As the number of highly educated women has increased in recent decades, the chances of “marrying up” have increased significantly for men and decreased for women, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas sociologist.
“The pattern of marriage and its economic consequences have changed over time,” said lead author ChangHwan Kim, associate professor of sociology. “Now women are more likely to get married to a less-educated man. What is the consequence of this?”
Kim’s co-authored the study with Arthur Sakamoto of Texas A&M University, and the journal Demography recently published their findings. They examined gender-specific changes in the total financial return to education among people of prime working ages, 35 to 44 years old, using U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000 and the 2009-2011 American Community Survey.
The researchers investigated the return to education not only in labor markets but also in the marriage market.
“Previously, women received more total financial return to education than men, because their return in the marriage market was high. However, this female advantage has deteriorated over time despite women’s substantial progress in education and labor-market performance,” Kim said.
The researchers found the overall net advantage of being female in terms of family-standard-of-living decreased approximately 13 percent between 1990 and 2009-2011. Women’s personal earnings have grown faster than men’s earnings during this time as women have increased their education and experienced a greater return on education.
However, the number of highly educated women exceeds the number of highly educated men in the marriage market, the researchers found. Women are more likely to be married to a less-educated man. Because of the combined facts that husbands are less educated than their wives than before, and the return on earnings for men has stagnated, a husband’s contribution to family income has decreased. On the other hand, wives’ contribution to family income has substantially increased.
This has led to a faster improvement of the family standard of living for men than for equally educated women themselves, Kim said, and helped converge the gap in equivalised income between wives and husbands.
“This could explain why it seems men don’t complain a lot about this,” Kim said. “Our answer is that’s true because look at the actual quality of life, which is determined more likely by family income rather than by personal earnings. It seems fine for men because their wife is now bringing more income to the household. One implication of these findings is that the importance of marriage market has increased for men’s total economic well-being.”
These developments could also result in gender convergence in the family standard of living associated with this shift in the norm of marriage, away from previous eras.
“Marriage is now becoming more egalitarian and becoming equal,” Kim said. “If you look at gender dynamics or from a marriage-equality standpoint, that is a really good sign.”
However, the study’s results also have implications for examining potential effects of marriage and economic inequality.
“For less-educated women, the contribution of their husbands has been substantially reduced so that their standard of living has diminished, even though their personal earnings have grown,” the researchers said.
This could aggravate a wealth gap among less-educated or low-income families, the researchers said. Kim said potential future research could monitor how family demography still shapes and directly underlies inequality, even as family relations continue to evolve.
“When we consider family dynamics,” Kim said, “men are getting the benefit from women’s progress.”
The History of Stereotyping Homelessness in Australia
The history of homelessness in Australia stems back to our nation’s colonization by our British counterparts which moved Indigenous Australians out of their physical living structures. As Australia became more industrialized nearing the 1970’s, the contrast between homelessness and the rest of society become starker as the mainstream society had higher living expectations and standards which solidified what the disadvantage looked like.
Homelessness is an unspoken epidemic in Australia. It is not reported in the media and if you didn’t work in the welfare space, you would be blind to the number of people living in these conditions.
- 116,427 people were counted as homeless in the most recent census (2016);
- NSW has the highest representation of homelessness than any other state;
- The 25-34yrs age bracket is the highest portion of homelessness and
- These people sleep in a combination of improvised dwellings, supported accommodation, couch surfing, boarding houses, and severely overcrowded dwellings.
Homelessness was initially justified by ‘men being down and out of luck,’ however, as our societies ideas developed and matured, it became connected to more tangible and measurable practices. They were now associated with alcoholism, the plight of the individual, transience, and criminality. The common theme was that homelessness was a result of a failure which was only the birth of the stigma related to disadvantage in Australia which has influenced generations and engrained stereotyping of these groups as an acceptable practice.
These preconceived ideas can be understood with a sociological perspective, specifically examining the notions of status in society and what indicators determine that. Historically, status was inherited and determined prior to an individual’s birth (if we are observing the ancient civilisations, ie., the Caste system). Every ancient civilisation had a system to determine hierarchy, generally determined by education, political ideology, capital ownership, occupation, and material possessions.
However, it is always contextual in that the status is determined by how the individual is respected in the group/community they are a part of, ie., discriminating the status of a government minister amongst other government officials in comparison to commoners would result in a different level of respect. Determining status can be perceived as an adverse aspect of society, especially with a leftist view, however, it does maintain chaos and provide a vision which the lower classes can aspire too – it can be viewed as an indirect way to ‘tame’ societies and provide inspiration for growth – when used (and viewed) with this approach.
However, if we are looking at hierarchy in the context of homelessness, it only exacerbates the stigma. Modern society has far more progressed ideas then the ancient worlds and more recent historical periods mentioned above, yet, stigmatizing still exists and only hinders the level of equality which social workers advocate for.
Stigmatization links to capitalisation greatly, in that, society focusses on the individual as the curator of their fate, leaving the social structures which they exist in, blameless. What is left unaccounted for in the way homeless people are depicted in the media is the maldistribution of resources (such as employment, housing, nutrition, and health) in our resource dense nations with the premium lifestyle and experiences exhausted by the top tier classes of societies. It is also important to note that some people view homelessness as acceptable, we have become accustomed to accept that every society has an underclass and we ignore those groups which we find difficult and threatening.
The term ‘homeless’ carries a less-then-human quality; their conventional caricature embodies foreign qualities such as isolation and rootless of family and friends and human nature tends to reject those who disrupt the status quo.
A study undertaken by Chris Chamberlain outlines the traditional pathways which leads to homelessness. He theorises that either a housing crises, family breakdown, substance abuse, mental health or a difficult transition from youth to adult, are common circumstances for a state of homelessness to arise. Within these widely varying contexts, Australia has a multitude of service providers to support these people, so why are left un-accessed?
The answer to this comes down to the stigma which we associate with homeless people, which results in a complete separation from knowledge and access to these resources leading to a drop in self-worth/motivation. In western nations, the cultural priority and importance (and status) which comes with home ownership.
Academic research often appears to be neo-liberal in nature and commonly equates homeless to some sort of deviance or mental illness by disqualifying the societal issues which cause these situations. It’s almost as if we have justified homelessness – we do not see it as a short fall of society but more as the individual not fitting into the society we have built.
Examining White Privilege: What’s the Fear?
Dickinson student Leda Fisher asks the question “Should White Boys Still be Allowed to Talk?” in her opinion piece in the college’s daily news publication, The Dickinsonian. Reportedly, Ms. Fisher indicates that she has received overwhelming support in response to her piece. However, the backlash and negative comments have been swift and brutal, including calls for her expulsion. The opinion piece has gone viral, which presents the opportunity to explore why her comments have pushed so many buttons. Specifically, examining the role of higher education, exploring constructs related to power, and the impact of cumulative rage are issues for further consideration.
The Role of Higher Education
We expect colleges and universities to value freedom of speech, to support the development and expression of thought, and to expose students to new ideas. However, these priorities come with challenges, including the challenge to listen while feeling uncomfortable. The evidence about white male dominance in the classroom and other life settings is clear. Being silenced, mansplained, and not having room for diverse views are routine characteristics of school and work environments for women and people of color. It is unclear why Dickinson students would not be glad for the insight that Fisher provides about her experience, and appreciative for her courage in putting such a perspective out there. Further, as a woman of color at a majority white school, why would her vulnerability not be supported? Supporting vulnerability is also the role of students in higher education.
Feminism, since its inception, has been acknowledging and understanding power. Contemporary feminist theory speaks about the definition of power as “the capacity to produce change “ (Jean Baker Miller, 1991), and notes that power itself is not bad/wrong/evil. In fact, there is an understanding that power is what helps us make decisions about our lives and move us forward. The distinction is made of the difference between “power over” which speaks to how one uses their power to impact themselves and others; and the “power with” approach, where we can share in the capacity to produce individual, organizational, and collective change. “Power with” does not necessarily mean that you lose anything; it means that you gain the perspective and respect of others. As this understanding deepens, it promotes mutual benefit.
The question to those of us who are white is, can you sit quietly and really listen to the experience of someone else? Can you share power? Just as being heard and having a voice is critical to healthy psychological development, the experience of not having a voice is also a critical experience in one’s life. Suppressing your voice for a moment so that you can listen to another does not make you weak. It makes you vulnerable in the best possible way. It helps you to grow in your understanding of another person’s experience, and it gives you knowledge which will undoubtedly help you in future interactions with those similar and different from you.
Some of the response to the op-ed seem to focus on a perspective that Fisher is “being racist” for making generalizations about white boys, and that such generalizations are “just as bad” as the racism experienced by people of color. She has subsequently responded to this accusation with the prevailing definition of racism which speaks to systematic efforts to marginalize others based on race.
Yes, Ms. Fisher makes generalizations and it is understood that the generalizations do not apply to 100% of the white male population. But she is naming a prevalent and universal experience a Why is it so difficult to see the position of power and privilege that white boys occupy? I speak for myself, and not for Ms. Fisher, but it is understood that it is not your fault that you have such privilege.
It is understood that you did not ask for it, and you may not even be fully aware of it. But you experience your privilege in most life situations. You may not even realize that there is another way to behave in the classroom that does not involve your constant contributions. Rather than defending yourself, why not take a moment for reflection and observation? If you have privilege, you have a responsibility to understand that you have it and use it to ensure all voices are heard. This is your real power.
I suspect that part of the negative reaction may be related to the clearly articulated rage Ms. Fisher expresses in the opinion piece. Women, and especially women of color, are not supposed to express anger, let alone rage. Again, what is the issue with listening? Awareness means knowing that the issue of women experiencing rage is occurring throughout the United States right now. There is a growing body of literature about it (ie “Good and Mad” by Rebecca Traister). The style and flavor of anger will unfold as it chooses. We may not like the way it sounds and the way it makes us feel. But we must listen.
Welcoming the contributions of students like Leda Fisher make all of us more aware, more attentive, and more self-reflective. The journey of self-reflection is life-long, and being open to the sometimes painful but inevitable growth that comes with engaging in another person’s experience is one of the ultimate goals of higher education and beyond.
New Release – ReMoved 3: Love is Never Wasted
Kevi’s story, though fictional, allowed me to paint for you a visual picture of how much it hurts to have a mother leave you all alone. It invites you to yearn with him—to share his longing to capture a woman that you know you probably never will. It shows how wildly untameably beautiful such an enigma is to her son, with her hair dancing in the wind and the scent of her teasing in and out of his existence.
Mostly, it helps you understand that there’s more to the story than just her. For kids like me, who were raised by many parents, it’s not just about our bio moms, you see. Sometimes, it isn’t even mostly about that mom. It’s also about this foster mamma who feels warm and soft and safe. It’s about how you never want to live without those feelings or her arms around you again.
Maybe it’s about that foster daddy that you just aren’t sure about. He might hurt you like all the other daddies you’ve ever known. But, maybe he won’t…
Through the Author’s Pen & Own Experience of Foster Care
My mother’s purse was her survival kit. She never forgot it.
She often forgot us. But she never forgot it.
Inside that purse, she carried an envelope. The envelope held all the things one would normally file away in the safety of their home. Instead, she carried those things—the few markers of our meager existence—in a manila in her handbag.
I suppose this was the only way for her to hold onto anything in a life where change usually happened in a moment’s notice. It wasn’t uncommon for us to ditch all of our possessions when the police discovered us living in a condemned or abandoned building. Also, as a battered woman, Mamma always had to be prepared to run on the days it seemed Daddy might actually kill her.
The purse and the envelope may have been an insignificant thing to anyone else, but for a kid like me, it proved that everything outside of it could be taken in an instant. It signified my mother, how she’d come to be, and the struggles of her life.
That’s why I made the biological mother’s purse a significant part of the story in ReMoved 3. As I wrote “Love Is Never Wasted,” I tried to infuse it with those things that would make it feel real to others who had walked a similar journey. I sought to put in specific feelings and moments that kids in foster care would really connect to.
As a foster kid, you often find yourself torn between families because each one holds a piece of what you need. You long to understand your biological parents and to know what it was like when you were budding in your mother’s womb. You have to know because, on some level, your body still remembers. The body can’t forget the place it was first fed.
Let’s not overlook, though, that you need more than roots to grow. Our bodies instinctually know this as well. We must also feel that we are safe, that nourishment is always available, and that the sun can shine most every day.
Ideally, our kiddos would get all these needs met from the same person. Sadly, that is not always the case. For the 400,000 plus kids in the U.S. foster care system a solitary caretaker will not be found to meet all their needs. Our best hope for these kids is that love can be absorbed from multiple sources. We hope that, collectively, they get enough of what they need from the world around them to grow healthy and strong.
Like Kevi’s story, my own life was changed by having multiple temporary parent figures. Though not ideal, this piecemeal parenting experience is what taught me how to love.
There were the moments that my birth mom snuggled me in bed. In the submission of sleep, she would occasionally relax and offer some warmth. These memories of cuddling my mom inspired the scenes of Kevi snuggling his birth mom in the film. Even the direst situations usually have some moments of bonding.
When my mother didn’t have any affection to give, my big brother stood in the gap. He frequently acted as a caretaker, comforting me, protecting me, and feeding me on the days everyone else forgot to. Because of my big brother, when my new little brother entered the world and cried out for protection, I knew how to answer that call.
Unfortunately, I could only answer it slightly better than our mom did. You see, I was only six. Then seven. By eight, I felt like I was dying. My enchantment with my mother began to wither, along with my body and soul. I called out to the universe for something to take me from the daily pain that she and my father put me in.
Foster care was the answer I received.
Sadly, foster care brought more pain. It’s difficult to describe the feelings that come from being ripped from one’s life source, especially when that life source is also robbing you of life. Regardless of her failures, though, she was still the first person who had held me. Now, I found myself miles from her familiarity. I frequently asked myself if anyone could love me in this strange new place, where nobody looked or acted like me and Mamma.
Some of them couldn’t love me, it seems.
Yet, some of them could and did. Some of them even did without any expectation of return. Most of them who loved me were only able to hold me for a moment in time. No matter how fleeting my time with them was or how heartbroken I was upon leaving, these people became the beautiful springtime of my memory. From each moment I got with them, I would continue to flourish and grow; although, I wouldn’t necessarily see that at the time.
Thousands of uncertain days would pass under the gloomy cloud that we call foster care. Though I acted it out differently than our character Kevi, I was a mess during most of those days.
But a new day would eventually come!
I would grow up. Slowly, I would discover that my life had been changing. As an adult, I would finally find that it was all my own. With my newfound sense of freedom and control, I would choose to become the wife to a husband who loved me selflessly.
Of all the guys I could have chosen, including the kind who may have felt more familiar, how did I know to settle on one like him? The faces of several good foster fathers smiled distantly behind the man I had chosen to spend my life with.
After years of being loved in a way I’d never felt loved before (by my husband Doug), I would become a mother. Despite the years of worry that I’d be a parent like him or her, I found that I was actually more like her and her and him. Tortured childhood and all, I was brimming with love to give, thanks to those who had poured love into me.
This forced me to ask an important question: How could a girl, who had been miserably failed by the people who gave her life, find herself building a completely different world than the one she grew up in?
The answer was clear. I had gotten to this place because an alternate reality had blown into my childhood. It had changed me. Its name was foster care. For me, foster care wound up carrying the faces of seven different homes over seven years. When I was 15, its name became adoption.
Ironically, this system of child protection that had starved me is also the very thing that helped me thrive. Foster care brought so much internal destitution, but it also brought moments of witnessing healthy, selfless, loving, human interactions.
I hope “Love is Never Wasted” reveals that even small moments with a child can show him he has a choice in how he lives his life. Because of my time in care, I now knew that there was not just one possible way to be. Throughout my foster care experiences, I had, here and there, tasted the essence of something sweeter and more fulfilling than my past life. I became hungry for more of it.
I now exist as living proof (hidden behind my stories) that love always offers nourishment and that a little bit of it can go a very long way.
A lot of it can make miracles.
A little bit of love carried me out of my tortured childhood. A lot of it led me to the place I am today and a little boy named Kevi.
Under Pressure to Hide Your True Self
As it turns out, the behaviour of people around us is contagious. This is truer the closer these relationships are – we are much more influenced by the attitudes of friends and family than we are by those of strangers.
We often think of peer pressure as a bad thing we should resist, but it can also be a powerful influencer in terms of shifting social attitudes for the better as well.
I recently read an interesting article in Scientific American about the power of social pressure and how it can influence our behaviour. For example, one 2003 study found:
- If a person gains weight, the likelihood their friend would also gain weight is 171%
- When smokers quit, their friends are 36% more likely to also quit
- Having happy friends increased the likelihood of an individual being happy by 8%
It’s also true that fitting in feels good. We all want to feel a sense of connection and belonging and these things are hugely important to our personal wellbeing. The difficulty is, of course, when fitting in means feeling pressured to change parts of ourselves in ways we are not comfortable with. And feeling under pressure to force yourself to be something you’re not can cause a huge amount of psychological distress.
It’s a no-win situation – we either change (or pretend to change) for the sake of fitting into the group – and feel awful and uncomfortable about not being able to be who we really are – or we stay courageous about our convictions, but experience ostracisation and pay another kind of emotional price for that, too.
So what’s the answer? I’m really not sure, to be honest. When I was younger, I felt huge amounts of pressure to hide my nerdy and academic interests because they didn’t seem to be shared by the people around me. I didn’t talk about my love for sci-fi, comic books, and video games with anyone. I share the shows I loved or my love for attending classes and soaking up knowledge anywhere I could. I simply never seemed to have any friends who had the same interests.
But through my 20s, I became a lot more comfortable in my own skin and more confident that being different in some way was okay. Just the other day a colleague pointed out a nice, but expensive piece of jewelry online. She asked, “Wouldn’t you like to own that?” I replied, “Actually, I’d rather have a new Xbox!” We laughed about it. I didn’t feel like an outcast. I felt like I was being genuine and appreciated for that.
And maybe this is the key. Sometimes a lot of the pressure to conform is external, but I wonder how much of it is internal as well. I wonder if my friends in my younger years would have accepted me for who I was if I had given them the chance to.
Or maybe my hard-won comfort with who I am helps other people to feel more comfortable being themselves around me, too. We’ve removed that pressure, together.
But I’m curious – how affected (or unaffected) do you feel by social pressure?
The Tonight Show Makes Television History
On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Central Park was buzzing with more than just insects and birds. The SummerStage was bright with lights and music, and filled with 1,500 people. Jimmy Fallon, the host of The Tonight Show, partnered with T-Mobile to make television history.
As local New Yorkers and fans alike took their seats at Central Park SummerStage the anticipation for the beginning of the show built. This was no ordinary show – this was the first ever late-night show in Central Park. Fallon had promoted the event earlier in the week with People TV and even took Hoda Kotb and Savannah Guthrie behind the scenes.
The show began with ear-blasting cheers and applause from the audience as Jimmy Fallon took the stage. His energy radiated through the audience as he welcomed the crowd.
“Welcome to The Tonight Show at SummerStage in Central Park!”
As the crowd settled down, Fallon jumped into his monologue, introducing his guests for the night. Country music superstar Carrie Underwood and promoting her new movie “A Simple Favor”, actress Blake Lively would be joining Fallon, along with a few other surprise guests throughout the show. Playing alongside The Roots are members from none other than the New York Philharmonic.
“New York City is here tonight, ladies and gentleman!”
Like the rest of The Late Night Show’s tapings, tickets are free. Fallon kindly reminds guests who got tickets to the taping that if they paid for them, “I’m sorry, and welcome to New York City.”
Although Fallon has grown up and lived in New York all his life, he’s only been to Central Park once before. For those who weren’t familiar with the park they took some time for a quick tour and to introduce the must-see sights. The highlights?
- The Ramble – also known as where all the bodies on “Law & Order” are found.
- Hamilton Statue – or the only other place in New York City you can see Hamilton without spending $1,000.
- Strawberry Fields – where every bad guitar player in New York goes to ruin Beatles songs.
- Boathouse – where bad dates get stuck because they’re on a boat.
- Great Lawn – or as New York City dogs call it “The Master Bathroom”.
Before Fallon continued the show he took some time to thank T-Mobile.
“I wanted to thank T-Mobile for helping to make all this happen. Really, thank you, guys. They’ve been so great to us, and so, so great and fun to work with. They have so many amazing artists that work with them. You guys may have heard of one of them… Justin Beiber.”
The crowd exploded in applause again. Turns out, Fallon and Bieber were in Central Park earlier that week and decided to do a skit of their own. Dressed in disguise with wigs and mustaches, they used earpieces to dance to Bieber’s hit song “What Do You Mean”. The duo made their way through Central Park dancing, singing, and photobombing the park’s visitors. The catch? Only they could hear the music.
In addition to the skit with Bieber, Fallon introduced a new game called Name That Song Challenge. Fallon and Blake Lively went up against Carrie Underwood and surprise guest appearance, Henry Golding. The pairs faced off in a music challenge – whoever could name the song played by The Roots and The New York Philharmonic the fastest won each round.
Fallon interviewed Lively about her new movie “A Simple Favor“, her outfit the night of the movies premier, and some throwbacks including a picture of her dressed as Baby Spice. As Underwood took her spot on the couch, Fallon excitedly asked her about her new album, “Crying Pretty” which was released the same night at 12 am.
To finish off the first-ever late night show in Central Park, Underwood took the stage, performing “Love Wins” off her new album. The audience stood with pink flashing batons and bracelets in the air in honor of T-Mobile. The energy between Underwood and the audience radiated through SummerStage, Central Park.
After the taping, Fallon and Underwood performed a fun karaoke duet of “Islands in the Streams” just for the audience to enjoy. The episode aired at its usual 11:35 timeslot and was a huge success for the first of its kind. Check out clips, pictures, and tweets on #FallonCentralPark and T-Mobile’s #AreYouWithUs for additional fun clips.
Colin Kaepernick’s Eternal Vigilance
Aldous Huxley said, “The price of liberty, and even common humanity, is eternal vigilance.” Huxley was letting us know that democracy isn’t easy. Democracy doesn’t just happen. Rather, it’s a constant struggle to maintain a society in which all citizens, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, have equal rights under the law.
From time to time we are fortunate enough to have an individual who reminds us of this, even though we may not want to hear it. Colin Kaepernick has assumed this role in American society and Nike has given him a stage to act it out.
Nike’s new commercial ends with Kaepernick saying, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” It was criticized almost instantly. “Sacrificing everything,” they say, should mean sacrificing one’s life, whether it be during war or the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The underlying argument is Kaepernick and Nike are insulting those who died for our country.
— LiberalVeteran #VetsResistSquadron (@LaLiberalVetera) September 5, 2018
There is no doubt the War on Terror has taken the lives of too many US soldiers. Since 2001, roughly 2,300 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. There is also no doubt that losing one’s life is the ultimate sacrifice.
It doesn’t make the war in Afghanistan any less tragic, but in 2016 and 2017 Chicago saw almost 1,500 murders. Around 76% of the murder victims were black. When you add in all the murders that occurred since 2001 the number is well over 5,000. This is just one of the types of tragedies Kaepernick wanted to draw attention to.
It’s almost a cliché at this point to make the comparison, but Muhammad Ali was met with similar criticism when he refused to fight in Vietnam. Ali was called everything from a nigger to a traitor. He lost three years of his prime as a fighter, and he had to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court to get his conviction overturned.
Ironically, President Trump has repeatedly criticized Kaepernick, while earlier this year he sought to pardon Ali. And even more ironically, President Trump did everything he could to avoid going to Vietnam.
What was Nike thinking?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2018
— Heidi Z 🌊🐓🌊 (@HeidiZarecky) September 7, 2018
The opposite of racism
— Travon Free (@Travon) September 7, 2018
They were thinking that injustice is wrong and free speech matters. You should think this way too!
— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) September 7, 2018
In 1963, when Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama for protesting racial inequality, he penned a lengthy response to an article written a group of moderate white church leaders, criticizing the way Rev. King went about protesting. Rhetorically, Rev. King asked the clergymen, “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, and marches and so forth?” His answer, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
Kaepernick is criticized for confronting America about its racial inequality at the wrong time. The clergymen also questioned Rev. King’s timing. He responded, “Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.”
It’s true that Kaepernick hasn’t had to deal with police armed with fire hoses and attack dogs. His house wasn’t bombed, and obviously he hasn’t lost his life like those courageous members of the armed forces who selflessly went to war to protect the United States.
Kaepernick also didn’t lose his life like Rev. King fighting inequality. Does that make his point any less relevant? If Rev. King was to say, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything,” would you tell him, “You can’t say that because you didn’t die in war”? Probably not.
Connect With SWHELPER
Instagram Benefits for Businesses in Comparison to Other Social Media Platforms
With billions of monthly users and almost 500 million users who are active regularly, Instagram has been marching towards success...
Smartphones Help UB Researcher Better Understand the Nature of Depression and Anxiety
Decades of research into anxiety and depression have resulted in the development of models that help explain the causes and...
Enhancing Education with Digital Tools in the Classroom
Especially now, with the rise of technology in the classroom, teachers have practically unlimited methods for teaching, assigning, and grading...
Brick and Mortar Stores and Their Potential Demise
Earlier this year, Business Insider reported almost 4,000 stores in the United States will close. Among those were giant corporate...
How the Internet and Social Media Is Impacting Social Work
Social media and the Internet, in general, have had an immense effect on social work. It enables communication between people...