Berger Institute Blogger Brittany Woods ’17 is graduating early and currently juggling multiple jobs in addition to being a full-time student at CMC. Also: she’s married! Check out the video – our third installment – to hear about how she makes it all work.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrKA6Jb-niU&w=560&h=315]
As one of the few married students on campus, a lot of my friends ask me what marriage is like. My generic, and honest, response is usually this: it’s like living with your best friend: 90% of the time it’s super cool, and 10% of the time it’s either trying not to kill them because they did something that made you unreasonably mad or just needing a second to yourself. After a year of explaining it this way, I’ve given it a bit more thought and the result is the following proposition: marriage is first and foremost just a relationship.
I know what you’re thinking… of course marriage is a relationship. And yes, I know. But what I mean is that the mechanisms of maintaining a marriage are the same as maintaining a friendship with a family member or loved one.
It takes effort, it’s not always fun, there will be disagreements, and there will be bad days.
It takes compromise, trust, communication, and a mutual desire to maintain the relationship.
It is the most beautiful part of your life, and the most painful.
Relationships are multifaceted, tenuous structures predicated on history, emotions, and external factors like distance, stressors on individuals, and circumstance. Most simply put, they are the result of two individuals’ consistent decisions to make room and time for each other. And if you love each other, the effort it worth it.
The point is this: romantic relationships take on dimensions and depth that most relationships don’t. The nuances of having a significant other come from trying to maintain different types of relationships with one person. They are your friend, your family, your lover, your team mate, and everything in between. That’s a lot of dynamics and trying to balance them all makes the relationship more dynamic than others. So much so that it’s easy to forget that marriage (and other forms of dating) is in the simplest explanation just a relationship. And remembering that makes it a lot easier to manage, refine, and sustain.
After 9/11, the American public lived in constant fear of another attack. Many believed that future terrorism was imminent, and that threats to American soil were going to be severe and frequent. I imagine the people of France felt similarly following the attacks in November of last year. For Western countries, whose military dominance, institutionally secured influence, and alliance largely provide safety, attacks by small pockets of international extremists are destabilizing and debilitating. Right?
Wrong. After 9/11, the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, one attack was used to start multiple wars that have caused more deaths to innocent civilians in multiple Middle Eastern countries than were lost in the attacks. The deadliest attack on U.S. soil, with over three thousand dead and wounded, incited reactionary, rash policy that haunts us fifteen years later. And that’s why terrorism is an effective weapon against Western countries: because we respond. It sounds harsh, and I am in no way discrediting those who lost their lives on that day of great loss for our nation. But on paper, the loss of life does not justify the massive response. Significantly more people died in 2001 from Alzheimer’s, suicide, or HIV.
Terrorism is used against large countries whose conventional forces cannot be challenged because these are the countries whose reputation in the community will be questioned if they fail to respond to an attack on their homeland. This is why ISIS, whose threat to the United States is limited and whose resources and recruiting are exaggerated by the media, keeps coming up in the news and in election coverage. These groups want to send a message to large Western countries whose values they perceive as imperialist, superficial, and corrupt. And because even small attacks promote national outcry and international recognition, these groups use terrorism as a tool to foster support, build their reputation, and challenge the “big players” at a relatively low cost to themselves.
Disappointment awaited all who tuned in to watch the first two presidential debates. Both candidates dodged questions, instead using their two-minute segments to attack each other and bring up clearly practiced talking points. Instead of digging into policy positions, Clinton and Trump presented shallow, soundbite-adaptable comments about their plans. They attacked each other on the basis of character, temperament, and career history, all while maintaining the divisive, aggressive posturing this election has characterized this election cycle.
Beyond who voters will choose to elect next month, the nature of this election brings up serious questions about the media, democracy, and the nation.
The Media
Since RNC and DNC nominated Trump and Clinton, there have been scandals, missteps, and lies from both presidential candidates. Although the distribution of these events has not been even, it has allowed the media to control voters’ access to information about candidates. News networks do not provide comprehensive overviews of policy platforms. They do not provide untainted records of Hillary’s career, or of Trump’s business transactions. They grab on to the nastiest rumors and the simplest of missteps, painting each candidate as a veritable ally of Satan himself. And while the candidates consistently inspire revelations that lend themselves to sensationalization, the bias from both sides of the ideological spectrum serves to further polarize people’s preexisting ideologies with quasi-truths posted on social media, online newspapers, and on television. The lack of integrity and objectivity has done nothing to inform voters struggling with an important decision and less than ideal options, or initiate informed conversations about policy.
Democracy
Democracy in America has always been grounded in the idea of participation. While the early eras of America barred access to political participation for many groups, including women and minorities, , equal rights have been expanded over time, allowing most citizens the opportunity to vote and engage in other civic duties. Yet those versed in civics, government, elections, and policy consistently provide evidence that the American public struggles with understanding issues, fails to vote consistently, and lacks a basic understanding of how the U.S. government works. When the media presents superficial criticisms or endorsements, voters adopt and internalize these overly biased perspectives, participation becomes arbitrary. When people are not informed, but vote based on Facebook articles, memes, comedy TV shows, and skewed broadcasting, voters can validate their own biases and point to sources like CNN and Fox that used to be credible. Instead of checking multiple sources, international news outlets, and academic writing, people share a questionably cited article posted on a shady website. Without looking into the issues, people go to vote on superficial understandings of policy platforms and propaganda based opinions.
The Nation
Many look at Trump and Clinton and fail to understand how either ended up as a presidential nominee. Trump’s problem is a lack of qualifications, consistently bigoted/racist rhetoric and generally poor presentation of policy. Clinton comes off to many as a cold, corrupt career politician with a cheating husband and a campaign characterized by defending two concepts: emails and Benghazi. With two candidates so aggressively opposed by the public, many have started questioning the state of our nation. Religious zealots claim that the end time must be near, foreign policy experts fear how the instability of the election will affect our international relationships. If half of the country is willing to support a seemingly xenophobic demagogue and the other half supports an alleged liar in regards to potential felony offenses, what does that say about our government and our citizens? Instead of ideological discourse and intellectually based disagreements, we see character attacks and grandstanding. This is concerning.
When Donald Trump claims he will “make America great again” and Hillary Clinton says “we are great because we are good,” it falls flat. This election cycle indicates that we need to reevaluate how Americans get their information, what students are taught about civil discourse, and what kind of people we want in charge of representing our nation.
This election has been more spectacle than substance, and neither candidate will suffer greatly – in terms of status, finances, or opportunity – in the event of a loss. Yet the outcome of the election will affect the American people and the status of the United States as an international actor for years to come. And that’s a concerning proposition.
At the breakfast table, my father launches into trivia concerning Indian Classical Music, American politics, and World News. My sister and I fumble for answers, my mother holds herself back from revealing them, my grandma reminiscences of life 30 years ago, and my 11-year-old dog searches for scraps of food under the table. Missing breakfast or dinner is a cardinal sin. Even on weekends, my sister and I are hauled out of bed to the breakfast table at 8:00 a.m.
Eating family meals is more than just a tradition. It’s something that I had assumed commonplace for most families . But upon closer inspection and many sleepovers with friends, I realized that not all families place as much of an emphasis on family meals as my parents did.
I was obliviously lucky.
A recent article in the Washing Post strongly advocates the need for family meals, for a variety of reasons:
My favorite memories have been made on the dining table, whether they involved distressing about impending exams, solving crosswords, or discussing the decline in pop music with my father. It has always provided warmth, support, bonding, and intellectual stimulation for me.
For most families, eating all three meals together is unrealistic, given work and school commitments. But creating a schedule that incorporates one meal together- to sit down, de-stress, and engage with one another – is not an impossible feat, and certainly worth it.
