be mandating the HPV vaccine? When considering the effects of HPV, how it has spread in the population, and the opt-out system proposed by Perry, the unequivocal answer to that question is yes – the government not only has the right to require that young women take the vaccine, it has a responsibility to do so as well.
In order to contextualize the debate, it is first necessary to understand how prevalent HPV is and why it is worth being vaccinated against.
HPV is widespread. According to the CDC, about 20 million Americans have HPV and another 6 million people will be newly infected each year, which, according to estimates means that about 50% of sexually active adults will be infected at some point in their lives. However, what’s problematic is not only that HPV is prevalent, but also that it causes an incredible 70% of all cervical cancer in the United States.
If HPV is indisputably bad, then why is there uproar against Perry’s plan to vaccinate young women?
One argument against the mandatory HPV vaccine follows the chain of reasoning that since HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, a mandatory vaccination against it would encourage young girls — the 12-year-olds that Perry’s plan would include — to be sexually active. While it is difficult to prove whether this claim would be true, it is reasonable to suggest that the possibility of contracting HPV in the future is not usually a factor that determines whether young people choose to be sexually active.
Further, and perhaps more importantly, the argument for mandatory vaccinations extends beyond the individual — the greater the proportion of the population that’s vaccinated, the lower the incidence of the infection. Therefore, mandatory vaccinations are a matter of public health, of reducing the number of people who carry and pass on the infection.
A second criticism of the mandatory vaccines from Bachmann and her supporters has been that the law infringes on parental rights, since the government is making the decision to vaccinate minors without parental consent.
However, in this particular case, parents did have a choice to opt-out of vaccinating their children. The benefit of the opt-out system is that while it enables parents to make a decision should they not want their children vaccinated, it also ensures that a majority of girls and young women are vaccinated; hence tackling the widespread incidence of the infection without denying parents their rights.
The question of mandating HPV vaccinations, then, is not one of parental rights or morality but one of public health. And Perry’s mandate was clearly in the interest of public health.
- Optimism in Africa: Looking Beyond Poverty
September 12, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
When most people in our generation think of Africa, two things come to mind: Bono and babies with distended bellies.
Our impressions of sub-Saharan Africa, influenced heavily by what we see on the news and the internet, focus almost entirely on, and often tie in, the issue of poverty — whether it is through a story on healthcare or one on education. The fact that Western media has reduced an entire continent to a single dimension is troubling not only because it is patronizing, but also because it is a simple misrepresentation of the region and its struggles.
Since coverage almost always boils down to poverty, sub-Saharan Africa has lost its dignity and become the beggar of the world in the West’s popular imagination.
This is not to say that poverty is not a legitimate concern. The famine in Somalia is certainly an issue. But it isn’t the only issue. The region is more than poverty — there is also politics and culture for the media to cover, with interesting and compelling issues ranging from rioting in Nigeria to Malawi’s exclusion from the All Africa Games.
One of the main issues with the narrow representation of Africa is that since the coverage tends to focus on the region’s lack of wealth, the plights of the area appear to be easy to fix simply if the West throws money at the region. The problem with this is that it does not accurately report the needs of the region. While our charity and aid money is useful in the short-term by feeding the hungry and medicating the sick, and while it eases our consciences, it does little to ensure sustainable long-term solutions to the problems plaguing the region.
The true struggles of the region, which academics suggest are tied to a bad habit of dependency on Western aid as well as corruption of leaders, are structural and institutional difficulties. It is not poverty, necessarily, that is problematic, but the inability of the government to help its citizens out of poverty. Not a lack of aid, but the lack of institutional accountability that keeps aid from reaching those who need it. So, it is only by looking beyond poverty that the media can present a more accurate picture of the region.
Even though it is evident that poverty is not the only African issue, the Western media’s oversimplification is understandable — poverty is easier to sell than something dull but accurate like institutional accountability or continuing coverage of conflicts to a war-weary audience. But making the region more multi-dimensional and less superficial by covering culture, innovation, and politics will help humanize Africa and make it seem less like a region defined and plagued only by poverty.
While the media might not necessarily be responsible for the fate and future of the region, it does have a duty to accurately represent the region and the situation as it stands. If we really care about learning about Africa, then we need to move beyond Bono’s concerts and Madonna’s baby from Malawi.
- Liberal Arts: A Sound Investment in the Future
September 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic
With the cost of college skyrocketing and unemployment rates still dismal, the same question resonates on blogs, newspapers, and college campuses: Is a liberal arts education that doesn’t really prepare students for a specific job worth it?
Yes, it really is. It not only prepares students for future jobs, but also gives them much-needed flexibility with their future career choices.
The point of a college education — in an ideal world — is intellectual development. But let’s be honest, in reality, a college education is an investment, of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars at the most expensive universities, in the future. In the best of circumstances, the investment pays — and students are rewarded with good career opportunities, both after graduation and in the long-term.
Following this chain of logic, some argue that a system of vocational education is the best option because its sole purpose is to prepare students for jobs.
However, while vocational degrees prepare students for the future, liberal arts degrees do so better.
The most significant flaw of a vocational degree is that it is simply too limiting. It constricts young people to a single career from the day they enter college. Most people simply are not adequately equipped to choose a career path at 17, especially not an inflexible, lifelong career commitment.
But the merits of a liberal arts education do not simply rely on the fact that a vocational degree is the worse choice – there are compelling reasons to value a liberal arts degree for what it is.
The point of a liberal arts education is not to train historians, biologists, or economists, though it sometimes does. This education teaches students how to think. When students take physics classes alongside poetry classes, they are introduced to the various angles used to approach similar problems and given context that helps them approach challenges from beyond the limited perspective of their chosen vocation.
And when students solve problems, do labs, and write essays, they’re doing more than merely regurgitating subject-specific information. They’re learning how to think analytically and reason effectively. These skills are not subject specific – they can be used by an accountant, an administrator or a nurse alike.
And because these skills are important for most jobs and applicable to any career, they are reusable and transferable – not limiting students to a single field or career path throughout their lives. So even though a liberal arts degree might not provide a lawyer with the specific skills he needs for his job, it will give him skills that he can use when doing his job. In short, a liberal arts degree is an investment that pays no matter what path students choose in the future.
With a shift to vocational education, the U.S. would be producing college graduates who only know how to do their chosen jobs. The liberal arts education system, on the other hand, not only equips college graduates with skills that they can use regardless of their chosen fields; it also allows them flexibility in their career choices.
- China's Baby Blues
August 26, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic.com
On Sunday Vice President Joe Biden included in his talk at China’s Sichuan University a characteristic blunder, saying, “Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family.”
The blunder has inevitably led to uproar, bringing much-needed attention to a Chinese policy that is deplorable not only because of the reprehensible restrictions that it imposes on Chinese women and families, but also because of the gender imbalance and unsustainable aging population that it has created.
The draconian one child policy was originally implemented by the Chinese government in 1979 in an attempt to curb the country’s worrying rate of population growth.
It is easy to understand the government’s legitimate fears of overpopulation and recognize the successes of this policy – accomplishments include preventing a 400 million increase in the population and, by proposing (or imposing) a preference for smaller families, the policy has also been recognized as preventing poverty.
While the policy has helped, its negative consequences far outweigh its benefits. Because while the one child policy aims to address important issues, the way in which it does this is problematic.
That the one child policy is, in Mitt Romney’s words, “gruesome and barbaric” is unquestionable; it is not the government’s place to deny women the right to plan families and impose blanket regulations on them. Further, it is not the government’s place to force sterilizations or compel women to have abortions – denying women fundamental rights.
While the issue of women’s rights is important, there are other considerable consequences of this badly planned policy.
Restricted to only one child and biased by a culture that favors baby boys to girls, many families have opted for gender-based abortions. This is problematic as it furthers a culture where a male child is preferred to a female child and also because it has created a significant gender imbalance in the population, where there are 119 boys born for every 100 girls, a situation that experts suggest will have dire implications in prostitution and sex-trafficking.
But China’s one-child troubles don’t stop there. Biden, after his gaffe, touched on another issue the country is facing as a result of its policy: an aging population. Young wage earners have now been left supporting an increasing number of retired people – often two parents and four grandparents to an individual. This is not just a matter of a large expense for the working-age population to shoulder, it’s an unsustainable situation.
While Biden’s faux pas was lamentable, it has brought media attention back to and re-ignited debate on an important issue. There’s still hope and lots of good reason for the Chinese government to revise its policy: in the name of human rights, social planning, or sustainable economics. There’s just too much wrong with the one child policy for the government to hold on to it.
- Pro-Life, Pro-Choice Win With Free Birth Control
August 9, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic.com
The Obama administration recently announced a requirement for all health insurers to cover the costs of birth control with no co-pays. Unsurprisingly, this elicited a range of enraged responses — the most extreme of which came from Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) who exclaimed that “preventing babies from being born is not medicine … that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.”
The problem with far-flung conclusions like King’s is not only that they are founded on flawed logic and assumptions, but also that they detract attention from the real point: These new provisions are a big step in the right direction for our health care system.
To understand why free birth control is a good thing, it is first necessary to correctly understand what birth control does. It is preventative medicine — but unlike King’s suggestion — it is not intended to prevent new generations from being born. Instead, it prevents unplanned pregnancies, giving women the power to plan their families. It is as much an empowering tool as it is a preventative measure.
In aiding women in planning families, these new provisions will also help prevent women from turning to other more controversial family planning measures, namely abortion. People who don’t want babies often don’t have them, birth control or not. The simple conclusion, then, is that with greater access to birth control, women will have fewer unwanted pregnancies, which will in turn lower abortion rates. Thus, the birth control initiative is only a cheaper and healthier means to a similar end, which is surely a win-win situation, even for members of the pro-life camp.
But these recent provisions are not meaningful only because of the obvious benefits of birth control, but also because they’re paving the path to equality.
Perhaps the most significant consequence of the new provisions is that they will result in more socioeconomic equality in access to this fundamental health care benefit. Currently, buying birth control is expensive. It is not a one-time investment but often a recurring cost that women face. And to some, it’s an expense that they cannot cover, so they choose to forego additional payments, and with them, they forego precaution as well. Poverty should not be a barrier to equal access to essential health care services.
It is also worth noting that arguments about birth control often turn to moral reasoning, often asking: Is birth control a right? If not, how could our government possibly encourage all insurers to cover it? While a debate on the morality of birth control is interesting, it is not relevant here. The fact is that a majority of American women use birth control. So the relevant question is: Should the government be helping women with access to something they need and use?
The unequivocal answer is yes. It is evident that access to birth control is good for women. It is also evident that equality of access across socioeconomic groups to this measure is not only good but also a necessity.
-
Posts
Another recent article of mine, about western media’s portrayal of Africa and how it has inaccurately and unfairly reduced the region to the single dimension of poverty.
Something I wrote a while back about how Rick Perry’s mandating HPV vaccinations for young girls was clearly, and rightly, in the interest of public health.
- London burning
While my regular news source, the NYT, has had London’s riots nowhere to be found on the front page, my Facebook news feed has been erupting as English friends (and surprisingly, only English friends) comment, call out, and check in with each other during these turbulent times.
Over the course of the riots and especially this past evening, I’ve tried to read up as much as I can about what’s going on, and I’ve gone from being a little shocked about what’s happening to being pretty shaken up.
I know being an ocean away and trying to piece together what’s happening with The Guardian, Twitter, and BBC is only a half-picture, at best, but here’s my take on things:
While Duggan being shot triggered the protest and eventually this entire uprising, it’s evident that what’s happening isn’t really (or entirely) about it.
I think what’s gotten to me the most is just the fact that people in London (and it seems, now, other cities in England) aren’t just dissatisfied but also so angry and desperate (and to some extent feel like they have no other option, I guess) that they’ve taken to burning buildings and looting stores. I mean, it’s the loudest way possible to say “LISTEN TO ME, THIS ISN’T OKAY.” I’m sure there might be some real issues with the police (I don’t know much on that end), but it looks to me like the police are just an unfortunate ‘other’ to fight against - the ideal representation of the system that’s failing people so miserably.
To me, at first, the obvious problem seemed to be the economy - unemployment, the recession. But maybe it’s more. I mean, it’s not just the system (the police, in this case) that’s been other-ized, it’s also members of the same community: the youth on the street are burning down their own communities’ shops and buildings. More than a cry against the system, it seems like a cry against society, and the place these people have in it.
Whatever the underlying triggers, the fact is that it is upsetting to see London burning, and to see that it’s reached the point that people are so desperate and dissatisfied that they’re looting stores and so angry that they’re burning buildings.
Too many so-called leaders of the Nation fail to see the forest because of the trees. Too many of them fail to recognize the vital necessity of planning for definite objectives. True leadership calls for the setting forth of the objectives and the rallying of public opinion in support of these objectives.
Do not confuse objectives with methods. When the Nation becomes substantially united in favor of planning the broad objectives of civilization, then true leadership must unite thought behind definite methods.
The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.
We need enthusiasm, imagination and the ability to face facts, even unpleasant ones, bravely. We need to correct, by drastic means if necessary, the faults in our economic system from which we now suffer. We need the courage of the young. Yours is not the task of making your way in the world, but the task of remaking the world which you will find before you. May every one of us be granted the courage, the faith and the vision to give the best that is in us to that remaking!
With the recent recommendation of the Department of Health & Human services that all insurers cover birth control without co-pays, a little bit of debate and a little bit of outrage were expected - the standard moral and religious opposition.
What was not expected was the extreme response of Rep. Steve King (R - Iowa). For those who missed it:
KING: We have people that are single, we have people that are past reproductive age, we have priests that are celibate. All of them, paying insurance premiums that cover contraceptives so that somebody else doesn’t have to pay the full fare of that? And they’ve called it preventative medicine. Preventative medicine. Well if you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization. (click for source)
There’s a lot to be said for making a point, any point, with exaggeration. But this is just silly. In implying the link between free birth control and dying civilizations, King’s ignoring the basic point of birth control - keeping people who don’t want babies from having them. Aren’t the more pertinent issues things like how free birth control could probably help prevent more teenage pregnancy and the like?
While I definitely have issues with all the moral objections to birth control - they at least have some value-based reasons. This tirade, however, seems to be just silly.
There’s an interesting article in the new HuffPost Women section today - one about 20 something college grads, women, who’re trying to pay of their debt by doing sex work - the article focuses on a website about sugar daddies and interviews several men and women on the website.
The article seems to wander, a bit, through several angles and questions. The most important, as the title suggests: is a diploma worth this? As a recent college grad, I get the fear of looming mountains of debt that are often unavoidable - and the article suggests that the many women have found websites like Seeking Arrangement as the only answer to these mountains of debt.
Of course, though, it isn’t that simple. Are these websites the only answer for the people who use them? If yes, then I suppose the next question is whether there is anything wrong with what the websites are being used for. But really, I think what is most disturbing about this expose is not that college students are turning to sex work to pay off debt but rather that these college students have or need to turn to sex work - that there is no alternative for them.
While the question is about sex work, for me, it also is about our higher education system. What does it say about the cost of a college degree that people feel the need to turn to sex work in order to pay off their debt? And what does it say about the investment that people are making in their educations if they cannot get any other jobs after graduation?
Perhaps this is just indicative of a slow economy and another side-effect of the recession. But really, should that make a difference?
-
Tweets
- Cute ad, makes me miss my beetle! http://t.co/11o7oAXMFeb 02, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- Supervillian or Newt? Yes, they've got a game. http://t.co/UcFum0lqFeb 02, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- RT @nytjim: Think the #GOP candidates say the same thing at each debate? This generally proves it: http://t.co/fnhauiSO
- Stunning photos of India! http://t.co/JeExLjxt via @in_focus
- RT @globecynthia: Reporter in newsroom: "I love the primary music they play on TV. It makes it sound like they're going to war." #fitn
- interesting infographic, unemployment by job type: http://t.co/sEfdv2M3Jan 10, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- The best of Romney's Gaffes, my fav: "I'm also unemployed." http://t.co/pncuxWtG
- Wow. ridiculous. RT @TPEconomy: Unless the trend changes, college will cost $422K for a child born today http://t.co/N3AI8327 #education
- This looks awesome, thanks! RT @caltchek: check out who's featured on the new PM login pages (click down!) http://t.co/Euulegbc
- RT @BuzzFeedBen: Romney gives Santorum a new Google problem http://t.co/Ld30nOtl
- When 10% more girls go to school, a country's GDP goes up 3% on avg. Cool infographic: http://t.co/a3uFYQnmJan 03, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- And the elections keep getting weirder. Newt and puppies: http://t.co/T44elu54Jan 03, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- Since when did Romney start talking about the Kardashians? Weird. http://t.co/0b31fE7WJan 02, 12 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- RT @janine_defeo Romney's hilarious social awkwardness, reported by @nytimes in a commendable deadpan: http://t.co/GGz37yEaDec 28, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- RT @nytimes "The Lives They Loved," hundreds of reader-submitted photo memorials to people who passed away in 2011: http://t.co/kYT2PerkDec 22, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- Wow, in 2006 46% of Princeton grads took jobs in finance: http://t.co/ZBSP3tYWDec 21, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- The new gmail makes me feel like I'm kindergarten - here's how to make it better http://t.co/IoAjf4A4Dec 20, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- RT @ethanklapper Looks like we have another case of an obituary written by someone who has died. http://t.co/MCaoGZhFDec 19, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
- Why FB's #timeline is cool: http://t.co/5NXLK5SeDec 16, 11 from web Reply, Retweet, Favorite
