The Friedman Reality of Corn

I am going to preface this by stating that I have little background knowledge in economics. So, that being said, please help me out and correct me if I am misunderstanding something from our (mini-crash-course) readings.

Based on what we’ve read from The Omnivore’s Dilemma (TOD), the economics of this industry more closely resembles the issues explored by Milton Friedman in “Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor” than the Keynesian view of economics. Much of what we read in TOD focuses on the over-production of corn and the government’s role in fixed prices. There were many instances in the Friedman reading that touched on this topic. For example, the “arbitrary limitations on the ability of individuals to enter into voluntary exchanges with one another …. simultaneously restrict freedom and promote the waste of resources” (127), is exactly what TOD demonstrates when stating that fixing the price of corn causes farmers to produce more and more in order to feed their families. With this excess of corn, another of Friedman’s arguments come in to play: social responsibility. “One responsibility of business [is] to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (133): enter HFCS and the ubiquitous corn byproducts. These results are almost exactly as described in Friedman’s article.

One could argue that the use of corn in just about everything allows for the circulation of profits as described in Keynes’ article, that the use of corn in just about everything creates more opportunities for consumerism. I mean, who hasn’t bought several different cereals just because your usual would get boring morning after morning? According to Keynes, this is supposed to stimulate the economic growth of everyone in the chain of events. However, this is clearly not happening if the farmers whose products are being used in everything from Twinkies to fuel are unable to thrive.

BACKGROUND REPORT: Economics plays a crucial role in shaping the reality in which we live

Economics plays a crucial role in shaping the reality in which we live. As people as well as businesses rely on money to survive, this also can dictate how much money is being spent by an individual and a business. From the business side prices are created depending on many factors such as the price it costs the business to be able to supply a product as well as the actual price of the product for the business. This will dictate how much a product will be sold for and potentially the quantity that is sold of that product. The demand for a product also factors into how much will be sold, and the price. This is definitely the case when it comes to food and the ingredients that are used for food. For farmers especially, what is in demand to make a food product is what is in the best interest for a farmer to produce as he/she will know that their product will be bought because of the demand for it. On the consumer side, we see less of the actual production of products as when it comes to purchasing a product the pleasure of that which the product brings to the consumer is what is sought. This dictates our reality as we simply buy or receive the whole product without often knowing where it came from or who actually made it. Are the tomatoes from Mexico or Iowa? Was the t-shirt made in China in a sweat shop or in a factory in the U.S.? Was it produced ethically? Most of the time these questions may be hard to answer or are simply not thought about or sought out. This can make for cheap products not only for the customer but also for the business to create cheaply while making a large profit. But if a product is cheap, it is going to be sold by a larger quantity because of it’s affordability to a large number of people.

One case study that can be used to understand HOW economics has and does influence our reality is by studying the concept and application behind agricultural subsidies. Subsides have existed for decades and act as a price support mechanism and protection for farmers. Subsides will influence supply and demand, manage supply issues, and supplement farmers’ incomes. Subsides showcase how economics effects reality based on the implications and supply issues that are generated from subsidies. Below are two graphs that show a supply and demand curve, with before and after a subsidy is introduced.

*WITHOUT: The blue curve represents the supply of a given commodity for a given farm. The red line represents the demand for the given commodity. Where those two points intersect is called the “equilibrium point” which shows the amount and price a commodity will be produced and sold for.

*WITH: The new blue curve is the supply curve with the added subsidy/ incentive. This pushes the supply curve outward. Assuming demand remains the same, there is a new price and a new quality of the commodity being produced.


As you can see in the second diagram with a subsidy, the farmers will plant MORE of that given crop based on the amount they can get in return. This action will INCREASE the supply, and assuming demand stays the same, will result in more of a given product at a cheaper price. This influences and molds our reality based on what that excess corn (now at a cheaper price) can be used towards. Excess, cheap corn can be sold to more ethanol refineries to produce more bio-fuels, produce more High Fructose Corn Syrup, corn-based animal feeds, and more. All of these implications are caused by economics shaping our reality through the usage of subsides.
Another example is cotton subsidies in west Texas.

West Texas is an extremely dry place and does not make an ideal home to most agricultural products. However, the cotton industry has adapted to this climate and produces a lot of cotton in this region. One of the main reasons why they continue to grow there, even though it is less than ideal conditions, is because of cotton subsidies. This cotton will be harvested throughout the summer and trucked down to New Orleans where it is then boarded on a ship destined for China. China will then transform that cotton into t-shirts which is then shipped back to America and our favorite apparel stores. All of this fits into the consumerism and consumption culture that is America. Within these subsidy stories exists another example of how economics shapes reality. US Congressional members who call these regions home (areas with subsidies) are unlikely to support laws that would reduce these payments. They understand that doing so would reduce support and they would most likely find themselves out of office. Economics can and does affect how politicians vote on a given bill even if it strays from party lines. (However, some presidential candidates in Iowa did not support them based on “getting government spending under control” and not to allow free market principles to take their place)

There is no doubt these subsides shape reality and influence our daily lives. There is a very strong connection to the political realm, and in turn this can influence:

• Trade which in turn dictates a certain availability of goods and the price of those goods
• Relations with other nations
• Politicians, who pass certain bills and laws
• What we see on the shelves at the places we shop
• Our food! Corn-fed beef, High Fructose Corn Syrup, everything having to do with corn!
• Monetary realities (wages vs. price paid for goods)

These are just a few examples of how subsidies can affect reality. So in this sense, economics is a very real thing.

Friedman is the man

Economics has never been something I am in to. It's confusing, highly political, and is entirely based on people's biased opinions- three things I don't like. But since I have to choose a "side", I would say that neoclassical economics best describes the reality (?) that we live in. The way that that the ag business has evolved and changed over many, many years definitely does not go unnoticed, but I think a key thing that some don't realize is that corn has been changing since the first plant was in the ground, it is just recently that it has changed at a much faster rate, and that is what gets so scrutinized. Corn how it existed in that first plant simply does not exist any more. Additionally, the ag industry is driven by money, but what industry isn't? People want to do whatever they can to maximize profits in any job, and as a farmer, if that means planting more corn, so be it. With a free market directly dealing with supply and demand, today we rely on just that. Corn is being demanded at a very high rate, not just by the ag industry, but many other industries as well, largely including manufacturing. To me, its a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the supply of corn lead to corn in more of our products, or did the demand for corn-based products lead to an increase in supply? Prices (and markets in general) are constantly fluctuating based on supply and demand. Once farmers decide how to "play the game" or sell their grain, that leads to other price changes. The industry revolves around money and prices, which, in turn revolves around supply and demand, shaping our economic paradigm today. Government intervention in the past helped the ag industry during a stinch, but the money that farmers receive today as a subsidy from the government is minuscule and does not affect farmers nearly as much as it did when the farm bills were first presented. Not only would more government intervention and control be ineffective,  but with such a large industry, it would be unrealistic. Keynesian economics worked when he was alive but with such advancements in the industry and sharp decrease in the number of farmers around the country, his policies simply do not describe the economy today.

When Friedman discusses competition in the beginning of the article, I think it sums up his views vs. Keynes views. Social responsibility plays a large role in this. On page 135 he says, "Governments ask for the self-restraint of business and labor because of their inability to manage their own affairs- which includes the control of money- and the natural human tendency to pass the buck". This to me shows that more government intervention would put one more issue on the governments' already full plate.

Freedom fries? Don't you mean *Friedman* fries?

     In directly mimicking the wording of Ben’s question, I hope to make my stance crystal clear for readers:  based on what we’ve read of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, it’s clear that a neoclassical/neoliberal (indeed, that school of thought extolling the virtues of Milton Friedman) better describes the “reality” of the contemporary U.S. industrial food economy.  

     Friedman preached the innumerable values of a free market—a system of economics advocating little to no intervention.  Although one may point to the plethora of hubbub occurring in Washington as 'classic Keynesian,' most of the activity occurring aims to repress further activity.  How?  Specially placed lobbyists with one goal in mind:  a free market (that is, an economic system which caters to their organization's interests).  Indeed, the majority of lobbyist strategy lies in hushing bills centered on bettering the health of citizens and letting consumers choose what’s ‘right for them’ (and what good conservative doesn't love the ability to choose?). 

Here's an exercise: picture the typical lobbyist—he/she probably represents organizations such as Monsanto (which Pollan—among other sources—are fond of investigating) or The American Beef Council (after all, “Life is good at the top of the food chain”).  And rest assured, they’ll vie for their interests (oh, rest assured), but they may also appeal to legislators by begging to give consumers the choice he/she deserves, not just as an American, but as a human being.  Why?  Because, in the end, you don't need a college degree to know that the tastiest food around is the stuff that you’re not ‘supposed’ to be eating.  

     Friedman’s belief of an essentially negative correlation between price inflation and supply of money can be seen in the millions upon millions of consumers entering McDonald’s every day—such a consistently high demand has forced the price of a burger down to a bare minimum.  As a result, the poor/less well-to-do of society are more apt to feast on junk food rather than the fresh produce they need—further perpetuating a system which widens an already large income gap.

Keynesian is the answer

The Keynesian economic theory is based on a circular flow of money. Unlike the neoclassical/neoliberal positions, the Keynesian theory supports policies that regulate the money flow in the market. The regulations and policies minimize monopolies, fraud and maximize secure trading. Looking back at the "Great Depression" we will see that Keynesian economy is what got us out of the problem by encouraging people to spend money and keeping the circular flow of money going to restore jobs, help businesses survive and the ability to provide consumer demands.

The Keynesian theory also supports the redistribution of wealth. Keynesian economics believe that massive redistribution of wealth promotes economy. When the money is given to the poorer sector of society, they are more likely to spend it to fulfill their needs than save it. This act promotes economy due to the increase of money in the circular flow.

On the other hand, neoclassical theory promotes free market with minimal regulations. It depends merely on the business agents to make the right decisions. Therefore, the fluctuations and changes can lead to economic instability and crises.

Pollan described in his book how McDonald's offer food that does not really taste like food. His cheeseburger that does not taste anything like beef or the McNuggets that has nothing to do with chicken. Yet, these items have high consumer demands and brings the seller millions of dollars daily. This is an example of neoclassicism where the wealthy become wealthier by providing low quality products (and usually after a while the quality gets poorer and the prices get higher!) for the average/low income people to keep consuming.

After reading about both economic theories, I strongly side with the Keynesian theory because it does not leave it 100% up to the business agents and the free market idea to make up our economy, but instead it promotes the importance of monitoring, and guiding the appropriate public policies to ensure financial stability. 

Reality is Keynesian

Keynesian economics, when applied to agriculture, is the most realistic and relevant framework for how our society functions. It is ridiculous to argue that the economy and business is regulated primarily on supply and demand, for there are so many government manipulations and control of the agricultural sector that determine the economic cycle. The existence of subsidies, taxes and other regulatory factors indicates the usage of Keynesian economics in modern business culture. This theory applies to the agriculture sector strongly. Omnivores Dilemma outlines this, giving solid examples of the problems that arise when neoliberalism is the attitude applied toward economics. It creates serious problems for farmers, consumers and the environment, while only benefitting the corporations that maintain their control of the markets. Agricultural business (namely in the United States) is also not limited to a supply and demand framework. An example is the current dairy production in the U.S. Milk is being overproduced, with much of the product being thrown away when consumers do not purchase it in high enough volume. http://www.nyfoodmuseum.org/milk/a_real_showdown.php outlines this problem, how milk prices are not falling with the overproduction, and the production is not based on the current demand.

The United States is known for having a more laissez-faire approach to economics, but it is ridiculous to assert that there is no regulation in our economy, including the economic sector. It is a reality that corporations involved in food production have various standards, taxes and other regulatory efforts that they have to follow, all with good reason and importance for protection of consumers and farmers. Without it, our food would be a much lower quality and likely plagued with dangerous additives. In the early 2000's, a manufacturer of baby formula and dog food in China were discovered to have been adding melamine to their food products, a chemical that falsely inflates the protein reading of a food product, thus making it more marketable. They faced serious consequences when this addition was discovered, as it made thousands of babies who consumed the formula with melamine very ill and kill some dogs who had it added to their dog food. Without government intervention and regulatory standards, corporations in the United States would do the exact same thing. Food, which is an essential for survival of humans, is seen as merely an opportunity for profit by big corporations. Government regulation is also essential for protection of the environment and the farmers. Monsanto has made many farmers lives a living hell to deal with their various patents on seeds and other products, but they lack a monopoly on the market (which I am sure they would have no opposition to having) due to government regulation.

Neoliberalism is a concept that would be ideal provided that greed did not exist. Regulation would not be a necessary evil if corporations did not need to be controlled and maintained to avoid their greed from spiraling out of control. While in omnivores dilemma, this seems to be the assertion of what is actually going on, it is important to recognize that government influence does exist and has minimized some of the impacts of corporate greed in the agricultural industry. In Omnivore's Dilemma, this issue is outlined by the fact that corporations (i.e. McDonald's) are willing to lower their standards as much as possible to maintain maximum profits, putting money over their customers. Without Keynesian ideals being implemented, this would be the norm and all consumers would suffer greatly at the hands of the corporations.

Corny Neoclassical Economics

Agriculture is the backbone of the U.S. industrial food economy. The economics of agribusiness, however, can be difficult to grasp. As agriculture has evolved and changed the economic practices governing all the aspects of the industry have changed as well. Although agribusiness draws on certain aspects of both Keynesian and neoclassical economics and adapts them as needed, the U.S. industrial food economy resides and flourishes (depending on where you’re seated) in the neoclassical economic reality.

            The industry started out with independent farmers growing and selling the revolutionary crop, corn. They were in sole control of every aspect of corn production, though that process was simpler than it is today. Neoclassical economics is based on low restriction in the free market and a certain amount of deregulation. Supply and demand are the most influential factors in neoclassical economics, as well as in the corn industry. This is evident in the dramatic increase in grain prices during 1972 when Butz sold copious amounts of corn to Russia. This decision eventually forced farmers to grow excess corn because of subsidies from the government increasing supply, without a necessarily high demand, making the price and potential of grain uncapped.

 Other key elements of neoclassical economics are present in the corn industry. The many stages corn goes through, industry to plate, all possess different free market attributes. The ethanol fueling the vehicles transporting the corn to the massive feedlots where all of America’s beef and chicken ingest the golden grain. As Friedman says, government enforcement of what he calls “cartels” (I think they can be thought of as each part of the agribusiness process for our case) can perpetuate monopolies on the industry. I definitely agree that the government has made the corn industry easily susceptible to monopolies. The USDA has its fingers in all aspects of the food economy ranging from dealing with farmers to ensuring that the feedlots use corn. However, despite these monopolizing forces, agribusiness remains under the neoclassical economy veil because each of these businesses are separate and simply enacting in the free market, with some government sway. The economics of agribusiness now encompass so many different parts and businesses that neoclassical economics and a free market is necessary. Granted, government intervention has been influential, but any attempt at controlling the entire business of simply corn would be a daunting and unattainable task. 

Milton Friedman Loves McDonalds

Based on the assigned readings from the Omnivore’s Dilemma, the U.S. industrial food economy is strongly rooted in the neoclassical economic paradigm. The Omnivore’s Dilemma is showcasing the US food industry as neoclassical because of its strong grounding and foundation in market based responses. One example that Pollan introduces which would lend credence to the fact that the US Food Industry is more neoclassical is the concept Milton Friedman introduces in his “Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor”, when on page 112 Pollan introduces the McDonald’s printing nutrition information on its packaging. This was a market-based force, driven by consumers to understand what is in their food. McDonald’s said “ok”, and printed the information. They did not go back and alter the recipe to have it be healthier or better for the consumers. They simply said this is what is in it and we don’t care, mainly because people kept buying it. This mirrors Milton Friedman’s point that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits”. McDonald’s is not saying their food is good for you, they are simply printing their nutrition information (alas, it is printed on the packaging which can be seen after you ate/ purchased for McNuggets…[side note: I am happy that my Word 2007 does not view McNuggets as a correctly spelt word] ). Therefore, McDonald’s is simply reacting to consumer demands.

Another example from Friedman’s text that explains the current state of the US Food Industry is in the section entitled “appropriate government policy”. Friedman, and the entire Food Industry (I would assume), support the notion that the only appropriate government intervention is through preventing monopolies from forming. Pollan helps to illustrate this point on page 154 when he explains the role the USDA has played in the labeling of organic. There have been members within the USDA that have worked to change the labeling of organic and the standards associated with it. This is another example showing how Milton and the Food Industry would prefer the process to be. If the government continues to change the standards needed, many companies would prefer to remove the government and regulate the standards within the industry. Although Pollan does not argue this point, it appears to match with Friedman and what the industry would prefer.

Although this is not written about in Pollan’s (he references consumers in chapter 6) text I find it to be an interesting thought I have heard regarding GMO and consumers. One of the main reasons for the expansion of GMOs is because consumers want/ ‘demand’ the same shopping experience every time they shop for food. That’s why we squeeze the tomatoes, fondle the cantaloupe, and grip the apples whenever we are in the produce aisle. We want the fruit to be the same/ perfect. So if you are a producer of said apples you are more likely to adopt GMOs that help make your apples perfect because you have a better chance of selling them to the distributor who sells them to the store, who sells them to the customer. Consumers that seek the same experience with food have initiated a signal to producers that GMOs may be ok because it helps us purchase our food.

I think that the Keynesian position is the most "real" for our society right now. 

In Omnivore's Dilemma we've read about how the agricultural system has been overtaken by exploitation and greed creating monopolies that aren't good for the consumer, the farmer, or the environment. The neoliberal tactic of "leaving it to the market" I think is unfounded. Ideally, yes, it would be great to let the market equalize and I think eventually that might be the best economic system to use- have the people equalize the market by being educated consumers however that is not our "reality" right now. A monopoly exists in agriculture already that can't be stopped by simply leaving it to the "people" and the "market" to equalize itself- although the equalization might happen eventually it would leave in it's path a ruined environment, hundreds of farmers out of business, and the consumer being exploited. 

If we look to history the Keynesian economic tactics are what got us through and out of the Great Depression. The consumer and producers in the U.S. are too oblivious to each other and self-serving (not in a negative way, that's just the way it is I think- the consumer wants what s/he wants and that's it and the producer wants a lot of money) to truly educate themselves on how best to go about buying and selling goods. If we left it strictly up to neoliberalism now everyone would buy the cheapest stuff and, in turn, promote horrible working conditions and the destruction of the environment. Without the government restrictions that we have in the United States we would probably have sweatshops, thousands of mutated bunnies, and miserable depressed laborers, too. 

This also plays into the 99% fight going on right now, too. I think if we were to adopt a neoliberalism way of going about things the corporations would only gain more power than they already have- neoliberalism by far favors the upper classes. If the private sector was in control they would only "look out for their own" and we'd have businesses who make more and more money by raising prices and lowering quality (through bad environmental practices and exploitation of farmers in the case of the agriculture scenario) and you'd have middle and lower class consumers who could do absolutely nothing about it. The only real way we have to combat that is to voice our concerns to our government and sure, they screw us a lot because politicians are politicians and the jokes about them are almost always founded on reality, but they do take it to heart when enough of us tell them that we're being treated unfairly. If government were taken out of the business sector we'd have no one to go to to regulate the Fat Cats when they take too much catnip and get greedy. 

Blog Posting #5 (due MONDAY 3/19, 11:59 P.M.): Defend economic "reality"!

Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money may be the two most important books on economics written in the twentieth century.  Each is written by a brilliant, renowned economist.  Each remains highly influential to this day -- within the "science" of economics, as well as in the worlds of politics, policy, and public debate.  

 

And when you read them side by side, even though they're both works of "economics," you might wonder if they're talking about the same thing at all.  Latour, following Kuhn, might argue they're not.  Keynes and Friedman represent, respectively, two incommensurable paradigms.  (Because we're in a crisis of revolutionary science, and neither paradigm has a solid claim on being simply "real," both have acquired well-known names:  "Keynesianism," and either "neoclassicism" (if you like it) or "neoliberalism" (if you don't).)  Each paradigm asks (and doesn't ask) different questions, uses (and doesn't use) different seeing devices, looks at (and doesn't look at) different data, has a very different conception of who/what the important human and non-human agents are (and aren't), and ultimately, has a very different understanding of what it is -- and is not -- studying.

All fine and good -- we liberals love multiple perspectives! -- except that they're talking about something real.  With a lot of real consequences.  For a lot of real people.  (Not to mention cows and corn stalks.)  No matter which side you're on -- and there are of course more than just these two sides -- defending the correct paradigm of economics is tantamount to defending truth, justice, freedom, equality, and the good life.  (This is very clear in Friedman.  Somewhat less so in Keynes.  Relevant.)  There is no "neutral."

In this blog post, we'd like you to take and defend a position on the following question:  based on what we've read of The Omnivore's Dilemma, which economic paradigm -- Keynesian or neoclassical/neoliberal -- better describes the "reality" (which we do believe in...) of the contemporary U.S. industrial food economy?

Exhortation #1:  Take a strong stand and argue for it.  No "this one's kinda right over here; that one's kinda right over there" -- we're dealing with radically different worldviews!  And take the space you need to make a good argument -- you'll probably need at least 350-400 words to do your argument justice.

Exhortation #2:  Note that we're not asking you which one you like better, or which one you think is nicer or fairer or happier; we're asking you which one is (more) real.  This is as "pure" science as it gets.  (Which of course is not pure at all.)

Exhortation #3:  Ground your answer -- obviously -- in your reading of Friedman and Keynes, and of Posner and Pollan (and possibly even Latour) as secondary sources.  Cite texts, cases, and examples -- be specific.  And as in all good arguments, be sure to consider, and refute, the opposing position.  In other words:  whichever paradigm you're arguing for, you've got to deal seriously with both.

Enjoy.  This may be challenging.  But you're up to it.  Class gonna be fun...

King Curtis: Kinda Funny, Kinda Sad, Kinda Related to what we are Learning

So this class discussion has made me think of this youtube video, which I personally find HILARIOUS but it is also kind of sad (maybe I have a sick sense of humor)... It is a good demonstration (I believe) of how addictive bad food can be and the destructive effects it can have on children and families.

Click here to meet King Curtis

Let me know what you guys think

Gotta love diagrams.

Here's a simple diagram from National Geographic regarding our dwindling varieties in fruits and vegetables just over a 80 year time span.

TODAY show connects with what we read in Ogaddam

Hello all,

I stumbled upon this interview with Dr. Drew this morning on the TODAY show on NBC. I only caught the very end and immediately needed to know if I could find the video online in order to post it for all of you. This story is I think trying to make the same point that Ogaddam is trying to make as far as what straight women really desire. It's about this popular new novel 50 Shades of Grey. If you read the article and/or listen to the interview I think you'll understand the connection.

I have so many questions though! What can we make of a story like this? As it's being broadcasted for millions of American viewers and put under the category of news, what does it say about our culture? Are these matters really as hush hush as they make them out to be? Just because so many women are reading this book does that mean they really want violence in their romance? Again, we've covered this a lot in class, but I was so intrigued that I just happened to turn on the TV and this is what the story was.

Also, I think it's important to pay attention of who they chose (as far as their background of knowledge) as the people to interview. What kind of authority do their titles give them to talk about this matter?

Please comment what your thoughts are!

Here is the interview: 

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/46602040

Here is the article:

Triple-X trilogy of novels has women talking (quietly) 

BACKGROUND REPORT: Transgender Awareness

This was a secret that appeared on the postsecret.com website this weekend. Post Secret is a project started by Frank Warren where anyone can anonymously send in their secret/s on a postcard and he will post them to his website or publish them in a book. This is just one example of how prominent the subject of Transgender is in our society. Something that is often overlooked.

So what is Transgender?

This is a very straightforward and informative website from the American Psychological Association that answers questions people have about Transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression. Take some time to look through the site and get a background for the topic.http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.aspx

This is a representation of the Transgender symbol; it links the universally accepted symbols of male and female into one entity. It includes everyone, and excludes no one. The butterfly symbolizes transformation.

Why do we care?

Stories of transgender individuals are popping up all over the media. These cases are raising questions and sparking debates all around the country.

The Case of Thomas Beatie

In 2008, society was confronted by some startling images and news stories; a pregnant man.

Thomas Beatie is a Female-to-Male Transsexual. He legally changed his sex to male, and has now given birth to three children. This is a fascinating interview by Barbra Walters after the birth of Thomas’ first child. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video?id=6259840

Transgender is one of the taboo topics in society. But there are many concerns especially regarding discrimination in the job market and at work. Even in the interview, Thomas Beatie received numerous hate messages.

Offensive tampon ad?

Check out this article describing the controversies surrounding a new tampon ad (which has since been removed from YouTube). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/television/news/article.cfm?c_id=339&objectid=10776378

Some important questions it raises:

-what defines a woman?

-is this offensive? why or why not? (the comments section is pretty interesting)

Our Position:

There should be more public awareness and recognition for transgender people to nationalize anti-discrimination laws as well as possible insurance coverage for sex change operations and treatments.

Pros:

-a higher employment rate for transgender individuals.

-potential better mental health and well being for transgender people.

-lower poverty rates for transgender people.

-less harassment toward transgender individuals, and more understanding about them for everyone.

-stability and equal opportunity for transgender people to get housing

- insurance coverage for individuals requiring a sex change

Some links to check out:

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm#maps

(Here are some cut and dry laws regarding transgender individuals in various states and cities.)

http://transequality.org/Resources/NCTE_prelim_survey_econ.pdf

(Take a look at this National Transgender Discrimination Survey, it states more statistics to get an idea of the number of people affected.)

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/lgbt_discrimination.html

(This article is good to glance through, it states some discrimination examples against gender identity in the housing market and health care.)

Cons:

- Transgender individuals should not be allowed insurance coverage for sex changes and treatments, because it is an elective surgery.

- Transgender people should not be allowed to live wherever they want if it makes those around them uncomfortable.

- Employers should not be obligated to adhere to anti discrimination laws involving transgender individuals.

This will be a good background for Thursday’s debate, and a supplement to Sexing the Body.

Written by The Ghosts in the Machine: Quinn Carr, Elissa Mann and Andrea Kerrigan