Food for Thought

[ladypirate]

Date: 6/19/2008 4:18:07 PM
Author: surfgirl
Well, I''ll chime in from the prospective of an international aid worker...I work in Africa and Asia and I think it''s really lame to guilt people into giving up their wedding rings for a charity organization. Just on that alone I''d never give to that org. Aside from the fact that a country ''singer'' is behind it and I have no idea how they actually use their money. I also am offended that this site uses the term ''third world'' as if people living in impoverished countries aren''t really living in the same world we all are. They are. They have a lot less than we do, that''s the difference. But they''re not living in some magical land in another dimension.

Basically, I think people should give because they are inspired or moved to do so. For whatever the reason. But guilting people into giving seems dishonest to me. When people are educated on an issue and they feel compelled to give, they give. But please, dont try to guilt me into giving because that just wont work with me.

WORD.

 

[meresal]

Date: 6/19/2008 4:18:07 PM
Author: surfgirl
Well, I''ll chime in from the prospective of an international aid worker...I work in Africa and Asia and I think it''s really lame to guilt people into giving up their wedding rings for a charity organization. Just on that alone I''d never give to that org. Aside from the fact that a country ''singer'' is behind it and I have no idea how they actually use their money. I also am offended that this site uses the term ''third world'' as if people living in impoverished countries aren''t really living in the same world we all are. They are. They have a lot less than we do, that''s the difference. But they''re not living in some magical land in another dimension.

Basically, I think people should give because they are inspired or moved to do so. For whatever the reason. But guilting people into giving seems dishonest to me. When people are educated on an issue and they feel compelled to give, they give. But please, dont try to guilt me into giving because that just wont work with me.

I apologize for not remembering where you are in the world, that is, when you are stationary... you seem to travel ALOT!! So jealous, but that is obviously for another thread!!

In case you''re not in the USA, it is thrown around alot in the news, and even by our national syndicates. (ie CNN, CNBC, etc.). I don''t necessarily like it, but I don''t think that anyone means to portray the idea that we believe these citizens to be living "IN/ON" a different world/planet... more like an analogy that these families are living "worlds away" from some other more developed countries. I''m really not sure if that made any sense? It''s a term that generalizes many countries into a group "that have little, but want more." Also termed Developing or Underdeveloped Countries. There are many other terms that just aren''t used as widely, or as often:
Ex.
"First World" (Eastern Bloc)- Capitalist; high standard of living
"Second World" (Western Bloc)- Typically Communist, and at some point under Soviet control
"Third World" (Neither)- Underdeveloped economically
"Fourth World"- Mainly agricultural/nomadic and lacking industrial infrastructure and economic stability

 

[surfgirl]

mereseal, I wasn''t referring to you personally, I saw it was mentioned on that website. But yes, I do actually think it''s not just semantics. And I know many news outlets still use the term, though some have shifted to a more correct term of "underdeveloped world" versus "industrialized nations", which is what we use in the developing sector. I do think that calling African nations, for example, "third world" does in fact subliminally make us feel that somehow we''re not really connected to "those people" in that "other world". In fact, I can tell you from years of firsthand experience, people living in a mud hut in a small African village want pretty much the same basic things we all do, regardless of what country/socio-economic status we hail from. They all want a safe, clean place to live. Clothes and decent shelter. A better life for their children. And when the "benefits" of the industrialized world are presented to them, they too would love a cell phone, a television, some sort of transportation, etc. So "they" aren''t different from "us". In fact, from my perspective there is no us/them, we''re all the same really, when you get right down to it. So saying someone lives in a completely different world, realm, what have you, I think de-sensitizes people in countries like the US, because it helps to distance us from others.

That''s my story, and I''m sticking to it! And yes, I''m home now. I just got back from two trips to Uganda and Zambia...so this is all quite fresh in my mind...No need to apologize for not knowing where I am either. Most of the time, I''m not sure either!

 

[meresal]

Date: 6/19/2008 4:18:07 PM
Author: surfgirl
Well, I''ll chime in from the prospective of an international aid worker...I work in Africa and Asia and I think it''s really lame to guilt people into giving up their wedding rings for a charity organization. Just on that alone I''d never give to that org. Aside from the fact that a country ''singer'' is behind it and I have no idea how they actually use their money. I also am offended that this site uses the term ''third world'' as if people living in impoverished countries aren''t really living in the same world we all are. They are. They have a lot less than we do, that''s the difference. But they''re not living in some magical land in another dimension.

Basically, I think people should give because they are inspired or moved to do so. For whatever the reason. But guilting people into giving seems dishonest to me. When people are educated on an issue and they feel compelled to give, they give. But please, dont try to guilt me into giving because that just wont work with me.

OMG, surfgirl, I''m so sorry. I thought when you said "this site", you were reffering to PS. My Bad!!! Thank you for all the first hand info anyway!!

 

[katamari]

Not trying to hate on anyone, promise; just had to pipe in.

First, international issues are often aid organizations'' focus for a few reasons. Mainly the problems industrializing and single export nations have can be solved financially. You can use money to feed individuals or build a road or a well. Therefore, it produces more tangible results than problems in the U.S. and donors are happier. Being that the global poverty line is $1 a day and in the U.S., it is roughly $30 a day, it also requires far less donation.

Second, the Clinton TANF (i.e. ''welfare'') reform only allows a recipient 60 months of life-long eligibility and never gives women additional dollars for having more children. Plus, in my state, the average TANF payment is only $269 a month--hardly enough to make payments on an Escalade; let alone ''pimp'' it out. Plus, it seemed to me that very few Americans refused their $600 welfare (i.e. ''stimulus'') checks this May from President Bush because they didn''t work hard for it.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 6/20/2008 2:47:43 PM
Author: katamari
Not trying to hate on anyone, promise; just had to pipe in.

First, international issues are often aid organizations' focus for a few reasons. Mainly the problems industrializing and single export nations have can be solved financially. You can use money to feed individuals or build a road or a well. Therefore, it produces more tangible results than problems in the U.S. and donors are happier. Being that the global poverty line is $1 a day and in the U.S., it is roughly $30 a day, it also requires far less donation.

Second, the Clinton TANF (i.e. 'welfare') reform only allows a recipient 60 months of life-long eligibility and never gives women additional dollars for having more children. Plus, in my state, the average TANF payment is only $269 a month--hardly enough to make payments on an Escalade; let alone 'pimp' it out. Plus, it seemed to me that very few Americans refused their $600 welfare (i.e. 'stimulus') checks this May from President Bush because they didn't work hard for it.

Wholeheartedly agree with you in your first paragraph. However, while I don't think most women have children to collect welfare, don't other benefits (i.e. foodstamps, HUD, etc.) go up based upon household size? Also, if the mothers are unmarried, many of them do not report their live-in SO's income so they can continue to receive benefits based upon the single-income amount. Furthermore, I used to work in a grocery store in HS and you wouldn't believe the type of things people buy with the foodstamps! There are restrictions but not hardly enough. The WIC program is much better in that aspect. I also know of women who work "under the table" for cash and do not report that income, but that is another matter in itself. I have no problem with people using welfare legitimately and I think it is overall a good program, but it does have loopholes for abuse.

 

[katamari]

. . .long delay *sorry*

I also agree with your point that other benefits are more flexible than welfare. I personally believe in consumer freedom, so I extend that to benefits and transfers. But, I also completely understand when other people want more limitations on them.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 6/20/2008 2:47:43 PM
Author: katamari
Not trying to hate on anyone, promise; just had to pipe in.

First, international issues are often aid organizations'' focus for a few reasons. Mainly the problems industrializing and single export nations have can be solved financially. You can use money to feed individuals or build a road or a well. Therefore, it produces more tangible results than problems in the U.S. and donors are happier. Being that the global poverty line is $1 a day and in the U.S., it is roughly $30 a day, it also requires far less donation.

Second, the Clinton TANF (i.e. ''welfare'') reform only allows a recipient 60 months of life-long eligibility and never gives women additional dollars for having more children. Plus, in my state, the average TANF payment is only $269 a month--hardly enough to make payments on an Escalade; let alone ''pimp'' it out. Plus, it seemed to me that very few Americans refused their $600 welfare (i.e. ''stimulus'') checks this May from President Bush because they didn''t work hard for it.

Just to point out, technically for most people the stimulus payments were rebates, i.e. a break from taxes. Not exactly welfare.

 

[trillionaire]

I think it''s great to bring attention to how wasteful we are in some countries, and how the things that we take for granted could revolutionize people''s lives. I think it borders on sexist and explotative to PRIMARILY focus on women feeling bad about these gifts that they have been given. I don''t recall a campaign trying to get people to give up their cars, downgrade their cars, or encouraging them to just ride bikes instead of sinking tens of thousands into cars. That money could just as easily go to well development. I guess I feel that the premise is a bit manipulative, to guilt trip women. SO''s coworker today told SO that SO should spend no less than 10K on a ring, and that he (coworker) personally planned to spend 20K. I have been sending SO links to perfectly lovely rings that are 5K or less, and would consider much more unduly extravagant! His motorcycle cost more than than 5K, but no one is telling him to sell it build wells. I would be more than happy to donate money to build a well. SO and I don''t plan to have kids, and we plan to fill our years with lots of volunteering and philantrophy... but I could do without the guilt trips.