4 | Tuesday, November 29, 2016
OPINIONS
The University Star Mikala Everett Opinions Editor @mikala_maquella
UniversityStar.com @universitystar
GENDER
Marriage does not equate to weakness By Bridgett Reneau Opinions Columnist @bridgelynnn Young people today do not aspire to marriage. Ask any millennial to describe his or her dreams and goals, and marriage will likely not make the list. The aspirations of my generation pertain to financial success, professional accomplishments and personal advancement. Granted, none of these intentions are negative. It is wise to be driven in the realm of practicality, and sensible to be focused on individual maturation. However, my generation blatantly and continuously disregards the importance of relationships with others in favor of our own agendas, and in doing so, we forfeit the experience of forming important bonds with other people. The act of neglecting interpersonal relationships is a bigger problem now than it has ever been. We would rather stay adamantly focused on our own success than invest time in others, especially in a romantic sense. While I am not suggesting that people ought to neglect their own dreams in favor of a relationship, I do believe aspiring to be mar-
ried is not a goal that should be discredited. Women are often led to believe, in this day and age, if they aspire to be in a committed relationship and eventually marry or become a mother, they are somehow doing themselves a disservice. In present-day media, women who are single are portrayed as powerful, successful and confident, while women who are in relationships or marriages are often characterized as submissive, weak-minded and unlucky. Historically speaking, this depiction is not incorrect. Ian Millhiser, Justice Editor of Thinkprogress.org, blames the sad depiction of married women on laws that were passed centuries ago. “The common law treated a wife as financially subservient to her husband,” said Millhiser. “Although single women enjoyed the same property rights as men, a married women lost her ability to make financial decisions the moment she said ‘I do’.” Millhiser said that early Americans defined women and marriage by the woman’s lack of economic freedom. Today, we still define our worth by our economic state. Women who are financially sound are considered
to be more worthy of personhood than those who are not, or who rely on their husbands for financial security. This is ultimately what makes marriage seem a little sketchy—if a woman’s money is not her own, then is she really her own person? Yes, she is. Everyone is a person, regardless of whether they are financially independent or not. Furthermore, being married does not equate to a woman’s lack of financial autonomy. Countless married women make their own money and could easily support themselves if they chose to do so. We are no longer living in a nation that defines marriage as an institution where a wife is below her husband. When we consider the progression of marriage as a whole, and the implantation of gay marriage in our society, the point is moot. We have progressed exponentially as a nation in the realm of how we define legal partnership, and we ought to work on bringing our personal viewpoints surrounding marriage up to date with our current legislation regarding the issue. Being married, or aspiring to eventually enter a partnership, does not equate to
ILLUSTRATION BY ISRAEL GONZALEZ
feminine weakness. The entirety of the issue is subjective, and we must remember this when considering marriage as an institution. It is entirely possible and admirable to aspire to professional and personal success while concurrently desiring to be married. There should be no shame for a woman or man choosing to declare that. I urge people in my gen-
eration—especially women—to be unafraid of the vulnerability it takes to declare marriage as a goal. The idea of matrimony is nothing to be scared or ashamed of, instead it is something that ought to be celebrated and aspired to. Marriage does not equate to a loss of autonomy; it is a system of love and mutual support in which both partners stand by and support
each other. I find it perplexing that my generation does not value the possibility of a lifelong friend, partner and lover. Life sucks, and you need someone to love.
localize Medicaid programs, give local governments more flexibility and create a system in states that will guarantee insured individuals continuous coverage where it was previously uncertain. Trump will not accomplish his healthcare plans easily or quickly, but according to his website, he plans to attack the job on day one—a lofty goal which is easier said than done. To repeal Obamacare, Trump cannot simply commission Congress right away. First, he will need 60 votes in the Senate. According to an ABC news article on the matter, he may not even be
able to accomplish that during his first 100 days in office. If Trump is patient and tenacious, he will likely be able to change the entirety of the healthcare system, making the process of obtaining affordable insurance a reality for more Americans. I believe Trump will be able to keep his promise to provide free-market inspired healthcare. Hopefully, it is the only promise he will keep.
- Bridgett Reneau is a psychology junior
HEALTHCARE
Donald Trump’s silver lining By Katie Burrell Opinions Columnist @KatieNicole96 Donald Trump’s recent election has had United States citizens up in arms. However, in the midst of protests over the President-elect’s promises to “build the wall” and his threats on Muslim immigration, we may have found a silver lining to the countless atrocities: the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, had grand intentions. The policy was designed to allow people to maintain their cur-
rent insurance plans if they chose to do so and to give uninsured Americans health insurance. While this seems like a beautiful solution to a costly problem, many Americans are opposed to the plan and have struggled under new regulations. In 2014, CNN reported one of many cases where Obamacare went wrong. According to an article by reporter Wyatt Andrews, a man lost his family doctor of 14 years due to Obamacare stipulations. According to John C. Goodman, a Forbes contributor, Obamacare’s original intent was to help unin-
sured Americans gain access to insurance. However, the reality of the act is unfortunate: 90% of the uninsured in 2016 will be exempt from the mandate. Trump’s former opponent Hillary Clinton intended to maintain the basic premises of Obamacare while working out some of the kinks— a method which seems feasible but cannot come to fruition. Trump intends to dismantle the act entirely. According to his website, Trump wants to replace the ACA with his plan, Health Savings Accounts. The HSA plan will allow Americans
to purchase insurance across states, which would open the insurance market and create competitive pricing. This would also give Americans more options when it comes to insurance providers. People spend thousands of dollars throughout their lives on insurance and outof-pocket medical expenses, so when given the option to privatize their insurance in a competitive market, many Americans will likely take it. Consumerism is driven by competition and options, and privatized healthcare will strengthen American faith in the healthcare system. Trump’s HSA intends to
-Katie Burrell is a mass communications sophomore
GENDER
Don’t forget Flint: Michigan still dealing with water crisis
ILLUSTRATION BY ASHEE BRUNSON
By May Olvera Opinions Columnist @yungfollowill Flint, Michigan’s water crisis
has not been resolved. The issue has not received major news coverage for months, and most celebrities have stopped speaking
The University Star Editor-in-Chief..................................................Emily Sharp, stareditor@txstate.edu News Editor.........................................................Bri Watkins, starnews@txstate.edu Sports Editor.........................................Autumn Anderson, starsports@txstate.edu Lifestyle Editor......................................Denise Cervantes, starlifestyle@txstate.edu Opinions Editor.........................................Mikala Everett, staropinion@txstate.edu Multimedia Editor..................................Lara Dietrich, starmultimedia@txstate.edu Copy Desk Chief.....................................Claire Abshier, starcopychief@txstate.edu Design Editor...........................................Jessica Strickland, stardesign@txstate.edu
out about it entirely. However, Flint remains in disastrous condition and while the social media sympathy has passed, the water crisis
continues. Flint was once a booming industrial city, but today stands as a testament to the failures of capitalism and the struggles faced by poor people of color. America’s lack of interest in the city’s water crisis speaks volumes of the country’s attitude towards marginalized communities. According to CNN, 41.6 percent of Flint’s residents live below the poverty line and over half of the city’s population is black. The median household income in Flint is $24,679, while the rest of Michigan has a median household income of $49,087. In March of this year, an independent panel appointed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder concluded that a blatant disregard for poor and marginalized communities contributed to the government’s slow response to complaints about contaminated water. Had Flint’s population been primarily white, perhaps Gov. Snyder’s office would have treated the entirety of the water crisis more seriously. It has been over 400 days since Flint’s water was publicly declared undrinkable. The most immediate and widespread solution has been to provide people with water filters for their tap wa-
ter, however, in many older and more impoverished homes these filters are incompatible with sinks, making them virtually useless. There are a handful of stations located around the city that give out bottled water to those in need. The problem is, without transportation, time or the physical ability to collect these bottles, it is still impossible for the most marginalized of citizens to have access to clean water. At first, the superficial unity that arose between Americans dissatisfied with their government was seemingly sincere and beautiful; however, in plenty of ways it was not true solidarity. Undeniably, people rallied behind a poor community of color and demanded justice—but justice for whom? Anti-government sentiments inundated almost all commentaries regarding the water crisis, but in retrospect they now seem like projections of general and personal dissatisfaction with the State and not actual concern for the people of Flint. Once again, the material suffering of people of color has been used as a tool for the advancement of privileged white Americans. Citizens of Flint continue to be denied access to water as you read this. No, your
two weeks of hashtags did not work. Your retweets did not change anything. Water bottle donations may have had a more immediate impact, but they still won’t give the most marginalized citizens access to water. Only immediate and direct action will bring rapid change to Flint. To secure the rights and standards of living for the least privileged, we must endanger those rights of the most powerful. White allies like myself must put our safety on the line for that of our less privileged siblings. If our most impoverished cannot drink clean water, their governor and congressmen should not have access to it either—and that should apply across the board to all issues faced by impoverished Americans. We must strive and strategize to provide tangible change for those who need it most in America. If the implications of racism and classism drawn from people’s growing indifference to Flint make you uncomfortable, stand united and act. - May Olvera is a journalism junior
Trinity Building Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666
Phone: (512) 245-3487 Fax: (512) 245-3708
Engagement Editor..................................Jeffrey Bradshaw, starpromo@txstate.edu Sales Director......................................Morgan Knowles, starad4@txstate.edu Account Executive................................................Hanna Katz, starad2@txstate.edu Account Executive................................Angelica M. Espinoza, starad5@txstate.edu Media Specialist................................................Dillan Thomson, djt48@txstate.edu Advertising Coordinator...................................A.J. Arreguin, aa1530@txstate.edu Publications Coordinator..........................................Linda Allen, la06@txstate.edu Publications Director................................Richard Parker, stardirector@txstate.edu
The University Star is the student newspaper of Texas State University and is published every Tuesday of the spring and fall and every other Wednesday in the summer semesters. It is distributed on campus and throughout San Marcos at 8 a.m. on publication days with a distribution of 6,000. Printing and distribution is by the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung. Copyright Thursday, April 21, 2016. All copy, photographs and graphics appearing in The University Star are the exclusive property of The University Star and may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of the editor in chief. The first five issues of each edition of the paper are free. Additional copies of the paper can be purchased at 50¢ per copy. Contact The University Star office at (512) 245-3487 to purchase additional copies.
Visit The Star at www.UniversityStar.com