Theorizing the unexpected advocate

Theorizing the unexpected advocate

Yesim Darici did not pursue a career in advocacy. She is a scientist – a theoretical and experimental physicist with […]

Read it on news.fiu.edu

This woman is quite a thing. I wish I'd gotten to meet her.

I'd joined the Women's Studies program as a certificate candidate partly because I'd garnered nearly enough credits to get one anyway. I don't regret that decision, because I think it's brought me out of my (still quite hard and all-encompassing) shell a bit.

Seeing someone so tenacious who didn't let anyone stand in her way — though it seems she didn't notice anyway — become the director of a program that allows free thought, forward thinking, and embraces the spirit of debate and public speech is very refreshing.

But then there's this…

The FIU Instagram account had posted a picture of Dr Darici and that seemed to spawn some heated discussion on the worth of a Women's Studies degree (since the degree program itself is an option as well; the certificate was what I'd gone with, though). It was a little tense, partly because people were borderline throwing flip-off emojis (and even the Instagram account curator had hashtagged "smh").

It embodied the spirit of relatively civil discussion, though, and so that's what makes me a little glad on it. The person who'd initially instigated it, he even seemed to understand a little better why people defended the program (since he saw it, and generally seees things, as if you can't see a direct job correlation to the degree program, the degree program is worthless).

That's rather like my degree, Sociology and Anthropology. I'm nowhere near a professional anthropologist, nor am I a linguist officially. I do put my skills to work, and they help me as far as understanding people and the world. And then my certificate has helped me in expressing those thoughts a little more cogently.

So, thank you, FIU, for renewing my mind.

And now that I'm working, I can actually give back sometime relatively soon.

Government Intervention

Now, I can understand why some people are suspicious of the government. We've seen historically what can happen when one entity has too much power and/or control over a group.

Pogroms might occur, slaughters could happen, oppression can ensue, and sadness may run rampant. There could be little, if any, higher regulation or co-regulation.

It doesn't have to be that way, however, if we do it correctly.

What sparked this rant-of-sorts was me hearing on our local news station a few people expressing their gripes about the City of Atlanta possibly banning smoking in public parks. Some said, among other things, that the government is too big, that it should be smaller, and has no right to "meddle" or "infringe" in/on the affairs of the general populace's "right" to do as they choose with their lives.

My take is this:

Certainly, there are elements one most likely can govern by oneself.

The government doesn't need to tell you when you eat, if you eat, if you exercise, if you watch television, if you decide to dye your hair purple… This is because these are personal decisions affecting only you. If you eat sporadically throughout the day, that's your choice. If you decide to not eat because it's Ramadān, trendy, or you don't feel like it, that's your decision influencing solely your physical/mental(/spiritual) health and well-being in general.

If you don't eat and you're pregnant, however, that's different. You are willingly - though it may or not be wittingly - influencing another's life. This may bring in the debate on when that clump of mitotic cells becomes a cute bundle of joy, but that's another debate.

The point is, you're influencing another life.

Speed limits, traffic signs, signals, and regulations, and lots of other governmental interventions in these regards exist because somewhere along historically the "powers that be" left us to make "common-sense" decisions, we'd failed at it — perhaps killing someone in our devices-leaving — and so they left it *again* to us as a voting population, or those we'd entrusted to have our best interests at heart, to protect the majority of us from those who made the life-canceling (and, me judgmentally saying, stupid) decisions.

So, I think they should ban the smoking in public parks. People have been in the presence of smokers and have asked them to stop, and some graciously do or move to prevent further offense. From what I've witnessed, though, there is a strong, vocal subsection of smokers who believe they should smoke wherever they choose, and that those who don't smoke and feel uncomfortable around smoke should be the ones to move.

This insensitivity influences others. It's your personal right to smoke or not, because you are affecting your own life. You can smoke among other smokers because you each are willing participants unbothered that others are smoking around you. Smoking around non-smokers who do not wish smoke in their breathing space does affect someone else.

There is a half-joke in Loganville that the City and Gwinnett/Walton County doesn't do anything until someone dies. This seems to be true, because traffic light referenda don't seem to happen until someone dies. Special Local-Option Sales Taxes (SpLOSTs) don't go to ballot until there's a death, it seems.

Even one death.

If there is one person who feels the personal right to live healthfully is under threat because of another, and that other does not respect the first person's personal right — and that continues despite the sense of dignity/deference to all healthy personal rights, (quanti-/quali-)fiable over time — the government should intervene.

God knows, the petulant children harming others for their own comfort aren't making the right decisions themselves…