Goodbye Rite Aid

*I came across this draft and, even though it’s old – like by several years (in other words, VERY pre-pandemic) – I still thought it was a fun story and worth posting*

For years, Rite Aid was my drug store. I used to friggin LOVE Rite Aid. I had all my prescriptions filled there. It was always open, always had exactly what I was looking for, and at the right price. It was the only drugstore I would shop in. Somehow everything at Rite Aid felt comfortable. Going into a CVS or Duane Reade felt like landing on another planet. I’d wander up and down the unfamiliar aisles full of seemingly unfamiliar brands, completely disoriented and somehow mystified by the organization of the space. Because I had no idea where anything was, and the few things that I did manage to find were more expensive than what I could find in Rite Aid, I rarely even set foot into any other chain drug store. If I did manage to find myself accidentally in a CVS, it tended to be a very short visit, and more often than not, I would leave the store empty-handed.

That was back in the days before online shopping became a major force in retail. Now, along with 80% of Americans, I shop online. I find that I prefer it. It saves me time, and often money. And with free shipping (which I always make sure I’m getting), shopping online really doesn’t cost any more than shopping in the store. That is, it doesn’t cost any more money. Human contact, on the other hand, well, I guess that’s a sacrifice I find I’m more eager to make.

Truthfully, I think a major component my affinity for online shopping is due to the fact that I find the business of running these errands such a hassle, because it’s always a production for me. I’m such a space cadet, I know that if I don’t meticulously plan these outings, they will be a waste. Of course, now I’ve gone to the other extreme, where I have become so neurotic about planning and executing these trips to run errands you’d think I was heading out into the wilderness for a week instead of going to the grocery store. Before I leave, I have to make a plan of attack, write up lists, get dressed, make sure phone is charged, make sure I have all my lists, make sure I bring food and water, double check that everything I’m taking with me corresponds to everything on my lists, double check that I have my lists, double check that my phone is charged, and make sure I know where I’m going and in what order. And that’s all before I get into the car. All of this is in addition to the normal stresses that everyone has to deal with, like hacking through traffic and fighting for parking (but without the added stress of small children along for the ride, but that will eventually change). And, of course, once I’m on my way, I spend a lot of time worrying about remembering to do everything that’s on my list, because there’s nothing worse than finally getting home and realizing that I forgot to do something (like I did today), because then it means I have to go through this whole spiel again on another day.

Worst of all for me is having to deal with other people, an activity that is inherent in running errands. I have anxiety about being around, and even talking to people (yes, I fully recognize the contradiction of being teaching at the college level and having this kind of social anxiety, but there you have it). So perhaps it’s no surprise that I prefer to do my shopping online. Actually, what SHOULD be a surprise is the fact that, in my affinity for pajamas and anxiety over human contact, I haven’t developed psychopathic or homicidal tendencies, nor have I devolved into some mole-hominid hybrid with poor hygiene and light sensitivity, and who can only communicate in shrieks and grunting noises (but I think the only thing that has saved me from either of those fates was getting married to someone slightly more social than I am).

But I (completely) digress.

In any event, these days, the majority of the things I’m buying on a regular basis, I’m buying online. This is especially the case when it comes to the stuff I used to buy at Rite Aid. Everything in those stores is available online, which saves me time, and sometimes for lower prices, which, combined with free shipping (the only way to shop), makes it a win-win for me in most cases. In the meantime, since getting married, I’ve moved back to NY (yay!), and my doctor started to send my prescriptions to a local, independent pharmacy with which she has an existing relationship (plus, they deliver for free). These days, the only time I now go to a pharmacy is when I need something immediately or last minute. There is a Rite Aid in my area, but it’s about 16 blocks away. In these emergency situations, the closest drug store is the one that gets my business, and that one happens to be a Duane Reade. In the end, it’s fair to say that I really can’t remember the last time I’ve been inside a Rite Aid.

For special items (things I don’t normally need to buy), I also turn to the online world first, mainly looking for cheaper prices (like the rest of the online shopping population). A couple of weeks ago, I went looking for insoles for my husband, Joseph. Unlike me, Joseph has no compunction about going into stores IRL, and he had found one of those Dr. Scholls kiosks in a drug store which measure your feet and pressure points and then spit out a recommendation for one of the brand’s inserts. But seeing that the price of these inserts in the store was over $50, I was determined to find a better price online.

So I did the research, and, lo and behold, I found the inserts at RiteAid.com, and with the loyalty card discount, the cost was significantly less ($15!!) than I was seeing anywhere else. Joseph was planning to leave for a business trip in a week, and he needed the inserts before he left. The only shipping that was free was the standard speed (3 to 5 business days), but I figured that was plenty of time, so I ordered them. The confirmation email told me to expect, within 48 hours, another email which would confirm that the inserts had shipped.

So wait I did. And wait. And wait. Eight days went by and still no email. Joseph was leaving in less than 48 hours. I assumed I must have missed the email. I did a search of my inbox for emails from Rite Aid. I checked my Unroll.me rollup. I checked my spam folder. Nothing. Finally, I checked the order status on riteaid.com, which informed me that, not only had my order not yet shipped, the order was still “Processing,” whatever that meant (meanwhile, of course, they had already taken my money). Thoroughly frustrated, I was prodded to call customer service. That’s right; this problem was big enough that I actually brought myself to speak to another human being.

While it was nice that it didn’t take long for me to be connected to a person, I am sorry to say that this was the only pleasant part of this entire experience. The individual with whom I spoke informed me that the reason my order hasn’t shipped yet is because it was backordered. The warehouse would be getting a new shipment the next day, Wednesday, at which point, my order would be shipped.

This, to me, was unacceptable. Joseph was leaving on Thursday. Shipping it on Wednesday means it would not get it to us before he left. I explained to the representative that I needed it in my hands by Wednesday, not just leaving some warehouse. I also pointed out that the day I placed the order, there was no indication on the product page, my cart, or my invoice, that the item was out of stock. If there had been, I would not have ordered it in the first place.

Not only that, but nobody at Rite Aid bothered to send me any notification that this was going on. I was just sitting there like an idiot, waiting for something to arrive that I didn’t even know hadn’t even been sent out yet. And yes, they had already charged my card. Think about that. They took my money and gave me nothing but a promise in return. Had I received an email telling me that the item I ordered was suddenly out of stock, and wouldn’t be available for shipping until Wednesday, I would have cancelled the order and bought it somewhere else. But Rite Aid didn’t even give me the opportunity to do that. They just took my money and, I guess, assumed I didn’t care when my order arrived, as long as it arrived?? Or, because I got free shipping I have no right to complain about how long it takes? Who does business like that??

The woman on the other line was, shall we say, less than sympathetic. She didn’t apologize, she didn’t offer to upgrade my shipping for free, she didn’t seem to have any interest in being helpful. The only thing she was willing to do was offer me a refund, but considering that a refund would mean that I have to pay $15 or more extra to buy it somewhere else, I was reluctant. The whole reason I ordered these insoles from Rite Aid was because it was a good price. I still wanted that price, and I wasn’t convinced that the only thing she could do was just give me my money back. I mean, we live in an age of digital connectivity that is unlike anything this world has ever seen, and Rite Aid is a brand whose physical stores are spread nationwide. I refused to believe that there wasn’t another way to solve this problem, which was, in my mind, their fault.

Thinking about it, I realized that the logical solution was to see if the specific insoles were in stock at one of the many locations within driving distance of my home. Rite Aid isn’t a franchise; it’s a chain. Individual stores are not really independent of the corporate entities, just like WalMart stores are not independent of corporate WalMart. Likewise, shopping on walmart.com is similar to shopping at a Walmart store. When you buy something at WalMart, Target, or Best Buy, they usually offer you an option for you to pick your order up in a specific store, and they can tell you whether a specific item is available at a specific store. When you are shopping at the physical Target or Best Buy stores, (and other stores as well, by the way) if something is out of stock, usually they will check other locations or online for you and sometimes even ship it to you for free too (not sure about Walmart, because there isn’t one near me, but I imagine it must also be so).

But not at Rite Aid, apparently. Rite Aid stores are apparently completely separate from riteaid.com, because the representative told me that she had no way of actually checking a store’s inventory. This is a ludicrous assertion. You’re telling me that a nationwide chain has no way of checking up on its locations? What if there was theft? Or embezzlement going on at one of them? They would just never know, I guess!

In a marketplace where customer service is really the only way retailers can distinguish themselves from their competitors anymore, it truly amazes me that the online division of a national, brick and mortar retailer can invest so little in making sure the customer has a positive experience with their brand. Poor customer service is frustrating, but downright rude representatives (the rep showed her concern for my problem by HANGING UP ON ME) is entirely unacceptable.

It is equally amazing to me that, in this age of technology and competition, this same company can claim an inability to communicate with any of their stores, and exhibit bewilderment at the notion of creative (yet hardly outlandish) solutions to problems caused by their own buggy system in the first place (whereas I have no doubt that other competing retailers (cough, cough WalMart, cough, Target, cough cough) would be more open to such ideas) in order to keep a customer.

And then, I recall that I always talk to my students about how big companies are notoriously resistant to change and tend not to pivot well in the face of it. So maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised at Rite Aid. #riteaid, you’ve lost my business permanently.

Owning It

I have zero interest in running for public office. I am aware that one of the best ways to help people is to get involved in making the decisions that affect them. Yet I don’t think I could survive the scrutiny that running for public office brings. It’s not that I’m a bad person or have done horrible things; it’s that I refuse to pretend that I have not evolved as a person over the last 20+ years of my life. Allow me to explain:

Despite growing up in one of the most diverse cities in the world, I was raised in a considerably closed community. Though my family was a member of a more modern strain of Orthodox Jewry, the institutions governing my daily life, such as private schooling and a community that was both physically and socially close-knit, nevertheless worked diligently to ensure that much of the outside world stayed out. Indeed, the snippets of apprehensive and bigoted conversation I might hear from older adults in the community implied that I should not only dismiss but fear secular culture and avoid non-Jews. [Please note: none of this is to suggest that observant Jews as a whole are racist and bigots: just like every other group, there are good and bad people. But as the generation that came before me were children of Holocaust survivors, they were infused with a healthy dose of fear and suspicion of anyone outside the community, and they, understandably, taught those feelings to their children]. As a result, my only real exposure to those different from me came from the media I consumed, but, growing up in the 80s and 90s, this meant a heavy exposure to mediated stereotypes, many of them rather unpleasant. So I guess it is fair to say that I entered adulthood with a rather skewed, fearful, and ultimately biased vision of people who were not just like me.

Thinking about my rather sheltered upbringing, it sometimes still amazes me that a receptive engagement with difference has come to feature so centrally in my professional life. I attribute the development of my open-minded attitude to my mother, a librarian, who taught me, quite to the contrary of most other influences present in my young life, to ask questions and pursue answers, and that just because someone thinks, looks or behaves differently from you doesn’t mean they are inherently wrong or bad. Of course, she was referring mainly to the different types of Jews who, in the New York community, often attack and think less of those who are not exactly like them in every way. But as I went through college, and later graduate school, I gradually began to apply this attitude to others, as I was meeting people who weren’t Orthodox, Jewish, or white.

At the same time, it was the beginning of the mainstreaming of the internet (people still capitalized the “i” in those days), and I, like so many others at the time, was experimenting with expressing myself in a personal blog (fun fact: blogs were originally known as “web logs”). I wrote about my personal life and my thoughts and whatever came to mind at the time. As I started graduate school, I became more interested in politics, having been influenced by The Daily Show and then by talking with friends as well as random strangers on the internet, first in the comments sections of news articles and later on Facebook. As a result, many of my posts began to focus on specific issues of the day.

Unfortunately, the reality is that I had been incorporating all this new information into an existing framework which had been heavily influenced by messaging that was extremely problematic and certainly not politically correct. In other words, many of my opinions and comments back then (and yes, even as recently as 2012), would simply not be considered acceptable today.

Reading back over my past posts, sometimes I find myself cringing inwardly at how insensitive or even flat out ignorant I was at the time (like the time I argued that gay people should be content with civil unions, or when I callously described my black neighbor being arrested like I was on some kind of sick Hollywood tour). I’m certain that some would advise I delete those posts, since I am looking for a job, and these pieces could disqualify me from obtaining one. I suppose, in that sense, those people would be right. Yet I am still reluctant to do so. Not because I somehow stand by those positions or comments; I definitely don’t. I agree that they are terrible in every way a person today might think they are bad. But personally, I think it’s important that I acknowledge what I used to think, even if it was wrong, even if it was offensive, even if I don’t think that way anymore. My opinions have continued to evolve the more I learn, and will continue to develop as I go forward. But I don’t want to pretend that I’ve always thought “the right way” about something, because that would be disingenuous. The best that I’m willing to do is go back to those posts and write an addendum at the end, updating my position or apologizing for the insensitive tone.

I don’t believe that the phrase “people can change” is a platitude or a fallacy. When it comes to opinions, I think people absolutely CAN change, given the right information, support and opportunity. I know people might condemn me for my past opinions or comments. But the truth is that I see those upsetting words and thoughts as necessary, if ugly, stepping-stones for my evolution into a better person. I won’t pretend that I was born perfect, and deleting my past mistakes would be nothing but an attempt to do just that. I would rather own my past, admit that I was wrong, and prove myself as someone who is thoughtful and teachable. A teachable person is always learning and always listening, and we really need more people like that in this world, especially today.

Why Biden Should Pardon Trump.

Yes, you read that right.

I’m hardly the first person to make this suggestion. There’s a range of reasons out there. Any attempt to prosecute Trump would inevitably result in a “political circus” that would obstruct Biden’s attempts to govern. Pardoning Trump would, hopefully, break the cycle of political retribution, and allow the country to move forward, a la President Ford pardoning Nixon. If we prosecute Trump and are unable to make a conviction stick, it serves as a vindication for his followers. Conversely, if we are able to convict Trump, he becomes a martyr. You can find more on this here, here, and here.

I agree with all these points, but to me, they do not represent the most important reason for Biden to pardon Trump. The most important one for me is that I do not want to see or hear from Trump anymore.

Used to be, after an election was over, that coverage of the president was much calmer, much less frequent, much less shouting in your face. We could have a break from election season. Even if it was only a couple of years, it made the intensity and virulence of election coverage more tolerable. But beginning around 2015, all that changed.

Over the last five years, every time Trump farted, the media fell all over themselves to report on which way he leaned (and to point out that no other president (or presidential candidate) ever leaned quite that way to pass some gas!) We have had two congressional investigations, neither of which produced satisfying outcomes, but both of which took up our collective consciousness for months. We have had our hackles forcibly raised at every single tweet of his, many of which were simply the childish taunts of a childish man which we would have done better to ignore. We have had, sometimes bitter, sometimes relationship-ending fights with friends and strangers alike over him. Many of us have simply checked out of current events entirely because we simply can’t handle the drama anymore.

Are there things Trump has done that have required we sound the alarm, or at least talk about it? Absolutely. Many. Immigrant children mercilessly ripped away from their parents and kept in cages. Taunting the leader of North Korea. Rolling back environmental protections and industry regulations. Diminishing the severity of the pandemic. I could go on, certainly. But the intensity of media coverage of Trump remained the same whether they were addressing a major event or a flippant comment.

Are there things Trump has done while president that are worthy of prosecution? I’m no legal scholar, but I’d guess probably. But while it might be cathartic for us to attempt to hold him accountable from a legal standpoint, it is likely this attempt will backfire spectacularly.

Trump has reveled in every moment of our attention. He feeds on it. He has also used it to his advantage. He has used it to position himself as an outsider, a maverick, the only one with the power to clean up Washington. Of course the media attacks him; he does things differently. The media doesn’t like him and Washington doesn’t like him, because he doesn’t work for them, he works for “us”. Disagree with this narrative all you like (I know I certainly do), but his people are fervent believers. And if we allow it, he will use our continued focus on him over the next few years to keep his candidacy alive for 2024.

The bottom line is that the attention from a loud and noisy prosecution will continue to bolster Trump and his supporters. It will give him the momentum he needs to keep his cause alive. As mentioned by others smarter than I am, it’s a win-win situation for him. If he loses, he becomes a martyr to his people, deepening the already cavernous political divide in our country. If he beats the rap (far more likely, in my opinion), he’ll take his victory lap all the way back into the oval office in 2024.

I am tired of this man. I don’t want to hear or think about him anymore, and I certainly don’t want to have to deal with him running for president again in 2024, or god forbid, winning. A presidential pardon from Biden might just be only the way to suck some of the wind out of Trump’s sails. Having been pardoned, there’s no one and nothing left for him to fight against, and nothing left for the media to focus on. After a presidential pardon, whenever Trump farts, we will no longer have to hear about it. He will finally be farting alone.

Kids and Screens

There, I said it. Now, breathe.

Everyone has an opinion about children and screen-time and there appear to be two distinct camps. On the one side is people like my sister, who is more draconian about limiting her kids’ screen time than she is about limiting their sugar. Similarly, one of my close friends believes her kids are addicted to YouTube and has cautioned me not to even let my daughter know that screens exist for as long as possible. On the other side of the spectrum are friends who think it’s unrealistic to try to restrict kids from having screens. These are the ones whose kids have each had their own tablets from the moment they had the manual dexterity to hold one.

I find myself in between these two extremes. Screens are a prominent and unavoidable feature of the world we live in. If you want to prevent your kids from using screens, you’d better be prepared to give them all up yourself too (along with any activity that requires them, like, say, your job). And then there’s also the rude awakening that might slap your kids in the face when one day, as young adults and free from the tyranny of your restrictions, they discover the simultaneous wonder and horror of what these devices and services can offer, yet are completely unprepared and untrained for how to incorporate them into their lives in a healthy manner (perhaps an extreme scenario, I’ll admit, but I think the underlying principle is still valid).

On the other hand, screens can absolutely be addictive. There’s little doubt that the services we use screens to access, like YouTube, Netflix, and pretty much all social media, operate according to a business model in which their success is dependent upon our continued engagement. So letting young kids, whose self-discipline muscles are a bit underdeveloped (to say the least) engage with these devices and services without any limits at all may not be the best idea either.

Instead, I believe that kids need to be taught how to incorporate screens into their lives like so many other wonderful things – in moderation. And that’s the philosophy under which my husband and I have been operating. Ultimately, we believe it will yield better results, but, as we’re now learning, it’s really difficult to put into practice.

Our daughter is now a two-nager, and, as I’ve mentioned in the past, is utterly obsessed with electronic devices. Not all screens, mind you– half the time she could care less about the television, even if it’s playing Sesame Street on a perpetual loop. No, phones and tablets are her thing. She loves tap, tap, tapping at screens and making something happen. Until recently, the worst outcomes of her aimless tapping were rather mild, like taking multiple pictures of the many boogers up her nose, changing the display language to Chinese and ordering a 5-quart bottle of motor oil with an automatic subscription. No biggie, right?

But as she has gotten older, she has also realized that a device could give her more than just the satisfaction of making the pictures on the screen move and change. Now, thanks to my dad, she has now discovered that phones can play videos. Videos of animated characters singing songs about eating vegetables and monkeys falling out of bed.

At first, I didn’t mind her watching these videos with my dad, since he is mobility challenged and can’t really run around after an energetic toddler. In fact, my husband and I soon came to see the value of having a tablet available to her when we needed to be doing other things. It’s reassuring to know that while I’m cooking dinner and he’s working in his office, our curious two year old will be securely focused on her videos, and not climbing up a bookcase or throwing blunt objects at the television.

But then, of course, there inevitably comes the moment when I have to take the device away from her. Maybe it’s dinner time, or naptime, or maybe I simply decide it’s time she moved around a bit so she doesn’t get stuck in that head-down, folded-over position permanently (I do care, after all). Whatever the reason, this is the moment when my toddler turns into a fire-breathing monster, like Jack-Jack in The Incredibles. And this is also the moment that we realize why there are people who fear letting their kids use screens.

Having had a significant amount of childcare experience AND being an expert in media and communications, I still think that kids can develop a healthy relationship with screens, even ones as young as my daughter. That being said, however, I don’t have any specific advice one way or the other at the moment, as this is still a process we are figuring out. Sometimes our toddler will give up the tablet on her own. She just gets bored with it or is tired of sitting around. Other times, we have to pry it from her tightly clenched fingers. And her reaction can vary from crying for two minutes and then getting over it to eardrum-shattering screaming for what seems like hours.

One thing of which I have no doubt, however, is that we will get there. We will figure out a routine and/or a strategy that will work for her and she will be able to successfully manage herself in the screen-dependent society she was born into.

Whether we will be able to stay sane until that happens remains to be seen.

A New Direction

I’ve spent the last several months suspended in a miasma of uncertainty. After coming to the realization that my dream to go into academia was no longer an option (at least not at the moment), I suddenly found myself directionless and confused. I want a career, but at the very least, I need a job.

Of course, when you’ve spent the last ten years focused on following a very specific career path (finish dissertation, get degree, get job at college or university), an unexpected left turn like this can really be unsettling. But facing the brick wall dropped in the middle of my path, I’ve accepted that I’ve got to execute a major redirect.

But the big question is, which way should I go?

I still haven’t been able to figure out an answer to this question that I’m comfortable with. When I have told people I’m looking for work, the first question they always ask is: “oh, what are you looking to do?” My first instinct has been to say, “anything that someone will pay me to do.”

This is obviously a terrible answer, especially since it isn’t entirely true. In theory, that could mean I’m open to a job as a cashier at a grocery store or McDonalds. Or as a furniture salesperson. Or a receptionist at a doctor’s office. Or a prostitute.

But I’ve also learned that it’s a horrible way to answer the question because it’s way too broad. Part of my initial logic behind the “I’ll do anything” reaction is because I don’t want to cut myself off from any opportunities. It’s possible that someone might say something that I might never have thought about yet could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to me. But even as I put that thought into writing, I realize that there are far too many variables that would need to align just so in order for that outcome to be even remotely likely.

A couple of weeks ago I heard a report on the radio that drove this point home. When I take my daughter to daycare, I listen to the local CBS news station, and usually around the time we’re in the car, Steven Greenberg has a segment called Your Next Job. In his July 15^th report, he talked about how most job seekers are afraid to define their specific skills and career objectives because doing so could limit the range of opportunities that others might offer to them. But Greenberg argues that “carefully describing your skillset can be enormously powerful” and can make your networking efforts far more productive. As he pointed out, most employers aren’t saying “I wish we could just find someone who will do anything.” Hearing this really made something click in my brain.

So I’ve got to narrow things down, and the first step to doing this is enumerating my credentials, skills and abilities (this probably will also help my confidence, according to my therapist, but we shall see).

First of all, I’m highly educated. I have earned three academic degrees, two of them advanced and all of them related to various forms of communication. During the last almost two decades of my life, I have been engaged in schooling of some sort. From this work I have developed a range of skills, including conducting formal social scientific research, and writing and editing large manuscripts (mostly of my own work).

The bulk of my practical work experience is in teaching, which also exercised my skills in writing, editing, and more generalized research (i.e., Google), but also helped me become rather comfortable with public speaking.

The big problem with this exercise, of course, is that every time I try (including the above attempt), I end up with a list of skills and abilities that are really best suited for a life in academia. I struggle to translate this list into something fit for the world outside a college or university.

But I’ll keep working at it. There has to be more to me than this.

Pivoting

I am a doctor.

No, not that kind of doctor. A far less practical, far more useless kind of doctor. This past December, I successfully defended my dissertation and completed the requirements for a doctorate in communications.

The good news: I am no longer a student. I’ve been a student for years and years and years and now it’s over! I’m one step closer to being an adult. Celebrations! Congratulations! Hooray!

Yet in order to become a full-fledged adult, I have to find a job. Which brings us to the bad news: have you seen the state of the economy lately? I mean, at the end of January I went to Denmark to present at an academic conference, planning to start searching for a job when I got back. And I had maybe a few weeks of getting my head together (and I was even able to apply for a couple of jobs) before the Covid bomb exploded here and nearly 20 million Americans suddenly found themselves out of work.

But the truth is, I was facing a major career obstacle even before the pandemic.

My original goal, my dream, the entire reason I embarked on this lengthy (and expensive) academic journey, was to teach full time in a college or a university. I had decided during my last semester of undergrad that I wanted (still want) to continue my personal quest for knowledge and understanding, while also pursuing my love of, and talent for, teaching. I had it all planned out: finish the degree, and trade on my decade-plus of part-time teaching experience to get a full time job teaching at a university, a community college, SOME institute of higher education.

However, a few things happened since I started this journey.

The first is that I had some major changes to my personal situation. I may have started graduate school as a broke, single, 20-something, but I finished it as a close-to-broke, married, 30-something mom-of-a-toddler. The upshot of these changes is that we are tied to the New York metropolitan area for the time being. My husband is doing very well at his job, and can’t simply pick up and move were I to find a position in another part of the country (especially if that position doesn’t make as much as he does currently). Additionally, my parents are very attached to my daughter, and would be devastated if we moved away. So my options for teaching positions are already limited to whatever is available here.

But the bigger issue is that the higher education industry has changed quite a bit over the last fifteen-or-so years since I made the decision to pursue a doctorate. The change most relevant to me has been about their investment in their full-time faculty. By which I mean, they aren’t really doing that anymore. The numbers show that American colleges have cut spending on instruction substantially since the 1980s (meanwhile, neither administration nor athletic departments want for funding, even if it means cannibalizing other university resources, though that is arguably part of a different rant). As a result of a perfect storm of factors, the academic labor market in the United States has, over the last decade, massively shifted to part-time instructors.

I’ve been an adjunct since 2008. The teaching part is great. The rest of it, not so much. Adjuncts are paid very little, anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 (unlikely, but possible, though I never personally made that much) per class, per semester. But (at least in New York and New Jersey), we are limited to teaching two classes at any one given institution, so that the schools can avoid having to legally offer us any benefits. So if an adjunct teaches two classes each semester, plus maybe one course in summer and winter session (because those sessions are compressed, teaching more than one isn’t very realistic anyway), you’re talking an annual income at anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000. A full time teaching position, by contrast, might require teaching a heavier courseload (4 or 5 courses a semester), plus research requirements and other responsibilities, but one would be getting paid considerably more, plus benefits, job security (or at least the potential for it), and a range of other resources that are not offered to adjuncts.

With the industry relying more and more on part-time labor, the competition for full time teaching positions is intense, to say the least. Actually, “intense” doesn’t even accurately capture the situation. Ferocious? Insurmountable? Imagine you’re tasked with threading a needle, but the thread is glued to an anvil which you have to first toss over a fifty foot chasm. And it’s raining. Whatever the word is for that. Bottom line, to even qualify for an interview, a candidate needs to be the demonstrable best of the best in every area (teaching, research, publishing, underwater basket weaving, achieving world peace, etc.).

While it’s true I am an exceptional teacher, and I’ve been told my research is valuable and top-notch, I am lacking in at least one important area: publishing. I haven’t published very much during the last decade, mainly because I spent most of my free time prepping, teaching and grading for courses that I was teaching to make up the shortfall in my budget. And now that I’m no longer a student, I have lost access to most of the  resources I would require to continue my research, or even just to adapt parts of my dissertation into articles fit for publication.

I suppose I could continue being an adjunct. I have no doubt I’d be able to find the work. But the reality is, I genuinely can’t afford to. I didn’t need to get my doctorate in order to be an adjunct. But I did it from the moment I started my doctoral program because I needed the extra income. Unlike many other doctoral students in the United States, I was NOT funded by my university. That means that while many of my colleagues in the program taught a few classes here and there to gain experience for their CV, I needed to for the additional income. This meant that I had significantly less time for publishing.

But, more importantly, not being funded also meant that I still had to pay tuition somehow, which meant turning to student loans. I may not be a medical doctor, but I sure do have student loans like one. If my degree had monetary value, I could buy a house with it. A big one. Yet now that I’ve graduated, repayment is looming just over the horizon. Add to this that I also now have a family to which I need to start contributing financially, and pulling in less than the equivalent of what I could have made right after finishing my B.A. is simply not going to cut it.

My dream may not be dead, but it’s definitely got to be on the shelf for the time being. But I still need a job. The big question is, doing what?

Technology, AAARRRGH!

I am angry so this will be quick and to the point.

So I’m in the midst of job applications. Aside from teaching, the only jobs I am really qualified (on paper, at least) to do are writing gigs (more on that later). But when you’re applying for any position that focuses on writing, all your communications with the employer in question has to be flawless. Perfect grammar, organization and flow. And NO typos. So you can imagine how painstaking I am in the construction of my cover letter, reading and re-reading and editing for hours.

I found this job on the Indeed app a couple of days ago that I felt was a perfect fit for my skills and abilities. This has been a busy week (Jewish holiday and a doctor’s appointment for the baby), so yesterday afternoon was the first opportunity I had to work on the cover letter. Miraculously, I was able to get it finished to my satisfaction in a few hours, and I managed to send it in right before I had to leave to pick up my daughter from daycare.

When she is home with me, I don’t really like to use my phone much. This is because the second she sees it (or an unattended remote control) she drops whatever she is doing and zooms her little diapered butt over as fast as her crawling legs and arms can carry her. So suffice it to say, I didn’t look at my phone much last night. Fast forward to this morning, and I saw that I got a message from the company on the Indeed app.

“So fast?” I thought, amazed but terrified, feeling quite like a defendant when the jury comes back with a verdict after only an hour of deliberation. I opened the message (let me tell you, it’s not easy to do this with your eyes closed and fingers crossed). Plucking up my courage, I finally read it, and it’s a message telling me that I’m not a good fit for the position. I was disappointed, but ok. I’ve been told one has to get used to disappointment in the job search process.

I decided that the professional thing to do was to respond to the message, thanking them for simply letting me know, since most employers just ghost you. It’s common to be left dangling, counting the days until you finally realize they’re just not that into you. So when someone takes the time to let you know you don’t have to wait for their call, it might suck a little, but just knowing is still a relief. And I thought that this deserved reciprocation, and who knows, maybe they might reconsider at some point in the future and remember that I was polite enough to respond to their rejection (It might be a fantasy, yeah, but it’s all I’ve got.)

So I was composing a quick reply, but of course, being me, I had to edit and re-edit even just these two sentences. And as I’m in the middle of working on it, the message just sent itself. What?! I panicked. I tried to click and hold the message, maybe I could edit or delete it? No such luck. Should I write another message, explaining what happened? No, that’s too much. I don’t know these people. They are rejecting me. Trying to justify myself here just seemed excessive and desperate. Or excessively desperate.

I’m angry at Indeed, for having a messaging application that has such a sensitive “send” button that activates the second a finger brushes near it. And, since the likelihood of sending messages accidentally is so high with such a feature, it’s amazing to me that the app doesn’t allow for the editing or deleting of messages once they are sent. But I’m also a little angry at myself, for constantly second-guessing my own abilities.

So now I’ve got this half-edited message just sitting there, looking like something you’d find in a suspicious email. I’ve convinced myself that this company clearly thinks I didn’t actually write the personal statement I sent, because I clearly can’t write well in English. So even if my fantasy does come true, and they decide to take a second look at me, what they will no doubt recall is that disastrous message, which suggests that I can’t write two sentences without fucking it up.

It’s A New Day

Is anyone still out there?

It’s okay if you’re not. I don’t really expect anyone to be out there after months of not posting.

But I do have news: As of last month, I am officially a doctor!

You read that right. I finished my dissertation, passed the defense, and my diploma should be in the mail soon.

Fun story: Some time after hearing the news, my hospital-bound mother in law called me and told me she was feeling dizzy, and what do I think she should do. After a moment where I simply could not figure out why she was telling me this, I offered that maybe she should lie down and call a nurse (cautiously ending my sentence with the upward inflection of a question).

“But what do you think I should do?”

Another beat of my silence, but then it hit me. “I’m not that kind of doctor,” I reminded her.

So…yeah.

What does this mean for you, O (likely non-existent) reader? That I’m back, baby!

via GIPHY

 

My fingers have been itching to write for a long time now, but I haven’t been able to justify the time until recently. Now, all I have to do is take care of my almost-toddler, catch up on 5 years of cleaning, and, oh yeah, look for a job.

So, as you can see, plenty of free time for writing. Stay tuned!

This again…*sigh*

A recent Washington Post article argued that by taking offense to less than perfect analogies between the holocaust and modern-day events, it prevents us from having the legitimate conversations that such analogies intend to provoke. It also argued that requiring such analogies to be perfect also does a disservice to the intent behind the phrase “never again”: if we really meant that we didn’t want the events of the Holocaust to be repeated, we can’t stop people from using it as a comparison, since such comparisons, even imperfect ones, really do allow us to prevent such atrocities from happening in the future.

To some degree, I agree with these points, but I would argue that it is not the imperfection of the comparison that offends me (and perhaps others, though I can only speak for myself). It is the reductive, overly simplified, knee-jerk manner in which it is most commonly employed to which I take offense.

I have made this argument in the past, when conservatives would compare Obama to Hitler, and I am making the same argument now, when liberals compare Trump to Hitler, or compare immigrant detention centers to concentration camps. Analogies to Hitler, Nazis, the Third Reich, or the Holocaust must be nuanced. Not just because we are temporally removed from these events by over half a century, but because they have become more than just components of history. They have since become extremely visceral symbols that immediately and forcefully bring to mind some of the most terrible elements of humanity, including “hatred,” “indifference,” and “dictatorships,” but most of all, “evil.”

It is important for us as a nation to talk about the pros and cons of democratic socialist policies, and also about the dangers of populism predicated on hatred and fear of “the other,” and what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s is a useful comparison, but just calling someone a Nazi or Hitler (Obama in the case of the former and Trump in the case of the latter) doesn’t actually intend to start those conversations. Likewise, it is important for us as a nation to address the deplorable conditions at immigrant detention centers and considering the similarities to actions taken by the Third Reich in the years leading up to the implementation of death camps is an important part of that conversation. But simply calling these places “concentration camps” doesn’t actually serve to start that conversation either.

These are all important conversations, and ones we absolutely need to have as a nation. The problem is, those making comparisons to Hitler and concentration camps are not actually interested in provoking the conversations we desperately need to happen. Conversations are long and boring, and voters are too likely to lose interest and passion over the time it takes to have them. No, the people making these comparisons are doing it to win political points. These reductive comparisons do precisely what they are intended to do: make people outraged. Because outraged people take action, and most importantly, vote. Politicians and pundits are trading on the evilness automatically invoked by these terms to make their opposition appear indefensible. Because what outraged people DON’T do, coincidentally, is listen to one another, which is essential in a fruitful conversation. “This person is Hitler! If you disagree, even a little bit, for any reason, then you are defending Hitler! What kind of human being are you!?” If politicians, pundits and policymakers weren’t using a horrifying and tragic historical event as an easily accessible method of political ammunition, they wouldn’t punctuate their comparisons with the implication that if you don’t automatically agree (and react with the appropriate level of outrage, of course) that x event is like the Holocaust, or person y is like Hitler, then you have no soul or humanity.

THAT is what demeans the memory of the Holocaust. Not only does this behavior NOT help solve our problems, but it will prevent us in the future from actually making sure that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again.

Don’t Subtract; Add

I have stayed silent on the removal of and proposals to remove statues and names of historical figures from landmarks around the country, New York state, and NYC, among them, Robert E. Lee, Christopher Columbus, and now, Peter Stuyvesant. No doubt these people are controversial today, and, given their actions, rightfully seen as symbols of hate by some.

However, removing these names and statues is only cathartic to us in the short term, and thus short-sighted. In the long term, we prevent future generations from remembering WHY the actions and beliefs of these figures were problematic in the first place. By removing them, we are also, at the same time scrubbing their legacy clean, a kindness which they do not deserve. For what do any of them have anymore BUT their legacy?
I would never want the concentration camps in Poland to be destroyed, because then we certainly WOULD forget, and even begin to doubt that the awful events they remind us of ever happened in the first place. Like Auschwitz, these statues and street names represent shameful moments in our history, and that is precisely why we MUST remember them, so as not to repeat the mistakes of our past. 

In reality, we should not be looking to subtract, but instead to add. Don’t remove the statues; add prominently-placed placards detailing their legacies of hate to all who visit them, sparking the conversations we all say are desperately necessary in our country today. 

We should never let ourselves be in danger of forgetting, of letting these figures off the hook for their hateful behaviors and beliefs that ought to define their legacy for all time. 

Follow up: The importance of doing research before speaking is important, and I did not do that this time. I stand by my position not to destroy these statues or remove names, but I have been informed that the proposal seems to have beem moving the statues from their current locations, not destroying them. Moving the statues (along with adding information about why they were moved) is a great idea, since their original locations were often a conscious decison designed to facilitate continued oppression. 

Fantasy Island

As a species, we like order. We are constantly trying to cram everything into boxes with neat little labels, even those things that don’t quite fit. Like other humans. In politics, in particular, we do one of two things. We either stubbornly ignore the multifaceted humanity in all of us and insist that people can be nothing but their overly simplified character, which means ignoring anything and everything that falls outside the lines. Or, we get outraged when naturally complex and perpetually learning and changing beings won’t stay inside the ridiculous Stepford categories we’ve created.
And of course, by “we”, I mean primarily the political news media, their leagues of “analysts” (and other talking heads), and uber-committed political junkies.
There sure is a lot of fantasy and general fiction in something that is supposed to be real life. I’m beginning to understand more and more why most Americans don’t follow politics to the extent academia would like them to.

Respect yourself.

(Note: The following concerns heterosexual relationships, since the focus in this post is on the male-female dynamic)

Rape culture. Misogyny. Entitlement. Respect.

The words have been flying ever since the May 23rd shooting in Santa Barbara, motivated ultimately, according to the Shooter (whose name I refuse to mention here, since doing so will only contribute to his disgusting bid for posthumous notoriety), by a hatred of women for being sexually interested in everyone but him.

At the root of this issue, Arthur Chu argues is that our culture falsely teaches men (and nerds in particular) that sex with beautiful women is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the payoff for all their hard work. And I agree with him. How many ads have we seen where the product being sold is simply a means to get more women (the ads for Axe products being some of the most obvious of these)? And when this prize doesn’t materialize, even when a man has mastered every other challenge, and performed all the correct “courtship” moves he has been taught, he can develop an anger and resentment towards women for rejecting him when he so rightfully deserves their admiration and sexual attentions. This kind of anger kind of makes sense, when you consider its source: to a man thoroughly immersed in the cultural narrative, his needs are paramount, and women are living, breathing objects designed to be possessed, used, and collected, like action figures or sneakers.

This is characteristic of the typical response to violence against women: blame a misogynistic, patriarchal culture where men have no respect for women. However, I don’t know if I can fully agree with this position. When something awful happens in our society, we like to have a specific target to blame, because being able to pinpoint a tangible cause provides a convenient solution for future prevention. Violent media, bad or absent parenting, and neglectful teachers are very popular scapegoats. But so are men (in general) and the “patriarchal” or “misogynistic” society that spawned them.

Violence and sexual abuse against women are some of the most extreme outcomes of the cultural narrative described by Chu, but in most cases, such extreme reactions are the product of a long history of more common, underlying difficulties experienced in male-female relationships and interactions. Any self-help author, entrepreneur, ad executive, screenwriter, personal trainer would agree, successfully linking your product to an increase in romance, sex, or both in the customer’s life means big bucks. In our society, the male-female dynamic is believed to be difficult, if not impossible. Some even go so far as to say men and women are completely different species. If we want to prevent the extreme outcomes, we need to understand the origins of the more benign ones. And this, in my opinion, requires a closer look at the ailing Mars v. Venus dysfunction.

The cultural narrative of being male is definitely a key element of this problem. But ignoring the role of female culture in this situation implies that women are just innocent, disinterested bystanders being subjected to the oppressive desires of the entitled male. This is disingenuous to say the least, because it suggests that, in the natural order of things, the needs or desires of women would prefer to have nothing to do with men or sex. We can argue about why women participate in sexual activity until the end of time, but one thing that we must agree upon is that women are sexual beings. Please note: I’m not suggesting that women deserve to be treated misogynistically (nor would I ever suggest that); rather, I am arguing that the Mars v. Venus dilemma we continue to experience is not only the fault of a misguided patriarchal society.

So the male cultural narrative is one part of our relationship dysfunction. But the female cultural narrative must be explored as well, since it provides the other half of the formula. Far from innocent bystanders, women play a part in the relationship dysfunction we as a society continue to experience. A fulfilling and loving relationship (if not marriage) is our pot of gold. There are a number of ways to reach this pot, but the outcome is always implied to be an experience in which the woman is the center of the man’s life. But this portrayal objectifies men in exactly the same way the cultural narrative from the male perspective objectifies women. The cultural narrative for women teaches that a relationship will give us all that we deserve as women. We deserve to be loved, to be taken care of, to feel appreciated, to be desired, and being in a relationship will provide us with all those things. In this scenario, the woman’s needs are paramount, and a man is nothing more than a living, breathing accessory, albeit a permanent, adoring one.

This actually reminds me of the movie Don Jon (2013). In this really interesting film, the protagonist Jon (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finds sex to be much better when he is alone and watching porn. Even though he gets tons of hot women and has sex a couple times a week, and even when he has a regular girlfriend, he continues to prefer porn and masturbation to sex with a partner. An older woman (Julianne Moore) he meets articulates the argument of the film: that Jon prefers porn to actual sex with a woman because he’s entirely focused on his own needs and desires. His only interest is in what the experience (whether in the flesh or on a screen) can do for him. So of course he gets more pleasure out of porn than real women, since porn is entirely about pleasing the viewer, and consensual sex with a real live person needs to be a give and take situation.

What’s really interesting about this movie is that it doesn’t just take Jon (and, I guess, men in general) to task for his selfish approach to sex, but it also reveals the same selfishness in his girlfriend Barbara’s (Scarlett Johansson) approach to relationships. Jon is obsessed with the high he gets from pornography and is perpetually disappointed when the real thing doesn’t live up to the fantasy. Similarly, Barbara is obsessed with the fantasy of the one-sided relationship depicted in romantic movies. “When a real man loves a woman,” she explains to Jon, “he doesn’t mind doing things for her. All right? He’ll do anything for her.”

Barbara’s character represents all women who subscribe to that familiar “someday my prince will come” fantasy we continue to teach our girls to this day. I actually knew a woman who believed this fairytale wholeheartedly. She was forever single and couldn’t figure out why she couldn’t find “a good man”. In reality, though, I suspect she probably came across lots of good men in her time, but she held them up to a standard that only existed in romance novels and romantic comedies, just like many men hold women up to a cultural standard that exists only in pornography and buddy comedies.

I’ve come across tons of opinions, from women I know, articles geared towards women, and fictional representations in the media, from which I have compiled a (thorough yet not exhaustive) list of characteristics necessary in a “good man” and to lead to a “good relationship”.

A good man:

• takes care of himself (i.e., has a good body, dresses well)
• is capable of taking care of the woman (physically and financially)
• possesses amazing sexual prowess
• is in touch with his emotions
• is self-confident, and always calm, strong, and direct in his behavior
• will take charge in difficult, stressful and/or dangerous situations
• has a variety of interests, including the standard “manly” ones (sports, technology, and/or the great outdoors), but also some conventionally “feminine” ones (i.e., fashion and/or cooking).
• likes children and plans to have a family (and to help take care of the kids once he does).

In a good relationship, a man

• pursues or chases the woman, even if she acts uninterested
• treats the woman like a princess (i.e., anticipates her needs and fulfills them without being asked)
• listens to the woman and is interested in everything she has to say
• does whatever the woman asks, even if it’s difficult and/or involves changing fundamental parts of himself
• wants to spend all his free time with the woman, regardless of the activity
• is forever sexually attracted to the woman no matter how she looks or how he is feeling
• never loses his temper in response to something the woman does, no matter how he is feeling or how severe the transgression
• defends the woman unconditionally from others, even to the point of losing his temper
• is forever loyal and monogamous, even if denied sex and even in the face of temptation
• will always eagerly drop whatever he is doing to be available whenever the woman requires, even if he is doing something “important”
• is always honest and never lies to the woman (though lying to others doesn’t seem to be a problem)

The first problem, of course, is that the perfect man and perfect relationship don’t actually exist. I’ve only listed a few characteristics here, but many woman have lists that are even more comprehensive (and even less realistic) than mine, and refuse to compromise. I’m not arguing that these qualities don’t exist or that women should dispense with standards altogether. Some of these qualities are important and attainable. But there some that contradict one another (a man should be strong and confident in himself, but also willing to completely change if the woman asks), so they cannot coexist in the same individual, and others that sound nice in theory, but in practice create monsters out of men (a man pursues the woman even when she acts uninterested), and even others that only exist in fictitious characters, and not actual humans (a man who NEVER gets upset at the woman, regardless of what she has done? Let me know when that one comes on the market).

But more important is the absence of the role of the woman in such visions of the ideal relationship. If you look at the ideals presented to men about women and relationships depicted in traditional media, and of course, porn, you’ll find (as Chu did) that according to the cultural narrative, the man does not need to do anything in order to expect these things from women and/or relationships with women. Similarly, none of these ideals listed above explore the role of the woman either, implying the exact same thing: that she does not need to do anything in order to expect these things from a man or a relationship. Such ideals in both gender narratives ignore the fact that a real relationship is something that is constructed out of the efforts made by two individuals, not a set of benefits to which participants are entitled.

And that sense of entitlement is exactly the problem. Chu hit the nail on the head right from the start (the word “entitlement” is even in the title of his post). But what he doesn’t discuss (and what very few people seem to even acknowledge) is that this sense of entitlement is found among women as well.

The Santa Barbara shooting may have spawned discussions about respect for women, and it is very important that we have them. However, if we truly wish to address the larger picture of this situation, in my opinion, we must go deeper. A prevalence of misogyny or an absence of respect for women might be a primary cause of violence against women and sexual assault, but the misguided and self-centered cultural narratives surrounding male-female relationships are the original, and very potent, sources underlying these feelings. They teach men and women alike that the objective of relationships is in what the other person can do for you, what they can give you, how they treat you. The other person only matters insofar as their contribution enhances your life.

But that’s the American way, isn’t it? The individual is paramount. Now, please don’t take that statement to mean that I am against individuality as a social concept, because that is not the case at all. But life requires balance and moderation in all things, and personal relationships are no exception. It’s no wonder so many of us can’t make relationships work when we’re taught to entirely focus on ourselves, and that relationships are all about US. But self-centeredness cannot engender love, nor can it sustain love. It is impossible to truly care about someone who cares only for him/herself (unless you have convinced yourself that one day, your feelings will be returned and your efforts rewarded. Sadly, this outcome only happens in the movies, which leaves a lot of people in the real world discouraged, angry, and bitter). At the end of the day, real love only develops as the result of the dual contributions of both parties to the relationship. It cannot exist as a one-sided emotion, and it is not something to which any of us are entitled (except, perhaps, in the case of parent-child relationships, but even that kind of love can eventually erode if not properly nurtured).

In the same way, respect must also be earned. That is, human beings, whether male or female, deserve to be treated with a certain, basic level of dignity and respect, regardless of whether they are known to you personally. But any higher level of respect once you are acquainted with another person must be earned. Regardless of your gender, being in a sexual relationship with another person doesn’t entitle you to their respect any more than being in a platonic or business relationship does. Your behavior and actions create a feeling of respect in the people around you. Treating your mate like garbage will earn you exactly the same amount of respect as you would by treating an employee, friend, or child like garbage.

I guess my point is that I don’t believe that talking about misogyny and “respect for women” is the only conversation we need to be having. It’s like giving someone morphine to make their pain go away instead of trying to figure out what’s causing it in the first place. I mean, sure, it makes us as a society feel better, feel more progressive and enlightened, but without finding the root of the problem, the disease will remain.