jeremyrsolomon

Failures – To Get Away from it All

by

Failures – To Get Away From It All

Cam Newton’s career as an NFL quarterback came to a tragic peak in the 2016 Super Bowl. His offense played poorly against one of the best defenses of the century, but the Carolina Panthers still had the ball late with a chance to win. On a third and nine, Newton fumbled the ball, and as it skipped on the turf, Newton had a chance to dive for it. But a defensive player was closer on the ground, and Newton backed away.* The Denver Broncos recovered the ball, scored another touchdown, and the Panthers would have the biggest loss in the history of the team.

For sports media, the even greater crime by Newton was after the game. Newton started to answer their questions, but he abruptly left the scene and wasn’t to be seen again that night. Pundits pounced on him in the coming days, not only his hesitancy on the fumble, but poor sportsmanship by leaving the press. He’s the quarterback. The leader. He should set an example. And so on. Talking heads on ESPN condemned Newton with shouts of indignation. The media gave the public a villain in Super Bowl 50, his post-game exit was almost as big a headline as the game itself.

Rolling my eyes at the righteousness of the journalists, it was hard to not to feel sorry for Newton. He’d just had the worst moment of his career, if not his entire life. Hundreds of millions had watched his mistake on the field, and the publicity of the scene made the embarrassment hard to compare. To me, if anyone from such a moment feels the need to find a hole to hide in, they have my support. Go ahead and rest. Clear your head. Find your family, and take a night to breathe and process what just happened. Then come to us the next day a little refreshed with a better frame of mind. The media will have plenty to talk about in the first 24 hours, without needing your point of view. Any of us would hope for a measure of grace in the situation.

Super Bowl 50 was eight years ago, but this has always stuck in my mind as I can see myself avoiding the media as Newton did. I’m a sore loser, and I’ll wear emotions on my sleeve as embarrassment dominates my thoughts. The anger comes not so much from losing itself, but the times when I feel like I humiliated myself. Maybe my score was dead last, or maybe there was some obvious move that I missed. The failure feels like a reflection of myself, whether from a lack of skill or intelligence. Self-criticism will swell in me, and so it’s easy to relate to what Newton may have felt. His shortcoming came in view of the entire world, and it seems right to me that he should have had the chance to get away from it.

Maybe the most memorable example of an athlete defying the mandates of press conferences is Marshawn Lynch. Running back for the Seattle Seahawks, Lynch had no interest in talking with reporters. He would defy the rules, and even when complying, he would wear his helmet with a black eye shield down to cover his face. The NFL gave him hefty fines, declaring his shyness unacceptable. Good grief, just leave him alone, I would think as ESPN reported the fines. After retirement, Lynch would make a host of appearances in commercials and other media, almost as a dig on the NFL. I’ll be in the news when I want to be. Seeing him any time on screen was a treat. Like Newton, I would hope Lynch has the chance to do as he pleases in relations with media.

All of this isn’t to say that reporters were wrong about Newton’s shortcoming in the game. His hesitation to go for the ball would go down as one of the more frustrating moments in NFL history. An assumption in any sport is that athletes will do anything possible to keep their chances of winning for the team alive. For Newton to back away from the ball with no effort to recover was inexcusable. The defensive player may have had the advantage, and even if Newton recovered, the Panthers’ odds of winning the game were slim. Still, surrendering the ball handed the win to the Broncos. For any professional athlete, driven through years of pee-wee leagues, college and pros, to not go for the ball was as surprising as it was heartbreaking. The wide world of sports had good reason to feel disappointed in Newton.

Also, in fairness to the Carolina Panthers, it’s understandable they or any team would want their players to be available to media. For the purposes of team promotion and appeasing customers, a sports business should want their stars to be on camera. How much more for a team that just played in America’s biggest event. For Newton, he was an NFL quarterback. A natural leader, not only for his team, but for a billion-dollar company with millions of customers who were disappointed with their performance. The Super Bowl is the biggest of such moments, with the economic prosperity of employees and third-party business riding on the athletes. It’s a daunting responsibility, but it’s one that athletes take on when suiting up and signing contracts.

For Newton, being the leader in the spotlight would diminish rapidly. He was never the same after the Super Bowl, with his performance declining in the few years left of his career. It may have been a coincidence that his descent followed the Super Bowl. Maybe his teams just happened to be worse, or his health declined as he became older. Still, the fumble seemed so cataclysmic, it’s hard not to wonder if there was a connection to his downward trajectory. Either way, it’s a shame for him. Newton portrayed himself on the field as Superman, pretending to tear off a Clark Kent suit when scoring a touchdown. He was boasting, but it was a fitting comparison. His talent willed his teams to success, and so to come so close to the mountain top, feels like a tragedy that would hurt any of us.

With such a descent from Super Bowl 50, I’ll always have an empathy for Cam Newton. Even if he missed the mark of good sportsmanship, sore losers like me can relate to him. To brush off mistakes and move on with confidence, is a virtue I never learned. So even if I’m in the wrong, people will still have my blessing to find a place to hide from the world. No matter how justified it will be to critique their performance or demeanor, my gut will tell me to let them get away from it all. We’ll hear back from them soon enough, refreshed and ready to move forward.

 

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytwAalH7vec

Political Memes and Me

by

Political Memes and Me

It’s hard for me to appreciate political memes. Some say they’re a good way to start conversations, but they seem more like a pretentious way of affirming your own opinions. Those who share the meme think they’ve proven their brilliance, implying the message gives them the final word on the subject. The one who posts it feels pride, seeing themselves as sticking it to the idiots who disagree, walking away from social media with victory. In truth, there’s little to be impressed with. Someone came across a meme while scrolling online, confirmed the bias they already had, and then clicked Share. That’s all that happened. There was no research, nor any deep reflection on the topic. Just a feeling of righteousness as the sharer claims to drop a proverbial mic on the subject.

While these are cynical thoughts, this meme gave me a mixed bag of feelings: 

The post complains of the media’s lack of coverage on public school lunch debt in Missouri. This often-used image for memes is of a man gawking at an attractive woman while the girlfriend looks at him with disgust. In this case, the man represents “American Media”. The hot girl is “Inspirational Story”, and the girlfriend is “Huge Systemic Failure”. The argument is that American media doesn’t highlight societal problems, instead becoming distracted by individual acts of triumph. While it’s admirable to bring attention to such an obscure issue, the problems with the meme are hard to ignore.*

To their credit, the meme’s creator recognizes an unknown plight for families, and it’s a worthy topic to bring attention to. There are a hundred ways America is becoming more expensive as parents increase their debt from the simple need of not having their kids feel hungry in school. As a Minnesotan, it has been encouraging to see Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz spearhead a national conversation on the topic. Minnesota has addressed the problem with a universal lunch program, and maybe the dialogue will lead other states to address it. With this, the suggestion that the media should report on it seems reasonable, for greater awareness and potential solutions.

At the same time, the meme’s critique of the media doesn’t jive with reality. Is it implying that American journalism doesn’t cover our problems? As an avid reader of current events, this appears absurd as the news gives us daily evidence to the contrary. The term “doom-scrolling” was coined for good reason. Constant news of injustice and heartache fill the pages of our media, showcasing the plethora of ways institutions have failed us.** Contrary to what the meme claims, the metaphorical boyfriend pays lots of attention to the girlfriend. She should feel confident in his unwavering devotion for her.

This isn’t to say that the media should stop showing us the warts of societies. Journalists should highlight them, and even if cynics like me roll my eyes at their apocalyptic tones, the public should know what’s going wrong. Still, I’d ask again: Who claims that the media doesn’t highlight these things? We are inundated with stories of crime, war, sex abuse, student debt, day care costs, climate change, housing shortages, poverty, etc, etc. So even if the media had yet to cover the specific issue of school lunch debt in Missouri, can we say with a straight face that journalists have failed us? It seems to be a silly suggestion.

Leaving that aside, the central claim of the meme is that journalists become distracted by singular stories of inspiration, bringing our gaze away from the problems. If this were true of media on a massive scale, then it might be a practice worth addressing. But two points come to mind:

1.    Media outlets have enough resources and common sense to pursue both the inspirational and public failures. It’s hard to reduce an entire organization of journalists and their resources to one boyfriend gawking at a stranger. The media can walk and chew gum at the same time, highlighting the mountains of suffering in the world while sharing some of the heartwarming tales.

2.    Couldn’t it be said that inspirational stories, like the kid raising money for student lunch debts, help to reveal the problems at hand? News is getting out that something bad has been happening to families in Missouri. In this case, the student’s fundraising caused both media fawning and the creation of the meme. Reporting on the good can still bring our attention toward the problem, showing us that news doesn’t have to exclusively showcase doom and gloom.

Even beyond this, we haven’t yet considered the positives of the media sharing inspirational stories. Just as we need to know the problems we face, we need to aspire to stories of charity and triumph. The successes of a government program. The offerings of communities. The stories of survival. The acts of forgiveness and philanthropy that will make the world better. Such reporting gives the public courage and inspiration to believe in what is possible. Telling us about the healing of a cancer patient doesn’t stop us from knowing about cancer, and we shouldn’t discourage the media from covering the story of the patient. Journalists should also be messengers of good tidings, along with all of the bad.

Funny enough, thinking about this meme has raised my general confidence in the media. As much as we complain about the biases and half-truths of their coverage, journalists will report on most of the things we should know. When subscribing to The New York Times in 2022, the first thing I read was a series of stories on the war starting in Ukraine. The level of detail they shared was remarkable, from political motivations to problems with military equipment. It was clear how much work and dedication the newspaper went through to pull the information together, to inform people like me. Sure, biases spring up in stories, and mistakes can always be made, but it’s hard to believe the media has a widespread practice of showing fluff stories over the ugly.

With all of this reflection on media, it’s amazing now to remember that it all came to me from a simple meme. Maybe I should cut memes some slack – to give them a chance to add to our conversations. Maybe memes are like people: Even if their views are nonsense, we can still learn something if we pay attention. The motivations of someone who shares the meme can be suspect, with trolling and arrogance always possible. And yet, the meme on student lunch debt gave me an awareness of the issue, and the chance to refine my thoughts on modern journalism. That’s not a bad job for an over-used image with a few short captions. Maybe, indeed, there was a point to be made.

*By acknowledging our ignorance of school lunch debts, you can now argue that memes serve as a positive force for awareness. Cynical Jeremy will have to get back to you for a comeback.

 

**For a source that personifies this practice, watch the HBO show This Week Tonight with John Oliver. It will make you think nothing is going right in the world. It’s a good thing John Oliver is funny, for how depressing the show would be otherwise.

 

Mourning – The Better Approach

by

Glenn Loury, in his memoir Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative, describes a crisis of faith from a church that failed him in his grief. He’d suffered the sudden death of a beloved co-worker, and the message he received from the funeral was that his loss shouldn’t be met with sorrow, but celebration instead. The deceased was going to Heaven, and so no one should feel bad about her dying. The congregates expressed a joyfulness, and Glenn took offense. He had just lost a friend, and the world had lost a saint all too soon. It was off-putting for his brethren to give no regard to his pain. No empathy for his heartache. The church ignored his anguish, and their god wasn’t one he wanted to follow.

In fairness, there’s room to be cynical of Glenn blaming others for his loss of faith. In his book, Glenn highlights the irresponsible practices that kept a foothold through his life – e.g., adultery, drug use, and night life away from family. Glenn suggests they were the true reasons he stopped believing. His “cover story” was the lack of church empathy for his loss, but the “real story” was him wanting to be “master of the universe” in his life. Submission to a higher power would call him out on the ways he hurt himself and others, but the message of the church was an excuse to keep doing as he pleased. It’s not hard to imagine many of us having such cover stories, to hide the reasons for our selfishness in the world.

Still, despite his faults, Glenn wasn’t wrong to be critical of the church’s message about death. When mourners cry in agony, we see a common denominator in the human experience, and those who claim to be a guide in life shouldn’t disregard it. While Glenn should have done better in his life, the church should have done better for him. At best, they were ignorant of the feelings Glenn and others carried with them. At worst, the church was passing judgment on their grief, implying it was an error. Either way, the sorrow went without recognition, and the congregants should have done better.

Reading of Glenn’s recollections reminded me of a recent encounter with friends who faced a similar situation. The family grieved for a cherished uncle, and the message they received was the same. We should be happy he’s in Heaven. He’s away from this world. At peace with our Savior. Why should people feel bad? It’s a time to rejoice! Explaining how the audience ought to feel about his death, the faithful were telling my agnostic friends that their sadness was wrong. Misguided. A distraction from God’s will. The church may have had good intentions by sharing an encouragement, but my friends left the service with alienation instead. There was no sense of anyone relating to their loss. No sympathy for the hole that was now in their lives. It was sad to think of a church leaving my friends more secular than when they walked in.

While there’s a logic to sharing the message, it’s disturbing to see a lack of empathy for mourning. On one hand, it feels hard to criticize a church for wanting to share hope. The word “gospel” literally means good news, and so it makes sense that a church would want to give encouragement in the worst of circumstances. Still, such messages can fail to meet the genuine needs of many in the pews. The message forgets the need to recognize the anguish from death. We are less without the person lost, and the dead can no longer have the joys of life. Mourning doesn’t come from a lack of character or personal beliefs, but default from the loss of life. It’s not wrong to feel this way, but we can imply it in the saddest moments of our lives.

There is a story from the Bible that legitimizes our feelings of mourning. To understand the character of God and the best response to mourning, one verse may be used to meditate on the subject:

“Jesus wept.”*

It’s the shortest English verse of the Bible, but powerful in its implications. More than a verse, it was an action carried out by Jesus. The creator of the universe mourned with Mary and Martha for the death of their brother Lazarus. Jesus felt the same sorrow. The same heartache. The same depth of feeling the sisters were holding with each other. Such an image counters the notion of a distant God who doesn’t care for our affairs. God was with the sisters, not with a message of joy but as one who cared enough to join them in their pain. This is a god to have hope in. The god Glenn Loury needed to hear about. The god that my friends could have found in their bereavement, but didn’t.

If Jesus’s actions aren’t enough to show us the need to mourn with others, there is more evidence still. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.”** Having described the awesome majesty of God, Paul spends a chapter of time giving the churches of Rome instructions on how to live life in response. Among them, he told them to meet people in their grief. To be with them where they are in their emotions. To not have ignorance of their feelings or judgement against them, but to commit love by aligning ourselves with them. If we do this, we fulfill the God-given duty to love one another in life.***

When taking all of this in, we should appreciate both halves of the verse. To rejoice with others means there are times to celebrate with someone – to have genuine happiness for their fortunes. Without jealousy or discouragement, we give others the chance to share news of what has been good to them, bringing greater joy to their world. At the same time, we are to weep with those who weep. In this, we give a measure of peace and comfort, legitimizing their grief and demonstrating that the person isn’t alone. It is a noble task to sit with someone in their pain. No words needed. Just an effort to relate to them.

With these lessons, we can offer hope by meeting others in their sorrow. An acknowledgement of their pain can be as valuable as any other healing in life. If Glenn Loury had received this gift, then maybe the encouragement would have made his faith more active in future years. If my neighbors had heard this message, then maybe their skepticism for church would have diminished. It’s a powerful suggestion – to meet people where they are. May we all become better examples of this practice.

* John 11:35

** Romans 12:15

*** John 13:34, 1 John 3:11

Confirmation Bias – Inherent, but not Destiny

by

Confirmation Bias – Inherent, but not Destiny

Michael Johnson was a disturbing choice for the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. In a political battle between MAGA loyalists and the moderates of the Republican Party, the Louisiana Congressman appeared as the former. He had advocated for the lie that Trump won the 2020 election. He also promoted a new surge of right-wing isolationism, withdrawing support for global allies and democracies. As for his personal views, his practice of Christian faith comes from an evangelicalism steeped in tribalism and arrogance, making for an absolution of his opinions. With his ascension, the far-right appeared to gain a greater foothold in American politics.

Despite his record, Johnson achieved something to my surprise and admiration: A change of heart. He led the charge in Congress passing continuing financial support to Ukraine, along with other initiatives in foreign policy. The New York Times reported that Johnson had listened to military leaders and policy experts on the consequences of a Russian takeover of Ukraine. He reassessed his views of the war, and he came to a new conclusion on how to proceed. The funding was a reversal of his position, defying those who pushed his promotion, and perhaps changing the course of world history. The hawkish traditions of the Republican Party had another day in the sun, and the U.S. would continue an active defense against Russian aggressions.

It was inspiring to learn that Johnson changed his mind based on evidence – an act seldom seen from leaders and constituents alike. Johnathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, notes that most people practice the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. It’s the act of forming an opinion and then only seeking evidence confirming the opinion, ignoring all that contradict it. Haidt describes this as not just one of many fallacies flaring up on occasion, but a routine of the mind as regular as involuntary functions of the body. It’s the default mode of human brains as people seek to affirm what they had already believed. This pushes us down the path of political tribalism, whether it’s binging on Fox News or avoiding certain chats with neighbors. Johnson took the harder path of the mind, and it was refreshing to see.

Johnson’s leadership was also surprising as we’re prone to believe people don’t change their minds. Entrenchment in our political views is a standard practice, let alone for a Congressman with a base constituency to answer to. Still, Johnson appeared to have a humility and re-evaluation of life, like Ebenezer Scrooge sharing his wealth on Christmas morning. The lessons a person learns from their parents, peers, or religion will create a worldview that’s hard to crack. The confirmation of their views then becomes a life-long practice, cementing their beliefs further and further. It’s easy to assume this will be true of everyone, and yet no one would have thought Michael Johnson would lead Congress to invest tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine. So maybe it’s not quite so impossible for a person to change their mind.

At the same time, we shouldn’t make light of the difficulties in persuading others. Whether it’s pro-life extremists or Black Lives Matter, we shouldn’t have our hearts set on convincing anyone of anything. The forces that brought a person to their current views are powerful, and you’ll have your work cut out for you when proselytizing. To persuade requires the recipient to have humility – to listen and reassess their opinions in good faith. There’s a reason that Michael Johnson will strike us as a political unicorn. It’s a tall order to do as he did, and your brilliance to persuade may not be as strong as you think.

Not only is it hard to change someone’s mind, but society might see their change as a negative trait. Modern America uses the term waffling to describe a politician changing their previous position. To many, waffling shows weakness. It means the person’s convictions are flimsy, either from fear of others’ opinions or a lack of commitment. Radio host Rush Limbaugh preached this by attacking independent voters, describing them as indecisive wimps. What more do you need to know, he’d say. Pick a side! To Limbaugh, sitting on the fence was almost as repugnant as holding the views of the Democratic Party. It’s a dangerous road for politicians to waffle in their views. The public may see their flipping as weak-willed at best, and deceptive at worst.

Despite the stigma of changing one’s mind, we should see the practice of self-reflection as a strength of character. Imagine someone you know, stalwart in their opinions, stopping themselves to make a mindful reassessment of the world. With humility, they recognize they might be wrong, and they reconsider things with the evidence at hand. These are admirable qualities to carry in life, with nothing to apologize for. The supposed waffler is pushing aside a lifetime of biases that have steered their thoughts, analyzing a situation without the biases. To do this and reach a different conclusion is not a sign of weakness, but of mental discipline and fortitude. Granted, we should be skeptical of politicians who reverse their previously-professed views – e.g., Kamala Harris from the 2020 presidential primaries, or J.D. Vance’s views of Trump in 2024 vs. 2016. Still, the world is a better place when someone has the traits of analysis and humility to guide their judgements.

Let’s also keep in mind that the ability to change one’s opinions may be a little more common than we think. Consider historical examples of the American public coming to change its views on a given issue. Abolitionism in the 19th century. Opposition to the Vietnam War in the 20th century, and support for the legalization of gay marriage in the 21st. Women’s suffrage. Support for interracial marriage. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and the legalization of marijuana. In the darkest moments of any political movement, few will think it possible for a sea change of public opinion to occur, but it has happened before. People just like us were presented with new facts and evidence, and some changed their minds. It can take a monumental work of arguments and interactions for the changes to take place. But it’s possible.

As a small example for myself, I’ve been reconsidering the morality of state lotteries. I have a libertarian streak that tells me to let people live as they please. It’s their choice to be stupid with money, and if they want to waste what they have on lottery tickets, then it’s their prerogative. Besides, the funds from lotteries are a healthy boom to state funds and college students. As a fiscal hawk, I love to see different ways for the state to actually pay for its services. Still, do we want our governments to have programs that lure the poor into give their money away? Is it right to have people in poverty funding the educations of higher classes? I have wrestled with these questions of late. It now feels repugnant to live in a society that promotes such a transfer of wealth, and I shouldn’t have to apologize to libertarians for changing my views about it.

So if I can bend my mind against a lifetime of ideological instinct, then others can too. It’s not to say it’s easy, and it’s unwise to assume the virtue of humility resides with others in our spheres. But it’s not impossible either. Michael Johnson proved it in Congress, and the American public has proved it in time. Confirmation Bias is inherent in our being, but it’s not destiny. Analysis and self-reflection are valuable skills that the world needs. Let us have hope that better angels can wake us up to the faults of our thinking, pushing us to reassess the thoughts we’ve always held dear.

Maid: Hard Work, Low Pay, and a Mother’s Will to Survive

by

 

Stefanie Land, author of Maid: Hard Work, Low Pay, and a Mother’s Will to Survive, wrote a small section of the book that had gotten under my skin. She questioned the value of charitable acts, and it was an offensive suggestion to me. Still, I couldn’t deny how much I enjoyed the book. Land brings an anecdotal light to the daunting challenges of American poverty – the excruciating work, and the obstacles of government help with a culture that looked down her. With further reflection, Land’s opinions became understandable to me, even if I couldn’t agree with her view on charity.* 

Land begins a chapter by describing the faith-based charity work she was part of in her middle-class upbringing. The family had shared Christmas gifts with strangers while sharing the gospel in some way. Land then brings us to her future as a single mom, now receiving similar charities. “Now I’d be opening the door, accepting charity. Accepting that I couldn’t provide for my family. Accepting their small token – a new pair of gloves, a toy – in their impulse to feel good. But there wasn’t any way to put ‘health care’ or ‘child care’ on a list.” 

Land seems to render charity as useless, and that people do it only for a sense of pleasure. I read these words as someone from a family who for years set up events to feed the homeless through church. Every Thanksgiving, my father led a team in making 20 turkeys for the community before coming home to make our own. For myself, I had been part of mission projects in college, having hope that my exchanges about faith would help bring a better world. Such memories made me take offense to Land’s comment. Should we have not done these things? Why bother giving then if it doesn’t solve the world’s problems? What’s the point? Land’s words came across to me as simply bitter, and to imply that my inspirations came from a kind of selfishness felt insulting.

It also seemed like her words had a political message rearing its head. We often read about health care and child care as we doom-scroll through headlines. Politicians also speak of these issues with a righteous proselytizing. If you don’t agree with me, you’re awful and don’t care about people. With these things in the back of my mind, I took Land to be saying the same thing. No one would have to do charity if we just voted the right way, or so I interpreted. My internal radar was set to detect such attacks, and it raised further offense in me. I wasn’t looking for a lecture, but it seemed like I was receiving one.

As I re-read the chapter, I was surprised that I had had no recollection of the rest of the chapter. Land goes on to describe her various struggles in adulthood. She fought for custody of her daughter from a verbally abusive father, and we learn of her hardships in finding affordable housing. The constant stress from her hardships, I could only imagine. And yet, the only thing I had previously remembered from the chapter was the “offensive” intro. Once I became offended, I had stopped paying attention to anything else. I had read the rest of the words, but they were not the focus of my attention.

In my second reading, it also struck me as odd for Land to combine her childhood charity stories with her future stories of hardship. Then it hit me: She once had security, but it was lost in adulthood. This would be a severe loss for anyone in their lives, not to be taken lightly. In her case, the father of her child, who should have been supportive for his new family, instead became a nightmare. Her society also wouldn’t be much help to her getting on her feet, financially and emotionally. Between the court battles and a culture that says to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, Land must have felt continual heartache and abandonment.

With all of this in mind, let’s now picture a middle-class family coming to her impoverished door with a pair of gloves for an offering. Regardless of the family’s intentions, the gift for her was impersonal and impractical. For Land, Christmas toys wouldn’t keep the heat on, and gloves wouldn’t provide day care while trudging to the next awful cleaning job. Even more than this though, the charity came to highlight her inability to provide for her family. It created a bruised ego with guilt and despair not far behind. These are understandable reactions to the offer. Really, who wouldn’t feel bitterness in living her life? I could now see Land’s point of view in an enlightening way, making the feelings of offense drift into dust.

Now this is the part where some would counter my newfound sympathies by highlighting the role Land played in her own story. Yes, she had put herself at the risk of having a child with an unreliable man. It was a precarious position, and one that would steer almost any of us toward financial distress. We can’t escape the reality of our choices, but I resolve that they shouldn’t decide how we think of a person in the present. We shouldn’t dismiss Land’s suffering over an unwise decision from the past. This leads to the arrogance that Land writes of when noting hecklers watching her pay for groceries with food stamps.** Judgements came against her for life as a single mom, and we should see how we can condemn others, in thoughts if not words.

With a renewed empathy for Land, I came to feel sympathy for her while still disagreeing about charity. Families and society should practice charitable giving, no matter the ratio of the gifts to the full needs of recipients. If we stopped thinking of charity as helpful, then the world would be left without the many billions of dollars it receives in the name of good will. Also, it seems we would go backwards in our mindfulness of the poor if we thought of giving as useless. We would think of others even less as we throw up our hands and shrug at the fruitlessness charity offers. It’s a scary notion, perhaps dividing classes even further. And in the end, we can’t predict the fruits that come from charity. Loving relationships can and do develop from the act, and there is genuine help from even the smaller gifts. When a family gives, the practice can become instilled in the minds of our children, and we shouldn’t dismiss these efforts.

As far as the notion that givers are fulfilling an “impulse to feel good”, we shouldn’t think of these feelings in a cynical way. Charitable acts can be both sacrificial and pleasurable. When someone answers a thank you with “It was my pleasure,” it confirms a sense of reward that comes from the act being done. Taking satisfaction from charity doesn’t take away from the moral goodness of doing it. In all cases, there was an expense for the giver, both in terms of money and the time and attention taken to give it. With this, people can be happy and sacrificial at the same time. The pleasure simply comes from the human recognition of goodness and justice being fulfilled, and this isn’t something to criticize.

All of this being said, I find myself now having a peaceful balance of understanding and disagreement with Stephanie Land. Before reading Maid, I had read two books on American poverty by Matthew Desmond. Readers find a world where people choose between basic needs, suffer the psychological stress of bad living conditions, and face obstacles requiring herculean efforts to escape. In Land’s case, she suffered through continual physical pain as a maid while being a ghost in affluent homes, with the health of her car being pivotal to the family’s survival. We should be happy for her escape from that life***, and we can understand her point of view without a disagreement dominating our perceptions. With this, I look forward to reading her sequel.

 

 

*This even assumes that I’m interpreting Land’s opinions correctly. I’m taking them from just a couple pages of work, and so flushing out her views with dialogue would be helpful.  

**Land notes the sarcastic words of “You’re Welcome” from the hecklers, saying their taxes paid for her food stamps. I’ve never understood why this should make someone so angry. Tax revenue for poverty programs would, I imagine, only equate to a few cents from a family’s checkbook. Is the heckler really so burdened in life by the shopper needing the food stamps? It seems more likely that the heckler’s anger comes from feelings of righteousness over the shopper. Besides, if the cents go to feeding families in need, then it seems there’s far worse things the government can (and does) use with tax revenue.

 ***Again, it’s a presumption, but I assume someone whose bestselling book led to the creation of a Netflix series has been able to climb out of poverty.