Parallels of Acceptance

Last week, I was searching the New York Times website and I saw an article called Coming Out in Middle School . I read the first page of this article, but I didn't have to read the whole thing to understand that it addressed the hardships of gay teenagers who expressed their sexuality. But when I thought about how these teens often weren't accepted for who they were, it made me sad. In society, there are many people who do not support gay rights. They judge gay men and women based on one trait-- a single trait that dominates over the rest because it is different. Because of this judgement, gay men and women are not always treated as equals.

In a way, this is a direct parallel to the way blacks were treated in America following the Civil Rights Movement. Legally, they had equal rights, but that doesn't mean that all people accepted them to be equals in society. Many of them were still outcasted for the color of their skin, a single different trait that somehow made them less-than in society.

The acceptance of African Americans and gay men and women in society is similar. Will this unbalance in society evolve with humans and continually exist in America? Or is there a way to stop it?

Never Again

In class on Friday, we briefly talked about the phrase "never again." This reminded me of a book I read last year, The Blue Sweater. In this book, Jacqueline Novogratz shares the journey she took trying to make a difference in third world countries, specifically Rwanda. In an effort to give poverty-stricken women a sense of success, she created a microfinance company in Rwanda.

Before the Rwandan Genocide she was able to impact a significant number of women in the country. However, following the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, Rwanda was left in terrible condition. Those who had lived in poverty prior to the Genocide were worse off then they had ever been. Immediately following the Genocide, Jacqueline reevaluated her contribution to poverty-stricken nations, as well as her ability to help them. She states,

“It is against the backdrop of the horror of genocide that I now concentrated on understanding the potential of philanthropy to effect change in the world. Rwanda would always remind me of how serious the work of change is, how we have to build accountability into all aspects of development—and of philanthropy—and how the world really is interconnected. I would feel ashamed when I would hear people say ‘never again’ in the media, feeling that these words would be empty unless we helped build a stronger world economy in which all people could feel they had a vested interest in society” (137). 

As a country, we have the ability to put meaning behind this phrase. With the resources we have in the United States, do you think we are doing all we can to ensure that “never again” is a realistic goal, or do you think that genocides are likely to continue in third world countries and “never again” is a meaningless phrase?

Tough Love

While I was watching the news a few days ago, I was taken aback by a story about a six year old boy named Richard Chekevdia. In November, 2007, Richard's father, Michael Chekevdia, won temporary custody of his son, and shortly after, Richard and his mother disappeared. Last week-- after missing for two years-- Richard was discovered living in a small room between the walls in his grandmother's house. When I heard this story, I could not magine how a mother could think it was okay to do this to her son. To me, a mother is a person who should go to great lengths to make sure her child lives the best life possible. She should be selfless before she is selfish, putting her child before herself. However, by compromising his standard of living, Richard's mother acted selfish. Maybe that was her way of protecting her son, but it doesn't sound like motherly love to me.

If a mother would go to such measures to keep custody of her son, why would she compromise his standard of living by confining him to such poor living conditions?

Money Well Spent?

      While browsing the web this afternoon, I came upon a New York Times article called "My Brain on Chemo: Alive and Alert." In this article, the author, Dan Barry, wrote about his struggle with cancer and chemotherapy. When reflecting back on this experience, he says, "Depending on one’s perspective, I was both unfortunate and fortunate. Unfortunate in that I endured all the concomitant fears and indignities, twice. Fortunate in that I had the option of chemotherapy, twice. Not all cancers respond; not everyone is so lucky."
       Dan Barry is right. Not everyone is so lucky. But this made me think about the availability of cancer treatment in the United States. Foundations like The American Cancer Society raise millions of dollars every year. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a good thing, but I do question where the money is used. A majority of the money raised during fundraisers like Relay For Life goes to cancer research, and very little goes immediately to cancer treatment. Personally, I think that curing those who are already facing cancer is equally as important as preventing people from getting cancer in the future curing cancer in the future begins with curing cancer now. Is the right way to find a cure to cancer by treating what already exists or by researching the cause?