[New] Life and Death on Facebook

When I was in the 10th grade, I made my very own MySpace page. It was my social networking debut. Prior, I had only digitally interacted with friends via AIM and the occasional AOL chatroom (until some creepy old man would inevitably pose "a/s/l?"). Ew.

As my 15 year-old self signed up and meticulously crafted my MySpace profile to reflect exactly who I was (Counting Crows' "Big Yellow Taxi" on autoplay, background picture a soccer net), I hadn't the slightest inclination that I was entering a world from which I could never return. 

Social networks have become one of the most pervasive forces in modernity. Some argue (and are mostly right) that with the advent of social networks and more broadly, the Internet, privacy is dead. Unless you don't exist online. Which are very few of us.

For we living, breathing, consenting adults (over the age of 13) able to make the decision for ourselves to exist online and choose to do so, more power to us. Hopefully most of us have sound enough judgement to decide what should and should not be published about ourselves to just about anyone in the world who wants to see it. I say "most of us" because there are plenty of people out there like this. And this. But I digress.

For we living, breathing, consenting adults. I carefully chose this wording for the consideration of two groups of people I've lately noticed have unique existences on social networks, Facebook especially: Kids and the dead.

We'll start with kids. There are four major developments in Facebook's product timeline that have encouraged the explosion of kids showing up in your newsfeed: The addition of the newsfeed itself (2006), the photos feature (2005), the LIKE button (2009) and the platform going mobile (2011). Since the beginning of time, parents have loved bragging about their kids. Since the beginning of photography, parents have loved taking photos of their kids. Combine the two in a seamless, 3-second process on your smartphone, then add the ability for people to publicly praise their kids and boom--they're all over Facebook. It's just an extremely convenient, public baby book.

But what future repercussions do kids face for an online identity begun before they had any say about it? Those naked toddler photos or stories about how they pooped in their hands and smeared it on the TV? We have no idea. It's so new, there's no way to tell what kind of social and psychological consequences having an online identity that early in life will have on someone as they age. After all, Facebook has only been available to the general public since 2006. Even the very first "Facebook Kids" are not yet 10 years old. We'll have to wait and find out.

Then there's the dead. Sadly, I've known several young people taken far before their time, most of them since I've been in college, and have had a Facebook page. The majority of these souls have lived on through their Facebook pages--for whatever reason, no one has deleted their profiles.

I've noticed for much of the living, the dead still existing in their digital social circles has provided them comfort; if they're still online, they're not completely gone. Perhaps in all of us, there's a subconscious, irrational belief that there's Facebook in the afterlife, and our late friends are still checking their notifications. The dead's Facebook pages now serve as digital memorials, a place for people to visit, continue posting photos, write memories and messages on their walls. And unlike a gravestone or ash site, you can take it with you wherever you may be. It's an ongoing homage to someone's memory and avenue to continue talking to them.

Kids, and the dead, on social networks. What do you think?

If not me, who? If not now, when?

Two days ago, actress/director Emma Watson (Hermione Granger of Harry Potter fame) delivered a speech at the UN to promote the #HeForShe campaign. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and take 10 minutes to watch:

In her speech, she brought to light many truths, three of which particularly resonated with me. In a world where feminism is barely one second old on the calendar of humankind's time on Earth, with thousands of years to battle against, how do we change perceptions around a beautiful idea that has quickly turned ugly?

"Feminism" as a bad word
As a girl power-preaching, UC Berkeley-attending, equal rights-advocating, outspoken female athlete from a strong women-having household (hi mom!), even I am guilty of interpreting "feminism" and "feminist" with negative connotations. Man-hating. Hairy legs. Unwanted outspokenness. Feminism, as conveyed by the media and my immediate society growing up, meant anger, Birkenstocks and bra-burning.

Thankfully, I attended possibly the best university in the world for correcting my flatly wrong assumptions. As Watson points out, feminism, by definition, is "the belief that men and women should have equal opportunities." When taken literally, almost everyone I've ever met is a feminist. And my hope is some day (soon) feminism will be understood fully as all the great things for which it stands.

Feminists come in all forms
You don't have to attend rallies, lobby Congress, or speak at UN summits to be a feminist. Simply believing in the idea of gender equality and building up both women and men around you is a contribution. A movement needs leaders, but it also needs soldiers on the ground. Teach your daughters self-worth. Make it safe for your sons to show emotion. Little efforts can affect big change. Watson points out several examples of inadvertent feminists who made a large impact on her life:

My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn't assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influences are the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it but they are the inadvertent feminists needed in the world today. We need more of those.

Gender equality is a social norms movement. Right now it is widely believed, in most of the world's cultures, that women are second-class citizens. That men need to be tough. That a woman's sole purpose in life is to make babies and please her husband, and a man's is to be the breadwinner. That a woman's body belongs to her man. That boys should not like pink.

Changing perceptions is never quick nor easy, but it has to start with someone, somewhere.

If not me, who? If not now, when?

It goes both ways
Too often feminism is connected with double standards, that women want to have their cake and eat it too. For example, women want equal pay, yet still expect the man to pay the bill on a dinner date.

That's simply not feminism.

Feminism is equality for everyone, men too. Feminism means splitting the check, or paying next time. Do not mistake feminism for this unwanted mutation of the idea. Feminists want to have their cake, but they want to bake it, in equal partnership, and split it fifty-fifty with someone of the opposite sex.

[Feminism] is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

Unless you live under a rock, you're probably aware of the recent domestic violence scandal involving the NFL right now. Ray Rice, Ray McDonald, Jonathan Dwyer and others have been charged or indicted within the past two months for some form of domestic violence, against women. Should they be punished? Yes. Should the NFL be under fire for not handling these (and many previous) cases more seriously? Absolutely. Is there a major problem of criminal culture alive and well in the NFL? You betcha.

But what about female soccer standout Hope Solo? She was arrested in June for allegedly beating up her sister and nephew.* After about two days making back page news, the matter was quietly forgotten. She was suspended for one NWSL game and paid a measly $2,500 fine, never missing a game for the USWNT.

Yesterday was the first time I've seen Hope Solo brought up in the same context as the NFL cases. U.S. Soccer is standing by its decision to allow her to continue playing and hardly anyone is giving it a second look. It's not headlining SportsCenter. It's not opening every local evening news tonight.

So what gives? How can we achieve full equality if we don't advocate for the bad along with the good? Equal means equal.

Let's forget the Birkenstocks, allow our boys to wear pink and suspend Hope Solo. Let's make feminism synonymous with its true meaning: equality.

*Every incidence of domestic violence is different in action, context, and circumstance. I am in no way equating or comparing in specificity any case mentioned in this post, only pointing out the similar legal charges.

Dear Ann Coulter,

It has recently come to my attention that you felt the need to explain to the country and to the world that our nation's increasing interest in soccer can only be a sign of America's moral decay.

Well, I'd like to respond. And I won't even go for the painfully obvious fact that almost everything you stand for is the real moral decay of this country.

But let's talk soccer.

You cite Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 as the only reason Americans have an increasing interest in The Beautiful Game, and that no American whose great grandfather was born in America watches soccer.

My great grandparents were born here and I love watching soccer. In fact, I even played it for 19 years. Guess what? I've never even been to Mexico. And I bet I could circulate a petition that would garner thousands of signatures of people who watch and/or play soccer whose great grandparents didn't come here on a ship or by crossing the Rio Grande. I'm sorry that your parents kept you from any sort of diversity-driven life experiences while you enjoyed your clam bakes and Cotillion classes growing up in Connecticut. And by the way, have you ever driven by a field in Fenwick or Darien? Pleeenty of little white kids running around kicking soccer balls.

To address your next point, individual achievement (and failure) is a huge part of soccer. Ever heard of the Maradona's Hand of God? How about Roberto Baggio's missed PK in '94? Brandi Chastain and that black sports bra? Oh yeah, of course you haven't. You've been too busy with your head in the ground to ever open your mind to anything beyond the NRA and scheming ways to block women's right to the vote.

You say "No child's self-esteem has ever been bruised" in soccer. As a child who spent her formative years playing the game, I can tell you that some of the lowest points in my life came from soccer experiences. Missing PKs, blowing tap-ins over the cross bar, scoring own-goals, losing in a national championship, not getting selected for the ODP Regional Team... some days you were the absolute goat on the pitch and never wanted to show your face again. But you did. You always came back. And how you responded to those self-esteem bruising moments formed the resiliency and never-say-die character that has made a lot of ex-soccer players who they are today.

I'm not even sure what you mean when you say liberal moms like soccer because the girls can play with the boys, unlike in serious sports. Hundreds of little girls play hardball and basketball on boys' teams. Oh, and remember that little girl who plays football? Samantha Gordon? She makes her opposition look like toddlers trying to tackle Marshawn Lynch.

I'll keep my next point short. Your distaste for the fact that soccer matches can end up in 0-0 draws is a clear reflection of your ignorance of the drama and progression of a tactical duel. If this is your stance, don't you think our wars in the Middle East are just so darn boring? Who's winning? Why isn't there more action? Yawn. Those seem long and never-ending too. But wait... you support those... I'm confused.

I'll keep my next point even shorter. There's no prospect of major injury in soccer? First of all, the fact that you think that is a BAD thing (even if it was reality) is disturbing. Secondly, other than rugby, soccer players wear the least amount of protection of any sport. Thirdly, watch this.

Furthermore, congratulations for realizing that soccer is foreign! You got one thing right! It originated in England in the early 1800s. Guess what else originated in England centuries ago? The founders of the United States. Ann, unless you're a full-blooded Native American, I've got some news that will break your heart -- you're foreign too. Please try not to take that too hard.

Maybe the reason Americans have a newfound interest in soccer is that they're just discovering the beauty, grace, passion and tactical masterfulness of the game. And yes, it lasts a *whole* 90 minutes. How do we ever stay awake?! All us soccer fans should be thankful that we won't end up like Michael Jackson, right Ann? Too soon, by the way.

I have more for you, but in the off chance I ever get to meet you face to face, I'll save it for that. I'll just end this by saying I can tell you where you can stick your opposable thumbs... you know, the ones that separate you from all of us foreign, unevolved, soccer-loving beasts.

Sincerely,

Ex-soccer player, current soccer fan and future soccer mom,

Lisa K. Daiss

Facebook: A Study of Demographics

If Facebook were a country, it would have the third largest population in the world. With over a billion users, it stands to reason that nearly everyone we know or have known at some time uses the social network.

It's been around for 10 years and, chances are, you've probably cultivated a lot of "friends" on your own personal account. And, just as there are plenty of differences in personality among these people, so too are there for the way they use Facebook.

I'd like to take a moment to identify and describe the several types of Facebook users I've noticed among my 881 "friends" on Facebook.

The Oversharer

Often the most annoying Facebooker, The Oversharer feels the need to give you play-by-play updates on every mundane, minute detail of their lives. They use Facebook as an interactive journal, hoping to gain approval from their peers for going to the gym or cooking pasta for dinner. Because of their constant flooding of your homepage, they're usually quick to earn a spot on your "Hide From My Newsfeed" list.

The Stalker

The Stalker will ask for your friendship, then will be brought to mind only sparingly or never at all again. On rare occasion you will see them Like something or, during an even bluer moon, comment, but for the most part these are the silent snoops of Facebook. Their last non-passive action recorded on their wall is from two or more years ago. Fear The Stalker- their mysterious browsing habits may be cause for concern, especially if you are an Oversharer.

The Braggart

The Braggart will only post the positive to Facebook, usually about cool/fun/happy things happening in their personal lives. They paint a rose-colored pictured of their life and often, intentionally or not, make you constantly reevaluate your own. Do not be fooled by The Braggart- just because they choose to only post the good doesn't make their life so; Facebook just happens to be a great way to closely filter how they present themselves to others.

The Newscaster

Hear ye, hear ye! The Newscaster has taken it upon themselves to be the first to post any headline they deem even slightly important, as soon as it happens. They feel a civil responsibility to let you know, via your Facebook Newsfeed, of any and every event being reported in real time. Thank your lucky stars for these virtual Walter Cronkites and Diane Sawyerses- without them, you might have to actually seek a news source to know what's going on.

The Politicker

Ah, finally, a place to broadcast your political views to the masses with the safety of a screen intermediary. We all know the universal rule of never discussing religion and politics unless you want to pick a fight, but The Politicker has no reservations here- because Facebook provides a confrontation safety net. Also helpful to the Politicker is the plethora of (credible or not) political .gifs, memes and propaganda that can be transferred from one webpage to their status in the blink of an eye.

The Therapy Patient

This person uses Facebook as a means of emotional release, often airing their dirty laundry to everyone in their social circles. To them, Facebook is a free, collective psychiatrist. They post their deepest, darkest feelings and secrets with abandon- often making you internally question, "Why would they put that on Facebook?" as you peruse your Newsfeed. Interestingly, their Facebook friends will often act as a support group to provide deep emotional support, usually in the form of Likes or consoling comments such as, "So sry. Hope u feel better!"


Are there any Facebook types I missed? Tell me by giving me a description and a playful name for a demographic you regularly notice in your Facebook world!

The College Degree Myth

Growing up, there are few universal truths agreed upon and echoed by nearly everyone. The sun will rise, the grass is green, and you need to go to college.

Whether you are a spawn of the 1% or a child living below the poverty line, getting into college is a shared goal that spans every socioeconomic level in the U.S. Why? Because if you go to college, you'll graduate and land a good job and have a house with a white picket fence and be able to provide for your spouse and 2.5 kids. That notion has been ingrained in all of us since we were first able to comprehend language. While that may have been true for our parents and maybe even our older siblings, for Gen Y-ers and Millenials- brace yourself- it's bogus.

When our parents were graduating high school, getting into college was less competitive, attending it was more affordable, and there were a plethora of jobs waiting for them once they graduated. My, how things have changed. The self-perpetuated myth that everyone needs to go to college to have even a chance of success in this world has made for plummeting acceptance rates, rising tuition costs (classic supply and demand) and a nearly impenetrable job market.

In 1964, just a few years before my parents began college, 15% of California high school graduates alone were invited to attend UC Berkeley- and they admitted everyone who met the academic requirements. In 2012, two years after I graduated, the combined national and international acceptance rate was 18%. In the 1960s, Berkeley's yearly tuition cost less than $600. For a California resident in 2012, yearly tuition (just tuition) was $13,000. Non-residents paid close to $22,000/year. I'm no mathematician or economist, but I'd say that more than accounts for inflation.

Those who are not lucky enough to have parents able to pay for their tuition or earn scholarships need to take out student loans- and that's nearly 60% of us, according to American Student Assistance. With interest rates just below 10%, by the time my peers graduated college a good number of them were close to $100K in debt. The current total student loan debt in the U.S. is close to $1,000,000,000,000 (never seen a number that high? It's trillion).

But that's OK- now that you've graduated and have a college degree, you'll be able to get a job and make lots of money to pay it off lickity-split, right? WRONG.

Unless you landed a sweet gig in engineering, computer science or consulting, you'll either a) still be working toward some specialized field like law or medicine where you'll need to spend five more years and another $100K+ or b) have some humanities degree that will get you three unpaid internships and a job at Hot Dog on a Stick, with your debt building and building thanks to that 8% interest rate. Debt increases, credit worsens. Grab a shovel, it's going to be a long dig.

I'm not going to bore you with any more stats, but that's where the majority of Gen Y-ers and Millenials stand. The numbers don't lie and we all have plenty of qualitative data that's unfortunately very close to home.

So why encourage your kids to go to college? Unless they are extremely bright in a field that will pay very well in the long run, or you as a parent can afford to send them, or they have a talent that will be awarded a scholarship- why would you set your child up for lifelong financial failure and woe?

Maybe these alternatives make more sense:

• Learn a trade. Apprentice with an electrician, plumber or contractor right out of high school and soon you'll be making a decent $40K-$60K salary. Without college debt, you can save a good portion of that and who knows... maybe go to college someday when you can pay for it.

• Join the military. It's always a gamble, but right now we are in a time of relative peace and enlisting in the military for a few years will give you great life skills, look dynamite on your resume, and give you money to pay for college via your GI Bill.

I'm not saying that no one should go to college, I'm just saying college isn't for everyone. This myth that having a college degree will automatically make you successful is alive and well in our society and it's directly contributing to the financial ailment of America.