ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-11-22 10:32 am
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-11-22 10:32 am
Entry tags:
Hating on the Poor
The author responds to a comment on her blogpost Why I Make Terrible Decisions:
I would like to understand what you are really angry about. Is it that I am poor and insufficiently servile about it? Is it that you legitimately think that you are somehow morally superior? Is it that I dared to write my thoughts down and someone forced you to read them? Is it that you never spend fifty dollars a month on something that could be used elsewhere, and you are extra judgey about it because it is the thing you have to be judgey about? Is it that you are an antismoking warrior and doing the world A Service by wishing ill on random Internet bloggers? Is it that you are uncomfortable with the idea that even if I have no money I am allowed to sometimes complain about life? How rich do I have to be before I am allowed to have objections to the current class system? What amount of money do you think gives me the right to be human?
More and more, offline and on, I’ve been seeing the “a feature, not a bug” argument about the increasing income disparity between the very rich and the rest of us. It’s an argument best summarized as, “Forget the poor. They’re losers.” Salon has an acid piece up about Tyler Cowen and the upcoming “hyper-meritocracy,” which includes some of the euphemisms people like Cowen love to use about the fate of the non-wealthy in the brave new world he’s so excited about. “Tough trade-offs,” and “common sense” for the rationale (which I’ve encountered here) that since we can’t help every single poor person, we shouldn’t help any of them.
Along with this blithe rejection of an increasingly large portion of the human race is a tendency to vilify the poor. After all, if one is going to relegate all these people to a life of hunger, illness, and exhaustion, it’s important to convince oneself that they deserve it.
A piece by a blogger called killermartinis is a welcome antidote to the Friedmans and the Cowens of this world. Yes, the author says, poor people often make bad decisions. Here’s why. Here’s what it’s like to be poor.
I know how to cook. I had to take Home Ec to graduate high school. Most people on my level didn't. Broccoli is intimidating. You have to have a working stove, and pots, and spices, and you'll have to do the dishes no matter how tired you are or they'll attract bugs. It is a huge new skill for a lot of people. That's not great, but it's true. And if you fuck it up, you could make your family sick. We have learned not to try too hard to be middle-class. It never works out well and always makes you feel worse for having tried and failed yet again. Better not to try. It makes more sense to get food that you know will be palatable and cheap and that keeps well. Junk food is a pleasure that we are allowed to have; why would we give that up? We have very few of them.
And her reaction, posted at the beginning of this OP, to the inevitable hostile commenter reacting to the fact that she (horrors!) smokes cigarettes, is as worthwhile a read as the article.
What she (and, inadvertently, the commenter) highlights is the assumption that a poor person who complains about being poor is speaking out of turn. A poor person should be ashamed of being poor, to the point of giving up even those small pleasures they can afford, and should not talk back to his or her literal wealthy “superiors” – who, if the poor person is really, really good, might toss a few nice leftovers into a donation box. The word “uppity” is rarely used, but it’s pretty similar to the affluent white attitude towards blacks that I remember from the American south of my childhood, which often involved a definition of “good” that required a staggering level of self-abnegation. A passage from Sinclair Lewis’ satiric novel about a fascist takeover in the US, It Can’t Happen Here, sums it up:
“In order…to give the most sympathetic aid possible to all Negroes who comprehend their proper and valuable place in society, all such colored persons, male or female, as can prove that they have devoted not less than forty-five years to such suitable tasks as domestic service, agricultural labor, and common labor in industries, shall at the age of sixty-five be permitted to appear before a special Board, composed entirely of white persons, and upon proof that while employed they have never been idle except through sickness, they shall be recommended for pensions…”
The awful part is that this seems generous compared to the current right wing libertarian attitude towards the poor.
*
I would like to understand what you are really angry about. Is it that I am poor and insufficiently servile about it? Is it that you legitimately think that you are somehow morally superior? Is it that I dared to write my thoughts down and someone forced you to read them? Is it that you never spend fifty dollars a month on something that could be used elsewhere, and you are extra judgey about it because it is the thing you have to be judgey about? Is it that you are an antismoking warrior and doing the world A Service by wishing ill on random Internet bloggers? Is it that you are uncomfortable with the idea that even if I have no money I am allowed to sometimes complain about life? How rich do I have to be before I am allowed to have objections to the current class system? What amount of money do you think gives me the right to be human?
More and more, offline and on, I’ve been seeing the “a feature, not a bug” argument about the increasing income disparity between the very rich and the rest of us. It’s an argument best summarized as, “Forget the poor. They’re losers.” Salon has an acid piece up about Tyler Cowen and the upcoming “hyper-meritocracy,” which includes some of the euphemisms people like Cowen love to use about the fate of the non-wealthy in the brave new world he’s so excited about. “Tough trade-offs,” and “common sense” for the rationale (which I’ve encountered here) that since we can’t help every single poor person, we shouldn’t help any of them.
Along with this blithe rejection of an increasingly large portion of the human race is a tendency to vilify the poor. After all, if one is going to relegate all these people to a life of hunger, illness, and exhaustion, it’s important to convince oneself that they deserve it.
A piece by a blogger called killermartinis is a welcome antidote to the Friedmans and the Cowens of this world. Yes, the author says, poor people often make bad decisions. Here’s why. Here’s what it’s like to be poor.
I know how to cook. I had to take Home Ec to graduate high school. Most people on my level didn't. Broccoli is intimidating. You have to have a working stove, and pots, and spices, and you'll have to do the dishes no matter how tired you are or they'll attract bugs. It is a huge new skill for a lot of people. That's not great, but it's true. And if you fuck it up, you could make your family sick. We have learned not to try too hard to be middle-class. It never works out well and always makes you feel worse for having tried and failed yet again. Better not to try. It makes more sense to get food that you know will be palatable and cheap and that keeps well. Junk food is a pleasure that we are allowed to have; why would we give that up? We have very few of them.
And her reaction, posted at the beginning of this OP, to the inevitable hostile commenter reacting to the fact that she (horrors!) smokes cigarettes, is as worthwhile a read as the article.
What she (and, inadvertently, the commenter) highlights is the assumption that a poor person who complains about being poor is speaking out of turn. A poor person should be ashamed of being poor, to the point of giving up even those small pleasures they can afford, and should not talk back to his or her literal wealthy “superiors” – who, if the poor person is really, really good, might toss a few nice leftovers into a donation box. The word “uppity” is rarely used, but it’s pretty similar to the affluent white attitude towards blacks that I remember from the American south of my childhood, which often involved a definition of “good” that required a staggering level of self-abnegation. A passage from Sinclair Lewis’ satiric novel about a fascist takeover in the US, It Can’t Happen Here, sums it up:
“In order…to give the most sympathetic aid possible to all Negroes who comprehend their proper and valuable place in society, all such colored persons, male or female, as can prove that they have devoted not less than forty-five years to such suitable tasks as domestic service, agricultural labor, and common labor in industries, shall at the age of sixty-five be permitted to appear before a special Board, composed entirely of white persons, and upon proof that while employed they have never been idle except through sickness, they shall be recommended for pensions…”
The awful part is that this seems generous compared to the current right wing libertarian attitude towards the poor.
*
no subject
no subject
no subject
Nope. I'm talking about poor people in the US. Quite frequently they live in areas that don't have easy access to supermarkets. They end up relying either on fast food, or markets that don't carry healthy foods at affordable prices.
nmg: Just a few posts ago you were claiming a former college professor with a house qualified as poor. Now apparently the typical poor person doesn't have a microwave or a refrigerator/freezer in their apartment.
No, I did not say "the typical poor person doesn't have a microwave or refrigerator/freezer in their apartment." I said many of them don't have these things.
Do you understand the difference?
nmg: Nor is contracting e-coli from eating raw broccoli.
If you rely heavily on raw foods, your chances of contracting e-coli definitely goes up. It's something that should be an especially strong concern for a parent trying to feed young children, or the elderly. And as I pointed out, e-coli contamination is not the only hazard associated with eating foods like raw broccoli.
no subject
Yes. I also know how to get you to come out and state that your examples don't correspond to typical poor people.
If you rely heavily on raw foods, your chances of contracting e-coli definitely goes up.
Sure. And if you rely heavily on driving to get to work your chance of dying in an auto accident definitely go up. If you walk regularly your chances of being mugged definitely go up. If you regularly import moles into your backyard your chances of seeing a molehill definitely go up.
But then again, if every time you're eating raw vegetables it's in place of eating fast food, I'd say your chances are going down.
no subject
So you ascribe something to me I didn't say, then try to paint my correcting you on that point as a concession.
Whether or not residing in motels or being homeless is "typical" depends on what level of poverty we're talking about, and where the people in question live. Poverty itself, is not "typical" of Americans in that the majority of Americans are not living below the poverty line. That does not mean it isn't a serious problem.
paft: If you rely heavily on raw foods, your chances of contracting e-coli definitely goes up.
nmg: Sure. And if you rely heavily on driving to get to work your chance of dying in an auto accident definitely go up.
Your analogy as written makes no sense. Merely driving to work or going for walks is not considered a health hazard. Relying a great deal on raw vegetables is, and (She says patiently for about the third time. Hey, maybe this time it will take.) not merely because they can be infected with e-coli. Uncooked cruciform vegetables can cause gastro-intestinal and thyroid problems, no matter how carefully they've been washed.
It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables because you can't afford to cook them to driving to work in a car that has worn brake pads and steering problems because you can't afford to pay for the repair work. It would make more sense to compare relying on raw vegetables to walking through high crime neighborhoods because you can't afford to live anywhere else.
And your last analogy is downright nonsense. Are you seriously comparing poor people having to eat unhealthy diets to someone deliberately importing moles into their own back yard?
nmg: But then again, if every time you're eating raw vegetables it's in place of eating fast food, I'd say your chances are going down.
Not if you're relying on raw vegetables to the extent that the poor often have to rely on fast food.
no subject
Neither is eating raw broccoli. Go to an art opening sometime. There might even be someone there who can give instructions on how to heat vegetable soup using a hotplate.
no subject
It is if you are relying on raw veggies as a major source of nutrition.
nmg: There might even be someone there who can give instructions on how to heat vegetable soup using a hotplate.
I assure you, canned soups (often high in sodium) are used very frequently by the poor.
Let's get to the bottom of what you're driving at here, though. Are you saying that hunger is not a serious problem among the poor? That it's just all a matter of the poor being a bunch of silly-billies who don't know how to open a can and use a hot plate? The piece in question is not about the problems connected with preparing broccoli. It is about why the poor so frequently end up eating junk food. The writer merely briefly cited the problem of preparing broccoli in passing. Why are you so obsessed with it?
no subject
Obsessed indeed. But I guess it's my bad since I'm the one who brought up broccoli in the first place.
That it's just all a matter of the poor being a bunch of silly-billies who don't know how to open a can and use a hot plate?
Yes, and I think baby seals should be clubbed. But on a serious note, I'm not the one who thinks poor people can't prepare vegetables.
no subject
g: Yes, and I think baby seals should be clubbed.
Yes, yes, the ritual invocation of baby seals, and the implication that concern about other human beings is equivalent to silly sentimentality about fuzzy animals.
Now that you've got that out of the way...
g: I'm not the one who thinks poor people can't prepare vegetables.
Nobody has said that poor people lack the ability to prepare vegetables. The question is whether it is always practical or possible for them to do it in their current circumstances.
Are you prepared to address what was actually said in the article, or are you going to keep casting about for things you can misattribute to the writer?
no subject
You've been quite polite. And no mis-attributing whatsoever.
But if you want more addressing of what's in the article... "Junk food is a pleasure that we are allowed to have; why would we give that up?". The answer to that question seems a little too obvious. That she's asking it makes me not wonder why she received all the negative comments.
no subject
And the answer is...?