elsma03's Open Salon Blog

Student loans should NOT be forgiven

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:06:28 -0400

Is it just me, or am I in fact a thoroughly insensitive, unfeeling person in my conviction that student-loan debt should NOT be forgiven?

This is a subject that I have great interest in b/c I too borrowed $6K in 1970s (a lot of $$ back then), and one of those was a private loan at 7%--SEVEN percent, a high interest rate at that time.

I too had my share of shit jobs, but it took 9 yrs to pay back that 6 grand , not to mention 10 yrs of not owning a car so I could re-pay the debt and my rent simultaneously. I also worked more than 1 job--still do, lo these 30+ yrs later of working full-time in my career field (that I finally broke into nearly 10 yrs AFTER graduation). While I take pride in that 30-yr milestone, I’m prouder still that I’ve founded and will continue to build my micro-business into retirement.

But I’m absolutely, rock-solid certain that none of that would’ve ever happened had I not trodden that rocky path for as long as I had.

From my observation, a few things are at work:

- the for-profit schools that I believe contributed the most to the current loan mess, and should all be shut down or at least prohibited from receiving federal $$;

- out-of-control higher education costs; but mainly

- college graduates who refuse to take any job that isn't worthy of their brand-new, shiny degree, when the grace period is sliding by and the interest meter starts ticking—which is sorely exacerbated by

- their proud parents who’ve absolutely convinced them of how “special” and “unique” they are—so much so that they’re compounded the felony by telling them to hold out for the “right” job that they “deserve.”

Uh-uh.

Unless today’s college graduate already has an “in” through family legacy or other similar, predetermined inroad, that graduate needs to take a number and wait their turn—b/c their fellow graduates have been told the same lie.

It's bad enough that the U.S. economy is now such a fixed wheel: jobs, whole careers that once commanded good salaries with solid benefits have been off-shored. So now higher education has become once again the prerogative of the wealthy, and if the poor schnooks still want that degree, they can take out all the loans they want to pursue their dreams.

Meanwhile, the economy has made sure not to have the jobs that meet those graduates' credentials, and those graduates—soon to collide w/the horrors of the Real World after leaving the womb that is college--are burdened w/huge loan debt that, like me back then, preclude them from major expenditures like homes and cars (I was well into my 30s when I bought my first home, a 2-BR on the wrong side of town).

But it seems to me that anything beyond the standard 4-yr bachelor's degree is NOT worth getting (at least on a FT basis), and certainly not worth taking on greater loan debt. "A bad economy" just isn't reason enough to go on to graduate school--just like foregoing community college ought to be standard procedure for poor students. I too went to a 2-yr college and got my solid subjects done at a cheaper price before transferring to a private university (where I incurred all my debt). It was a tough road to hoe, but I wouldn't have done it any other way.

I don't deny that poor students have it a lot rougher in college. But, absent the for-profit school and higher college cost factors, there's no reason why college grads now and in the future can't make life easier by just FINDING WORK NOW. At least make the effort to pay that debt. Take on a second job; best to do so while you're young and strong enough to do it.

The only thing that sustained me during those years when I held all those shit jobs was that I knew I wouldn't be there forever--and I wasn't. One thing about being poor, it teaches you to be a LOT more resourceful. It paid off for me in school and still does now all these working years later.

There are 3 things that don't exist and never will: a sure thing, a free lunch, and a guaranteed return. You take out the loans, you pay your debts, and you meet your obligations. It’s called Growing Up.

BACK THEN, IT WASN'T "MAD MEN," BUT "VALLEY OF 9 TO 5"

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:10 -0400

(Note: I was inspired to write this review by Lauren J. Barnhart’s review of “Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen”—thanx, Lauren!)

I thought I’d do my first book report that, ladies, is guaranteed to curl your toes about “the good old days.” If, as a working woman, you ever doubted that things were bad, these books will prove that life on the job “back in the day” was in fact far worse than any of us dreamed imaginable.

Today, it’s about being a career girl in the mid-20^th century—and it isn’t pretty.

The Girls in the Office, by Jack Olsen (Simon & Schuster, 1972)

All books reviewed here can be found at www.alibris.com, since all are out of print.

TGITO is the supposedly-true account (ostensibly to protect the innocent, but probably to keep the innocent from suing) of 14 working women employed by “the Company,” a vast, unnamed conglomerate in Manhattan in the 1970s, just as working women entered the mainstream workforce in droves. Of varying ages—from 19 to well past 50—they give detailed accounts of how, largely by sacrificing private lives and potential marriage and family at the altar of professional ambition to “make it” in the corporate world.

However Machiavellian, it’s the office liaisons, including trite-and-true affairs with married bosses, that show the ugly scope and breadth of what some of these not-uneducated women debased themselves into doing. “I’m nothing without my man” hardly covers the depths to which some of these broads sank. While proclaiming love at any price, their sick actions read more like obsessive compulsions to have a man, no matter the cost to themselves in grief, humiliation or, at worst, job loss. Never have so many pathetic, lovesick women ever been assembled in an S&M chamber of workplace doom—and going there willingly!

Reading some of these stories is harrowing. The overwhelming impression is one of eternal sexual harassment: to get ahead, that’s what you give—tit for tat, literally. One misguided, obsessive soul, Gloria Rolstin, divulges a painful long-term entanglement with her boss, Tom Lantini. After years of verbal , physical and sexual abuse (yes, her office peers saw the evidence) as their sick affair loses steam, she literally begs him not to leave her. In a kind and magnanimous gesture toward his former paramour, Tom responds to Gloria’s anguish by marrying a younger co-worker and inviting the entire office staff to their wedding—except her.

As if, after reading about these pathetic masochists who seem to be topping each other in romantic angst, the reader meets Vanessa Vandurant. Being the archetypal “party gal” at the Office, she’s always ready for action, and generally she finds it, thinking she’s still in control of her conquests. Upon meeting and inviting to live with a her man she meets during a routine post-Office party prowl, this psychopathic prize not only captures Vanessa’s needy heart, but he literally enslaves her in her own apartment. Several rapes, beatings and depravities later, she finally calls NYPD—who tell her that her lover can hardly be held accountable since he lives with her at her invitation. The creep eventually leaves after a skeptical cop scares him off, but not before the lout continues to terrorize Vanessa in ways that are now legally categorized as stalking (and are grounds for arrest and imprisonment, unlike then). Ultimately he leaves Vanessa alone, and she learns that he’s been arrested for rape in another state.

Unbelievably, some relative normalcy is extant. Witness Stephanie Grant. Albeit a baby hatchet-woman—the one who can be counted on to do whatever it takes if it helps her career—Stephanie’s amazing lack of empathy for anyone besides herself is eerie. Reading her account reminded me of some junior workers I’ve known in my working life—who genuinely don’t give a damn what they do if they get what they want: the end really justifies any means.

Now that sociopathy, psychopathy, and other personality disorders are widespread literature and practically lunch-room conversation, the twisted psyches described herein make for fascinating reading today. But more than anything, TGITO shows how subservient and manipulative working women were socialized into becoming—and that this was acceptable and even expected behavior. Working women—even those with college degrees and professional careers or aspirants thereto—were expected to work “for awhile” until the proverbial Prince Charming rode in to save them. This meant marriage and children—presumably in that order, even if sometimes the latter preceded the former (shotgun weddings were extant in those days). As for “happily ever after”—well, that was relative for anybody, now as then.

What do we learn from TGITO?

Beware the office affair. Ladies, that bromide is just as true now as it should’ve been during the period of this book. No matter how things turn out, it’s almost always the woman who either gets tarred with the morality brush, or leaves the job altogether to start fresh elsewhere. Rarely does the man abscond from the workplace. All respect to Helen Gurley Brown—who, in her book “Sex and the Office” advised that the job is also an acceptable “hunting ground” for women in search of love and marriage—I think she is largely incorrect about that (she did have uber-movie producer David Brown to fall back on). I think it’s still a good idea for a working woman to separate her work life from your love life, especially if she’s beginning a career. That goes double if she works around a lot of men.

Don’t rely on your youthful appeal. “Beauty may be skin-deep, but ugly cuts clean to the bone.” Maybe, maybe not—but I think it’s always a bad idea for women to trade on their waif-like charm for two reasons: (1) it fades too quickly as time passes, and (2) younger barracudas are always swimming faster and further ahead, leaving the weaker fish (like some of us) far behind. True, we’ve all seen women who do so successfully. But rest assured that theirs are ticking time bombs just waiting to detonate as the calendar leaves drop off—and they know it better than anyone else. Do yourself, and the rest of us, the great favor of actually working at the job you’re paid to do, and have enough pride of authorship to do it well.

Don’t be afraid to take the high road. Early in my professional life, a wise career woman (whose funeral, sadly, I attended 3 years ago) asked me, “Do you want to be liked, or respected?” My answer, then as now, was that I wanted to become known for my competence and professionalism; I like to think I mostly succeeded. Working around so many men, I sometimes “locked horns” to get my job done. Did I have to fight with them? Yes. Did I win? Sometimes. Did I step on toes? Sometimes, but I made sure I stood on firm ground. Did I short-circuit my upward mobility through the ranks? Absolutely. Were mine either legitimate requests or prima-donna demands? Without fail, the former (thank you for that, Mary Matalin, much as I detest her). Was I “called to the carpet” for doing so? Sometimes, but that’s why I always “covered all bases” before wading into the fray. Was it scary? Sure—but having the facts and rules on my side always helped. Was, and is, it worth it? Absolutely.

Of course, these are my opinions and experiences alone.

Next time: “The Best of Everything,” by Rona Jaffe

Freedom, Fertility and Feminism - A Response

Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:01:55 -0500

(This post originated as a comment to Shannon Kelley’s post of Dec. 14, “Freedom, Fertility and Feminism.” It was a topic I felt so strongly about that I selected it, w/some minor revision, as my first blog post.

I owe a debt of gratitude to Daniel Kronlid, who encouraged me to post this comment separately—thanx, fella!)

Although feminism was indeed about choice, it seems to me that a lot of women who now complain about the choices they made, just didn’t think through the matter thoroughly enough for themselves. It wasn’t that women could “have it all,” but that that they could “have it” AT ALL. The business of “having it all” was already proving to be a myth in the early 80s, when all those career women found out that “having it all” meant for someone ELSE, mainly their husbands, children, careers—and had very little left over for themselves.

Still, I can’t help but feel that feminism is getting a bad rap mainly from those women who reaped the most benefits from that choice. Whining about how your ovaries retired on you after you got your education/ job/career/marriage/whatever squared away? At least you got the chance to GET that education/job/career/marriage/whatever, that you CHOSE, OF YOUR OWN VOLITION, to pursue such. It was NOT chosen FOR YOU by your father or other male relative, as would’ve been the case not that long ago. In short, you were finally given credit for a brain. And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: however narrow those choices may have been then, they were much narrower for women OF COLOR.

I’ve always felt that feminism actually “liberated” women of color more than anyone else. I came of age in the late 60s/early 70s when the women’s movement gained steam, and I remember the criticism that it was white, middle-class women who suffered from “the sadness that had no name,” women who wanted to join the workforce, have/not have children, and otherwise be free to choose their own lives. Women of color didn’t “get it” then b/c they have ALWAYS worked: they were the cooks, laundresses, housekeepers, seamstresses, etc, that, while still honorable labor, was mostly back-breaking, dead-end work—that paid such low wages that they needed a husband just to have any life at all. We really did go from our fathers’ homes to our husbands’ homes—and God help you if you didn’t have one. Then you stayed home w/your parents and cared for them in their dotage—again, nothing wrong w/that, but it did leave your own future, upon their eventual check-out, in serious question as to how you would face your own golden years.

What this discussion and others like it leads me to believe that it’s a not-so-subtle attempt to change women’s minds about not just “having it all,” but about “having ANYthing” at all. Better to be that pretty flower in the garden and just wait to get picked by some “dway big man,” or you’ll be a lonely old spinster, or worse, a ball-breaking career woman, that no man would ever want. The false pity heaped upon Jennifer Aniston and Sandra Bullock is testament to that. Nevermind that they’re more than able to take care of themselves; all that beauty, fame and $$ and they STILL can’t get a date. Worst of all, even other women do that to each other and to themselves—no loyalty among each other, alas.

So I still believe it’s a good thing we CAN earn our own livelihoods and make choices about our own lives, including fertility, that heretofore had made good on the idea of “biology is destiny.” Perhaps women now realize that they MUST ponder, more thoroughly, all the options they now have, child-bearing among them—and then decide what’s more important to them: pop out that kid before their body clock winds down, regardless of how prepared we may or may not be. Or, we establish ourselves first and make sure that that kid, when and if it arrives, comes to us into the best possible life we can make for it. Either, or. That’s the way it is, ladies. Either way, a woman decides her life FOR HERSELF and then stands by that decision. That’s what adults do.

Women are forced to make choices in ways that men never have to face. That’s why we have to be far more responsible about choosing, on ALL levels.