Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture Releases "Democracy in Dark Times," a Landmark National Survey and Analysis of American…

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Nov. 16, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia today released its 2020 IASC Survey of American Political Culture, Democracy in Dark Times, fielded by Gallup Inc. The report, coauthored by James Davison Hunter and Carl Desportes Bowman, finds troubling evidence that nearly 30 years after Hunter's 1991 book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, introduced America to the concept of a "culture war," the country is even more deeply fractured by ideology, religion, race, and income. According to Hunter and Bowman,

What divides Americans at this moment strikes at the heart of what each side perceived to be at stake in this election. One side believed that Trump and his supporters were gradually transforming the country into a dictatorship that leaned toward fascism; the other side believed that the Democrats under Biden would gradually transform America into a socialist country. Each side...viewed the other as enemies of our modern liberal democratic order. Fear was driving the passions of this election.

Highlights from the survey, which interviewed a representative sample of 2,205 American adults, include the following:

What do these deep-seated divisions mean for America's politics and culture wars? The authors observe, "It is well established that White Evangelicals are President Trump's main political base, a fact clearly confirmed by the evidence in this survey." They continue:

Yet it is significant that the majority of non-Evangelical Americans, and the majority of social elites in particular (the gatekeepers of our late-modern society), are so negatively disposed toward religious Evangelicals, directly or indirectly. These are the cultural conditions for the ultimate decline not only of Evangelical political influence, but because of its close association with Evangelicalism, of the Republican Party itself.

This does not guarantee an easy road for the Democratic Party either, however:

At the same time, because the vote for Biden as president was overwhelmingly about defeating Trump rather than electing Biden, the conditions are present for the fragmentation of the Democratic Party, perhaps especially now that Biden has won.

The authors conclude that Americans' increasing pessimism, distrust, and cynicism

will not fix themselves. Without strong and creative institutional leadership, these problems will continue to undermine the substance and process of democratic life, irrespective of who is elected. Winning certainly matters in a competitive political environment where important policies affecting millions of people are concerned, but winning is neither everything nor the only thing when it comes to sustaining a vital liberal democracy.

The 2020 IASC Survey of American Political CultureTM sampled 2,205 adults ages 18 and over. The sample includes completed responses from 320 Hispanics and 336 African Americans, as well as an oversample of 504 adults with at least some postgraduate education. Gallup fielded the survey from July 28 through August 27, 2020.

The survey is available online. The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture is an interdisciplinary research center and intellectual community at the University of Virginia that seeks to understand contemporary cultural change and its individual and social consequences.

SOURCE Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

https://iasculture.org

Read the original post:
The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture Releases "Democracy in Dark Times," a Landmark National Survey and Analysis of American...

Why is fruit picking the latest front in the culture wars? – The Canberra Times

news, latest-news, fruit picking, wage theft, working conditions, backpackers, employment, unemployment, overseas, working holiday

About now, thousands of young Australian school-leavers should be going on a gap year. Instead, they are stuck at home with nowhere to go. So why aren't they all heading off to Young or Swan Hill and picking cherries? Short-term, well-paid work, far away from nagging parents. Sounds perfect. Not so fast. Even the folks at the National Farmers' Federation recognise there are real problems with fruit picking. Ben Rogers, the NFF's general manager for workplace relations and legal affairs, concedes the industry has a bad reputation. But he starts by saying the reason young Australian workers don't want to work in fruit picking, even in the short term, is because farm work is undervalued. That's true all over the world. He also says that the non-suit-wearing, no-university-education-needed nature of the job puts people off. It's hard physical labour. Workers are exposed to weather. And it is remote, although I'd argue remoteness would be a benefit to many young people. Take your mates and you are 1000 miles away from worry. Your parents' worry, that is. But Rogers is open about the other major negative influence. Farm workers are exploited in a number of ways. Terrifying stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment and consistent stories of underpayment persist across the sector. "As an industry we try to own the problem," he says. Of course, fruit pickers can go to the police if it is a criminal matter. But that's tough at the best of times - sexual assault is underreported even in urban areas. Imagine what it is like to try to report when the only place you can shelter is the place where the assault took place. But if it is not a criminal matter, even the most confident young person might struggle to get what is rightfully theirs. Big employer, young inexperienced employee. Alison Pennington, senior economist at the Centre for Future Work, reveals the big secrets from the orchards. She says the reason young Australians don't want to go fruit picking is because of pay and conditions. She also says the agriculture industry would prefer employees who don't talk back and who might not have the same grasp of employment rights as the average Australian. It is one of the reasons agriculture has favoured backpackers and international students. She doubts Big Agriculture is even looking at the applications of Austrailan citizens, who are, she says, "more likely to understand the minimum wage structure and have a better understanding of rights and conditions under Australian law". "The scale of wage theft the industry is engaged in is huge," she says. The federal government is trying to make fruit picking and other farm work more appealing through a scheme introduced this month offering up to $6000 to workers to cover relocation costs such as accommodation and travel. It is designed to help farmers deal with a massive worker shortage. The money is available for work from NSW to Western Australia, from the Northern Territory to Tasmania; and some states and territories have added their own incentive schemes, including WA's Work and Wander Out Yonder, criticised at its launch for making farm work look like a walk in the park. While farmers might like employing backpackers and international students during university breaks, we now have the COVID-19 problem. There are usually 160,000 people in those categories in Australia at any one time, but right now there are just 70,000. And most of those are in the city. National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar was quoted as saying earlier this year: "Farmers require people who are reliable, enthusiastic and energetic; if you tick these boxes, you'll very likely have what it takes to be a valued member of a farm's workforce." READ MORE: Thing is, it is hard to be reliable, enthusiastic and energetic about your work if you feel you are being ripped off. So, a couple of ideas. Pennington reminds me that there are plenty of remote work incentive schemes which are a helluva lot more generous than the $6000 promised by the federal government - for instance, those granted to teachers, doctors and other health workers. So that's one way of supporting workers. She advises against any employer-mandated accommodation, because it is likely to diminish other pay and conditions. The other way is to join a union. That's the simplest form of protection. There are two which cover farm work, the Australian Workers' Union and the United Workers Union. AWU national secretary Daniel Walton confirms Pennington's view that farmers will often choose international workers because they are easier to exploit. And he says the industry is notorious for underpayment and "dodgy labour practices". But there are ways to gauge whether your prospective employer is ripping you off. Cash in hand, partial payments or late payments are all features of employers breaching employment law. There are more: no contract of employment, no payslips, no superannuation payments. Walton says he has seen cases where the hourly rate changes from day to day, or where farm workers are paid by the cherry or by the punnet. If it is easy pickings, the price paid to workers for each punnet drops. But here's the thing. We need our cherries and apricots, and young people need work. Take the six grand the government is promising you to pay for rent. That will pay for the accommodation at Young Tourist Park easily, you and your seven mates (safety in numbers); if you are 18, it is just under $20 an hour for a casual fruit picking gig, and just over $6 a week for union dues. The rest is money for jam.

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/tPntrWhUbGLyDWYCTv46rt/1c34230c-853c-46ee-a616-7ea308c0a837.jpg/r2_450_5469_3539_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

OPINION

November 20 2020 - 4:30AM

About now, thousands of young Australian school-leavers should be going on a gap year. Instead, they are stuck at home with nowhere to go.

So why aren't they all heading off to Young or Swan Hill and picking cherries?

Short-term, well-paid work, far away from nagging parents. Sounds perfect.

Not so fast. Even the folks at the National Farmers' Federation recognise there are real problems with fruit picking. Ben Rogers, the NFF's general manager for workplace relations and legal affairs, concedes the industry has a bad reputation. But he starts by saying the reason young Australian workers don't want to work in fruit picking, even in the short term, is because farm work is undervalued. That's true all over the world. He also says that the non-suit-wearing, no-university-education-needed nature of the job puts people off.

It's hard physical labour. Workers are exposed to weather. And it is remote, although I'd argue remoteness would be a benefit to many young people. Take your mates and you are 1000 miles away from worry. Your parents' worry, that is.

But Rogers is open about the other major negative influence. Farm workers are exploited in a number of ways. Terrifying stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment and consistent stories of underpayment persist across the sector.

"As an industry we try to own the problem," he says.

Of course, fruit pickers can go to the police if it is a criminal matter. But that's tough at the best of times - sexual assault is underreported even in urban areas. Imagine what it is like to try to report when the only place you can shelter is the place where the assault took place. But if it is not a criminal matter, even the most confident young person might struggle to get what is rightfully theirs. Big employer, young inexperienced employee.

The scale of wage theft the [fruit picking] industry is engaged in is huge.

Alison Pennington, senior economist at the Centre for Future Work, reveals the big secrets from the orchards. She says the reason young Australians don't want to go fruit picking is because of pay and conditions. She also says the agriculture industry would prefer employees who don't talk back and who might not have the same grasp of employment rights as the average Australian. It is one of the reasons agriculture has favoured backpackers and international students.

She doubts Big Agriculture is even looking at the applications of Austrailan citizens, who are, she says, "more likely to understand the minimum wage structure and have a better understanding of rights and conditions under Australian law".

"The scale of wage theft the industry is engaged in is huge," she says.

The federal government is trying to make fruit picking and other farm work more appealing through a scheme introduced this month offering up to $6000 to workers to cover relocation costs such as accommodation and travel. It is designed to help farmers deal with a massive worker shortage. The money is available for work from NSW to Western Australia, from the Northern Territory to Tasmania; and some states and territories have added their own incentive schemes, including WA's Work and Wander Out Yonder, criticised at its launch for making farm work look like a walk in the park.

While farmers might like employing backpackers and international students during university breaks, we now have the COVID-19 problem. There are usually 160,000 people in those categories in Australia at any one time, but right now there are just 70,000. And most of those are in the city.

National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar was quoted as saying earlier this year: "Farmers require people who are reliable, enthusiastic and energetic; if you tick these boxes, you'll very likely have what it takes to be a valued member of a farm's workforce."

Thing is, it is hard to be reliable, enthusiastic and energetic about your work if you feel you are being ripped off.

So, a couple of ideas. Pennington reminds me that there are plenty of remote work incentive schemes which are a helluva lot more generous than the $6000 promised by the federal government - for instance, those granted to teachers, doctors and other health workers. So that's one way of supporting workers. She advises against any employer-mandated accommodation, because it is likely to diminish other pay and conditions.

The other way is to join a union. That's the simplest form of protection. There are two which cover farm work, the Australian Workers' Union and the United Workers Union.

AWU national secretary Daniel Walton confirms Pennington's view that farmers will often choose international workers because they are easier to exploit. And he says the industry is notorious for underpayment and "dodgy labour practices".

But there are ways to gauge whether your prospective employer is ripping you off. Cash in hand, partial payments or late payments are all features of employers breaching employment law. There are more: no contract of employment, no payslips, no superannuation payments. Walton says he has seen cases where the hourly rate changes from day to day, or where farm workers are paid by the cherry or by the punnet. If it is easy pickings, the price paid to workers for each punnet drops.

But here's the thing. We need our cherries and apricots, and young people need work. Take the six grand the government is promising you to pay for rent. That will pay for the accommodation at Young Tourist Park easily, you and your seven mates (safety in numbers); if you are 18, it is just under $20 an hour for a casual fruit picking gig, and just over $6 a week for union dues.

The rest is money for jam.

Read the original here:
Why is fruit picking the latest front in the culture wars? - The Canberra Times

Editorial: Nows time to revisit the Equal Rights Amendment – San Antonio Express-News

It seems a classic no-brainer: 24 simple words merely stating men and women should be viewed as equal under the law.

Thats it. No big whoop, right?

But adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a fight thats gone on since it was proposed over a century ago and then passed by Congress in 1972. Its a humane idea that has fallen victim to the culture wars, killed, resuscitated, only to be killed again.

Viewers of the recent Hulu drama Mrs. America watched Cate Blanchett steal every scene as the white-gloved and pugnacious Phyllis Schlafly, who mobilized her supporters to harpoon the ERA. They argued it threatened the very nature of relationships between men and women, indeed the very nature of American life.

The ERA does neither of those things. But it does hold broad implications for such necessary battles as the need for equal pay between the sexes. It would further enshrine into law protections against domestic violence and sexual harassment, as well as workplace discrimination, including that based on pregnancy and motherhood.

Why would this scare anyone?

Now that we have a female vice president-elect and a wave of female Republican candidates who have swept into the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., perhaps its a good time to revisit the ERA in a bipartisan way.

It seems particularly fitting to examine why we need the ERA during this pandemic, a time in which women are being disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus, from job losses to their unequal shouldering in the balancing of work and family life.

Some history for those who think of the ERA as merely a baseball statistic: The ERA is an amendment to the Constitution, and as such requires ratification of three-quarters of the states, or 38 out of 50.

At first, Congress set a deadline of 1979 for ratification, which was later extended to 1982. Thanks to Schlaflys efforts, only 35 states ratified the rule.

But in 2017, a female Democratic state senator in Nevada, riding the growing #MeToo wave, got her state to ratify the ERA, even though the deadline had passed. Illinois did the same in 2018. Virginia followed suit last January and became the 38th state to ratify.

For the record, Texas yes, Texas ratified the ERA in March of 1972.

However, over the years five states Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee rescinded their ratifications, which had occurred before 1982. But that sort of takeback ploy has failed in other legal contexts.

A big problem is the deadline. Should it matter? Opponents say yes. Supporters say no. Each side has its own arguments. In February, the U.S. House voted to remove the deadline, with five Republicans supporting the measure and no Democrats opposing it.

But the vote to kill the deadline needed to get through the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has flatly stated hes against the ERA. The Trump administration has labeled the amendment expired.

The fate of the modern-day ERA remains muddled.

What isnt unclear is how the American people view the amendment. A 2016 survey found a whopping 94 percent of respondents approved of adding it to the Constitution. At the same time, 80 percent of Americans thought men and women already enjoy equal protection under the 14th amendment, via the famous cases won by late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1970s.

But as wonderful as the 14th amendment may be, it still features gender loopholes one can drive a truck through, gaps in state and federal law that should be closed.

Perhaps the Biden administration will somehow intervene to move the ERA across the finish line. Perhaps the Supreme Court will somehow get involved, as it did last summer, when justices ruled that existing federal law bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

What the nation needs to do is get past ridiculous arguments that say equal rights for both genders will somehow lead to the elimination of single-sex public bathrooms and other canards.

And those who portray the ERA as unnecessary should consider this question: Why is there such a fight against it?

Link:
Editorial: Nows time to revisit the Equal Rights Amendment - San Antonio Express-News

Bookrack For The Week (Nov 22 to Nov 28) – Deccan Herald

Loss

Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi

HarperCollins 2020,pp 112, Rs 499

What does it mean to lose someone? To answer this timeless question, the bestselling author draws on a string of devastating personal losses of his mother, of his father and of a beloved pet to craft a moving memoir of death and grief.

The Book Of Indian Essays

Arvind KrishnaMehrotra (Ed)

Hachette 2020,pp 462, Rs 699

This assemblage of great Indian short prose within a single volume encompasses a wide range. The reflective essay, the luminous memoir, the essay disguised as a story, the memorable prefatory article, the newspaper column all find a place here.

The Madness Of Crowds

Douglas Murray

Bloomsbury 2020,pp 304, Rs 499

In this book, the author examines the 21st centurys most divisive issues sexuality, gender, technology and race. He reveals the astonishing new culture wars playing out in our societies today.

The Ickabog

J K Rowling

Hachette 2020,pp 288, Rs 1,299

A mythical monster, a kingdom in peril, an adventure that will test two childrens bravery to the limit. An original fairy tale about the power of hope and friendship, this edition carries illustrations by young winners of a global contest.

One Man TwoExecutions

Arjun Rajendran

Westland 2020,pp 140, Rs 499

In his latest poetry collection, the poet begins by resurrecting voices and stories from 18th century Pondicherry; the spectres of the past are given flesh and blood and begin to live again.

Visit link:
Bookrack For The Week (Nov 22 to Nov 28) - Deccan Herald

Commentary: The battle over masks has always been political – Bend Bulletin

In June 2020, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., tweeted a photo of her father, former vice president Richard B. Cheney, with the hashtag #realmenwearmasks. Wearing a white cowboy hat and a surgical mask, he presented the familiar tropes of masculinity and of political power, becoming a prop for his daughters efforts to encourage GOP supporters to follow public health recommendations to curb the spread of the coronavirus.

More recently, one of Cheneys newest colleagues, Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also employed a familiar gender trope to express her position regarding face masks. Calling masks oppressive, she appropriated the famous feminist slogan My body, my choice as she tweeted the hashtag #FreeYourFace.

As these tweets and hashtags reveal, masks have become the most visible sign of our current political, cultural and social moment. Wearing a mask is not only a matter of public health, an individual choice or sign of a civic courtesy. Its now the latest chapter in the culture wars over our identity as a nation, our fundamental values and our rights as citizens. Communities across the country are paying the price as case numbers soar.

The current politics around mask-wearing are nothing new. During the 1918 flu pandemic, directives to wear masks turned into a political battle over patriotism, gender and power. Just like today, clear lines marked the pro- and anti-mask camps, although they did not necessarily accord with partisan divisions. Part of it was because of the different political situation in 1918. As the flu pandemic coincided with World War I, Americans were more prone to rally behind their government than to enter a partisan debate. Moreover, President Woodrow Wilsons administration cracking down on all forms of dissent made voicing any criticism much more difficult. Portraying the flu as the common enemy turned the debate over masks into a question of patriotic duty, lessening the chance that the issue would break down along partisan lines.

Yet despite the strong hand of the state during World War I, mask orders in 1918 were not coordinated on the federal level but were left to cities and local authorities.

Shortly after the outbreak of the flu, state officials and city health boards pushed for mask mandates, understanding that they would be useful to combat the pandemic, and save the economy. Indianapolis, for example, issued a mask mandate and school closures, while state officials in Salt Lake City decided to only recommend the wearing of masks not require them.

Some complained it was difficult to breathe in masks, or that they made work impossible. And gender played a significant role in shaping ones attitude toward masks. Despite how cowboys and farmworkers in the West donned face covering, the gauze mask that became popular during the flu pandemic connoted femininity.

State and local authorities tried to appeal to men by portraying mask resisters as slackers, invoking patriotism by alluding to draft evaders. Wearing masks was a civic duty, claimed Oakland Mayor John Davie, arguing that it is sensible and patriotic, no matter what our personal beliefs may be, to safeguard our fellow citizens by joining in this practice. Using similar propaganda tactics as the ones used for war mobilization, ads in newspapers warned that Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases, As Dangerous as Poison Gas Shells. By circulating ads and publications that likened the fight against influenza to fighting in the war, authorities attempted to shame those who did not join the war effort against the flu by wearing masks.

Illustrators also poked fun at mask resisters, who they portrayed primarily as men. But some women also refused to wear masks. Several women organized Anti-Mask Leagues, similar to other womens clubs in this period, where they sought to fight state officials and city ordinances through petitions and demonstrations.

Even more surprising, masks in 1918 were never used as a political prop. Unlike 2020, when masks became a blank canvas to express ones views, whether it is supporting Black Lives Matter, calling people to vote or promoting the names of presidential candidates, flu masks were not used to convey a message, but stuck to the conventional white gauze design. Even suffragists, who were known for their savvy use of fashion in their campaigns, did not use masks creatively.

Yet, if in 1918 masks were not used to promote political agendas, they were still imbued with the contemporary politics of the day. Similar to this current moment, masks became a conduit to discuss the limits of government power, as well as if and how much authorities should intervene in individuals lives and the economy in the name of public health.

If today our masks are much more colorful, creative and brazen than those of a century ago, the debate they spur is remarkably familiar. Just like in 1918, masks are the visible symbol of our current political moment, and they will serve as evidence for future historians to understand our present.

Einav Rabinovitch-Fox teaches U.S. and womens and gender history at Case Western Reserve University.

Read more:
Commentary: The battle over masks has always been political - Bend Bulletin