Masuma Ahuja: writing

Selling Ourselves Online

January 10, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today

In early November, I read an article by William Deresiewicz in the New York Times that tried to characterize my generation, the millennial generation; Deresiewicz called us ‘Generation Sell’. 

I haven’t been able to get the article out of my mind. Not because I entirely agree with it, but rather because one sentence rung too true: ‘We use social media to create a product — to create a brand — and the product is us’.

That sentence sums up my post-university experience almost too accurately.

Over the past few months, as I have navigated the characteristic challenges of a recent graduate – from networking to applying for new opportunities – it’s inevitable that I’ve had to sell myself – why should I write for the blog? Why do I deserve the job? 
But I’ve found, not just for me, but also for most of my peers, that selling ourselves extends far beyond the cover letter and the CV – we’re also a sum of Google results and social media profiles.
  
Think about it. When was the last time you met someone interesting and didn’t go home and Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter him or her? 
We have so many profiles – so many versions of ourselves – readily available on the Internet, from the photos of a vacation, to the links to articles we like, to the names of our favorite bands. Since every like, dislike, and experience has the opportunity to be (and often is) chronicled, we are constantly compelled to sell ourselves.   

I have many friends who are terrified by the public image portrayed on the internet: they have deactivated Facebook, stay away from Twitter, and refuse to blog for fear that a future employer or significant other might discover their potentially controversial opinions or life experiences. 

While I definitely agree that there has to be a clear and distinct line between the public (that’s shared) and the private (that remains offline), I’ve found that it’s better to embrace the opportunities to sell myself – from setting up a website, to Tweeting, blogging or Facebook-ing – than to shy away from creating an online, Google-able version of myself. 
While my peers and I are definitely preoccupied with selling ourselves online, more than anything else, I think it’s important to remember that we stay plugged in because it’s fun and a great way to stay connected. After all, who doesn’t want to know what Daily Mail articles their Facebook friends are reading?

More Millennial Women Going Back to School, Could Boost Future U.S. Economy

January 3, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic

Over the last two and a half years, over 400,000 women have dropped out of the labor force. 

The staggering number is worrying and indicative of a larger and more interesting trend: As employment opportunities remain dismal, especially for millennials, young women are choosing to go to school to get more qualifications instead of getting a job. In fact, there are more young women enrolled in school now than there are in the work force.  

The shift in what young women are doing is interesting not only because it is telling about the current, gendered economic situation, but also because it predicts the changing role of women in our future economy.

This trend – particularly the gendered aspect of it, where women, not men, are choosing to return to school – reflects the differences in opportunities for young men and women in the workforce.Data shows that in the 2.5 years since the recovery began, men between the ages of 16 and 24 have gained 178,000 jobs, whereas women in the same category have lost 255,000 jobs.  

The numbers say it all – it isn’t just harder for young women to gain employment compared to young men, these women are actually losing jobs while their male counterparts are gaining employment.

Further, the earnings gap – the fact that women earn disproportionately less than men – is an additional incentive to pursue more education that could lead to higher paying jobs, especially in today’s economy, where job options are few and far between.

It is easy to understand why young women are going back to school in the current, dire economic climate, and the effects of this trend are going to have an incredible impact on the role women play in tomorrow’s economy and workforce: They will be more employable, more qualified, and more likely to be the driving force behind economic booms.  

Perhaps for the first time ever, women in our generation might be more qualified, maybe even more employable, than their male cohorts.

Some have predicted that this return to school could result in an economic boom since people are getting better qualifications and improving their skills, similar to when World War II veterans returned from war and went to school with the help of the G.I. Bill, instead of searching for jobs. If true, women could be the driving force behind an economic boom, drastically changing their role in the economy.

These broad economic predictions, of course, might not hold, but the overarching effects of women going back to school are significant and should not be ignored: By gaining more educational qualifications, young women might be able to go from being paid and employed less to being more qualified and getting better jobs than their male counterparts.

An Oxford Thanksgiving

January 3, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today

A few weeks ago, I returned to Oxford for thanksgiving, for the first time since finals. At the airport, I had butterflies in my stomach. I was nervous about returning – for the first time as a visitor, not a student. 
 
But as the coach pulled into Gloucester Green, I was hit by the overwhelming familiarity – dragging an all-too-heavy suitcase to the front of college, the fearless cyclists, and the lively, dressed-up crew dates-goers: so little had changed. 

I expected that just as my life had changed drastically over the last few months, Oxford (and the people I knew here) would have too. 
 
But over the course of my visit, I found myself slowly settling back into the comfort of returning to the familiar – not just the friendly faces and streets, but also the same routines, similar conversations.  

And even though most of my friends are done with studying at Oxford and off doing various things – from laboring through 14-hour nursing shifts to handling social media for a charity – though we no longer had the same essay crises and problem sheets to worry about, I was relieved to find that our lives were surprisingly similar. We shared the common struggles of recent graduates and often, the common nostalgia for everything strange and special about Oxford. 

One night during my visit, sitting around a table, sharing a home-cooked thanksgiving dinner (turkey, pumpkin pie, and all) with about 20 others, it became increasingly clear that even though I was across an ocean, living a vastly different and exciting post-university life, I would always find comfort in returning to Oxford and the people I met here – the only ones who understand why carnations make me nervous and nauseous and why I long to go punting when the sun comes out. 

Back in New York, people are intrigued by my stories about university – how dinner was like Harry Potter, with a high table and gowns, how we had boat races not football games, crew dates not frat parties. 

Perhaps because Oxford is so different from American universities, or because it was an important experience for many who attended the University, across the Atlantic, I have found that the alumni network here is strong and supportive. Oxford graduates I have spoken to (often responding to my out-of-the-blue emails for career advice) are usually warm and eager to reminisce together about the weird and wonderful bits of Oxford. Some I’ve shared tutors with; others laugh with me about the college cat; and then some will mention things everyone knew all-too-well: the incomprehensible lecturers, the awful bops, and the sleepy mornings in the Bod. 
 
So, even as I encounter new experiences and build new bonds, excited as I pace forward from Oxford and student life, it still makes me smile when, after an introduction, someone asks, and what college were you at?

The Social Media Evolution: Facebook Timeline Scrapbooks Our Lives

December 15, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic

Yesterday, news websites and status updates exploded in despair and awe: Facebook had finally changed for American users; the much-anticipated timeline is here. 

The timeline is as much an elegant redesign as it is a rethinking of the Facebook profile page, and this is what makes it important: The timeline is the next logical step to ensure that Facebook continues to dominate our internet interactions and is going to enable the social network to become even more ingrained in our lives.

To understand why the timeline is so important, it’s first necessary to understand what the timeline is and how it is different. 

On the old Facebook profile page, the most recent stories of an individual’s activity, as well as recent posts from their friends, appear on the profile. Information quickly gets buried and finding activity a few months or years old takes digging. 

With the timeline, however, a user can filter by year and month, able to see a progression – a literal, visual timeline – of activity and posts.

So, what’s significant about this change is not that it enables users to create content or changes how much is seen, but rather that it changes what a profile page is. It’s even worth noting that the timeline isn’t changing what can be seen but rather how easily it can be found. Since users have the power to determine what is seen and how their activity and their lives appear on the profile page, it becomes a more natural personal homepage, scrapbook, and portfolio.

However, the reason the timeline is so powerful is not only because it makes sharing information easier, but also because it has been launched in the era of the Facebook app.

Due to the rising popularity of apps, Facebook has become the natural internet aggregator of personal data. Now, Facebook doesn’t just keep record of our status updates and photo albums, it also has a detailed history of where we’ve checked in, who we’ve been with, what we’re tweeting, what music we’ve been listening to, what news stories we’ve been reading, and what comments we’ve been leaving on PolicyMic. 

Since most significant websites or digital services have an add-on Facebook app, our digital lives have found a natural home on Facebook. The old profile page, however, was outdated. It was less of a personal profile and more of a personal newsfeed – often clogged up with articles read and songs listened to over the past few days. The timeline is the much-needed update.

The new page doesn’t make it easier for our digital activity to live on Facebook, rather, it makes it easier to present ourselves – tweets, Spotify playlists, Washington Post articles and all – online.  It is undeniable now, for better or for worse, that our digital existence is increasingly dependent on Facebook. 

Rick Perry Website Stolen By Ron Paul Campaign

December 7, 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic

If you try going to RickPerry.com, you’re in for a surprise. You don’t end up at the Texas governor’s website, but rather at fellow Texan, Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign website.

No, Perry hasn’t dropped out of the race (yet). No, he is not endorsing Paul. Perry’s official website is RickPerry.org. While candidates and corporations often buy all domains similar to their own in order to ensure that supporters who mistype are redirected to the correct website – Perry and other GOP presidential contenders have neglected to do so. 

In Perry’s case, this neglect is going to cost him – mistyping supporters aren’t just left hanging as is often the case (try newtgingrich.com) – but they’re redirected to another candidate who they could lend their support.

This amusing campaign mischief is telling about the changing landscape of campaigns and how candidates are going to fall behind if they don’t get on board with the internet, and quickly.

While a TV or print advertisement can tell you why Paul is better or why Perry is worse, that is all it can do. With this website however, we aren’t being told which candidate is better or worse. Instead, when people go searching for Perry, they just end up finding Paul.

Further, what is particularly interesting thing about RickPerry.com is that the Paul campaign claims that it isn’t their work. Whomever owns RickPerry.com controls where the website is forwarded to. This means that anybody with the foresight to buy these domains also has the power to influence and redirect supporters.

While this mishap and redirect don’t necessarily point in favor of the Paul campaign, they are yet another sign that some of the current GOP candidates could learn a lot about how to use the internet to their advantage – just take a look at Romney’s sponsored tweets and Jon Huntsman’s daughters’ viral YouTube video. 

For Good News, Turn to the Avon Ladies of Bangladesh

December 5, 2011 - originally published on fem 2.0

The stories we hear of women in developing countries are often heart breaking – they’re the stories of struggle, of lack of empowerment – like the one from this past week about theAfghan woman expected to marry her rapist.

It’s not only heartening and inspiring – but also incredibly important – when we hear about people like the ‘Avon ladies’ of Bangladesh.  These incredible women are breaking cultural barriers and redefining their role in society.  Their work might not be revolutionary – they are the Bangladeshi equivalent of traveling, door-to-door salesmen, working through a partnership between Unilever, Danone, and BIC and Care International – to sell products ranging from soaps and razors to cosmetics.

In a country where a mere 4% of women work for a wage, where they earn less than their male counterparts, and where it is accepted that a woman’s place is in the home, not at work – these women, selling soap, sachets, and shampoo – are the true revolutionaries.

The program, of course, has faced its fair share of criticism on a broad range of issues: the low turnover rate, the fact that the program still restricts women to the domestic sphere, the fact that these products aren’t locally made … the list is long and is not without merit.

But it’s worth taking a second to notice the nature of the complaints.  The conversation itself is shifting – albeit slowly – from one which questions what the place of women in developing societies is and whether they will be able to leave the domestic sphere and join the workforce – to one that accepts their role in the workplace, that accepts their role as door-to-door sales women, and questions, instead, the nature of the products they sell.

While the program might not be perfect, it’s undoubtedly a step in the right direction, because it is these grassroots efforts that are going to carve a new role for women in the developing world – one that changes the nature of the conversation and imagines a space for women both at home and at work.

The ‘Avon ladies’ of course aren’t alone.  They are part of a much larger story of empowerment. The larger story includes the 97% of Grameen bank borrowers who are women – starting small projects and working their way out of poverty; the women who are victims of human trafficking and have learned crafts – such as jewelry making as a tool to enable economic independence and empowerment; and the women at the bottom of the caste pyramid in North India who have created a weekly newspaper.

As each of these individual efforts – like that of the ‘Avon ladies’ – changes the conversation to one about what women are doing in developing contexts instead of one about whether they will be able to get involved – we make small strides toward empowerment and equality.

#Men Call Me Things – Online Gendered Abuse

November 16, 2011 - originally published on fem 2.0

“You come to expect the vitriol, the insults, the death threats,” writes Laurie Penny of The Independent.

What has Penny done to deserve the barrage of attack and abuse?  Oh, well, she’s a woman writer.

Over the past weeks, women bloggers and writers including Penny have taken to Twitter (#mencallmethings) to share their stories of the abuse they have faced as women writing online.

Scrolling through the thousands of tweets and blog posts emerging about the topic, themes start to emerge: rape, “slut,” “hoe”… you get the picture.  The threats and insults these women have faced are often graphic, often sexual, and almost always unwarranted and hurtful.

The theme of trolls leaving unsavory comments on websites of course isn’t new, or exclusive to women writing online.  Part of the deal when writing on the internet – man or woman – is opening yourself up to criticism and comments. The issue here, though, isn’t criticism.  It’s the misogyny veiled as criticism. Calling a woman a ‘slut’ in response to a political post or threatening to rape her isn’t criticism.  It’s abusive.

Further while the internet has blurred boundaries and most content produced online falls under free speech, as Helen Lewis-Hastley of the New Statesman makes an important distinction – that the right to free speech is not the right to make threats against another person.

These comments are worrying not only because they make the internet feel a little less safe, but also because they are telling about society. That some deem it acceptable to criticize a writer based on gender, to comment with threats of sexual violence is worrying.  And that someone’s gender can be seen by trolls and critics as a writer’s weak spot – an easy target to attack – is just appalling.

The price that women pay for sharing their opinions should not be threats and abuse, and equally importantly, should not be sexualized threats and gender-based abuse.

Many bloggers – often those who have faced such comments – have spoken up in recent weeks about #mencallmethings and the abuse that they face.  While anger from these women is expected and universal, that they often argue that these trolls are an expected part our reality is a harsh truth.

For example, Kate Smurthwaite of Cruellablog writes, “These comments reveal a deep-seated hatred towards women.  I find that unsurprising in our culture.  Violent, extreme pornography is normal internet fare.  Gang rape and prostitution are subjects for popular music.  At least 95% of actual rapists are on the streets.”  #mencallmethings is just the tip of a very big iceberg – it’s indicative of bigger problems in society – that “we still live in a sexist society, [and] any woman who sticks her head above the parapet will encounter misogynistic abuse,” according to Natalie Dzerins ofForty Shades of Grey.

It’s worth noting, of course, that while the internet has in a sense enabled this trolls – giving them an easy voice, these trolls are not representative of all commentators.

Just look at the solidarity found on #mencallmethings. Just as there are critics and abusers, there are many offering comfort and calling out for change.

And as the women who face vitriol share their struggles and their stories, they further an important discussion, not only about comments on the internet, but about the underlying causes for these comments in society.  By discussing the opinions and stereotypes fueling this abuse, we take another step toward tackling the misogyny behind it.

Huntsman Daughters Bring Much Needed Media Attention to Campaign

November 2011 - originally published on PolicyMic

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, GOP presidential nominee Jon Huntsman announced that he would drop out of the race if the New Hampshire primary does not go well for him and his campaign. His chances don’t look good, as he has consistently been polling nationally in the single digits. However, Huntsman’s saving grace could be his three oldest daughters, who have recently come into the media spotlight, as they tweet and YouTube, often controversially and perhaps only for media attention, about their father’s campaign. Whatever their motives, though, one thing is clear: Huntsman’s three daughters have brought his campaign more attention than anything else has.

Huntsman has largely been ignored by mainstream media and voters alike as Herman Cain and Mitt Romney speed ahead, both in terms of recognition and likability.  This might be surprising considering that Huntsman ended his term as Utah governor with an 80% approval rating and that the New York Times’ Nate Silvers predicts Huntsman as the GOP contender most likely to win the popular vote under any economic scenario. Yet, few have been talking about this former ambassador and his presidential aspirations.

Now, this is all changing as Mary Anne, Abby, and Liddy – the Huntsman daughters – take matters into their own hands. The girls gained fame when they put on big glasses and fake mustaches and parodied Herman Cain’s campaign manager, Mark Block blowing cigarette smoke at the camera in Cain’s infamous and controversial campaign ad.

Since then, the girls have developed a Twitter following with their @jon2012girls account of nearly 9,000 people. Through social media they’ve been vocal about their father and the GOP race, bringing both humor and a surprising honesty to the campaign. They have become the most prominent voice of the campaign, known, for example, for famously saying, “How does Romney know anything about China? He’s only been there once and that was for the Olympics. Panda Express doesn’t count.”

Many in the media have speculated that the trio has sought media attention only to build their own personal following. They wouldn’t be the first family to capitalize on presidential aspirations; they would be following in the footsteps of the Sarah Palin’s family – which has provided fodder for tabloids and gone on to make a reality show since the election or Meghan McCain, whose blogging career took off with her father’s 2008 presidential bid.

Whatever their future intentions, for now, the three daughters join in a line of candidates’ children who have defended their parents and campaigned furiously for them, including Chelsea Clinton, who campaigned actively for her mother in 2008, even angrily fielding questions about the Lewinsky scandal.

And with their efforts, Abby, Liddy, and Marry Anne have succeeded, at least, in bringing much-needed media attention to Huntsman and his efforts, as many on Twitter and even the New Yorker, Jezebel, and many others begin talking about Huntsman and the trio. 

Learning to live plugged in

October 31, 2011 - originally published on Oxford Today

Like most recent grads, affordable living is high on my list of priorities – which means I’ve sacrificed comfort for a life spent commuting.  As much as I complain about the many long hours I spend on the train, this time is special because it is the only time of day – as my train whizzes past suburban New Jersey and under bustling New York City – that I am disconnected.  No cell phone service, no internet. 

At work, I’m plugged in – I work at a start-up political news analysis website, so keeping up with what’s going on and being online are both not just expected, but also required. 

Away from work, my iPhone and laptop are always buzzing with new messages, unread emails.

As I’m beginning to adjust to this new, ‘adult’ life – where pub trips and bops are replaced with happy hours and brunches – I’m learning to strike the balance of meeting new and exciting people whilst trying to maintain relationships with old friends.
 
Making the transition to the ‘real world’ isn’t so different from first year at university – there are lots of drinks with strangers; awkward moments with forgotten names; and, sometimes, real connections. 

Trying to stay in touch, on the other hand, is, in many ways, uncharted territory. Without plans of returning to England soon and in an effort to avoid crazy international phone bills – means I have to turn friendships, formed over late-night chats in the JCR and burnt meals in halls, into e-friendships, relying almost entirely on Facebook and GChat. 

I don’t just read status updates and look at photo albums, I now hear important news on the internet as well: an email from a friend coming out, a Facebook update about an acquaintance passing away. 

Suddenly, I have started crying to and comforting a screen. 

Distance makes it harder, and I’m glad that I still hear gossip and news within the week, but there’s something to be said for the fact that so many of our post-university relationships survive on social media. I’m now beginning to find that we’re growing more comfortable typing than we are talking, preferring emoticons to even the grainy pictures on Skype.
 
I’m adjusting to life after university slowly – enjoying the vibrant world of New York and the daily excitement working at a start-up brings, but remembering at the same time to update my status and email my friends about all my adventures.

Is Wall Street vs. Main Street Fueling Our Partisan Divide?

October 21, 2011 - originally published on No Labels

Recent news that President Barack Obama raised a whopping $43 million dollars from July through September for his reelection campaign puts into the spotlight the issue of who is donating to presidential campaigns and which candidates these donors are backing in 2012.

While Obama has raised an enormous sum of $99 million this election season, there’s been one notable exception from his camp of donors: Wall Street. While the financial sector backed and donated more $42 million to Obama’s campaign in 2008, this time around, they are supporting former governor and Wall Street CEO Mitt Romney.

In a political environment where money means influence, this shift of allegiances is telling about the increasingly partisan nature of U.S. politics.

The numbers say it all: Until now, 52% of Obama’s fundraising has come from small donations, while only 22% of it falls under the category of $2,500 donations (the maximum amount that can be given). By contrast, a staggering 61% of Romney’s money has come from donations of $2,500, while only 10% has come from small donations.

Even more indicative of the difference between Obama and Romney is the composition of the donor-pool for the two candidates. Romney’s number one campaign contributor has been Goldman Sachs, whose employees and their spouses have given over seven times more to Romney than to Obama. Goldman’s preference for Romney is part of a larger trend; while 23% of Romney’s money has come from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors, less than 5 percent of Obama’s is from the same group.

This split may not come as a surprise. In 2008, Obama was the candidate who transcended partisan politics. Wall Street donated to him. Young people campaigned for him. Unions supported him. But, since his election, he’s lost Wall Street’s support by backing financial reform and even calling Wall Street “immoral.” On the other hand, Romney has furiously defended the industry, insisting that “corporations are people.”

But given this split, what also should not be surprising is the increasingly partisan nature of Washington politics. When entire industries, such as the financial sector, are choosing to support one party and candidate rather than spread their donations more evenly across parties, it’s natural that our politicians will cater to interest groups and divide across party lines. The issue is not simply that Wall Street is supporting Romney, but rather that they are not also supporting Obama.

In today’s polarized political atmosphere in which compromise is a dirty word, the growing gap between who funds our political parties and candidates leaves little hope that Washington will get any less partisan any time soon.