Tag: ENGL 110

Posted on

Chance

Natalie Nowak

Pilsen. In case you haven’t heard of it, it’s a neighborhood near the Lower West Side in Chicago, right near Chinatown. It’s a relatively large neighborhood with dozens of restaurants, shops, apartment complexes, and an important museum: the National Museum of Mexican Art. This museum is one of the only places left that houses the incredibly rich history and culture of Latino immigrants in Chicago. Not only is it a sacred place for its historical art, but it also serves as the residents’ sounding board in response to the increasing gentrification in Pilsen. While the neighborhood has retained the majority of its Hispanic makeup, it has also seen an incredible rise in the percentage of white households. When I visited Pilsen for the first time, I felt like I was trespassing on someone’s property. I was an outsider. I knew at that moment that I had stepped into something frightening: an entire culture washing away in front of my eyes.

I didn’t intentionally visit Pilsen. I hadn’t even really heard of it before. All I knew about it was that it had a strong Hispanic influence. Most neighborhoods in Chicago have some connection to ethnicity, and this is thought to be the “main” Mexican neighborhood. The day when I first encountered Pilsen, I had the intention of going to some shops in Lincoln Park, an upscale neighborhood on the North Side. Unfortunately, that same day, the Pride Parade was scheduled right where I would be headed, and I was not about to throw myself into the crowd of millions of people there. By the time I found out the parade was scheduled there, I was already headed into the city from the suburbs, so I had to make a backup plan. I quickly came up with a new plan to visit the Heart of Italy, a neighborhood just west of Pilsen. It was a warm day, and I only wanted to take public transportation halfway there so I could walk the rest. I got off the L right before Pilsen and headed towards the Heart of Italy.

I knew I had undoubtedly entered a new neighborhood. The smell of taquerias and elote flooded my senses. I saw the bright and vivid murals embraced in Spanish poetry. Kids ran through the streets with not a care of the loud clanking train overhead. It felt incredibly homey and carefree at first. As I made my way down 18th Street, I saw Giordano’s (a famous Chicago pizza chain), over-the-top coffeehouses, and an expensive smoothie bar. I didn’t pay much attention to this at first; I was used to seeing these types of businesses in other neighborhoods.

However, I started to see signs of protest the deeper I got into the neighborhood. Yard signs protesting the rising property costs, chalk depictions of kids’ families immigrating from Mexico, and banners hung on families’ porches with sayings like, “LEAVE US ALONE.” I wanted to ask some of the residents what was going on, but at the same time, I felt like there was a message being conveyed to me: look for yourself. From there, I started my search.

I did a quick Wikipedia search about the neighborhood and pulled some facts together about demographics and history. When I looked up Pilsen on Google, my search results flooded with articles about Hispanic families leaving because of rising costs, the gentrification debate, and stories about the loss of culture. Both DNAinfo and WTTW cite rapid decline of Pilsen’s Hispanic families. One of these statistics mentions a staggering 26 percent drop in 10 years. This net emigration is a direct result of rising rent and housing costs, as well as a response to wealthy and young white residents moving in (Lulay). One of the most striking examples of gentrification in Pilsen is the increasing number of modern and upscale restaurants throughout the neighborhood–three opened up in 2017. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that some of the original Latino-owned restaurants are modifying their menus to attract visitors and new residents (Bloom). For lack of better words, they are “Americanizing” their menus. While Pilsen’s Hispanic families couldn’t completely stop these restaurants from opening or stop young white residents from moving in, they have remained opposed to new development plans and rising costs (WTTW).  Even though I knew I could get a full scope of the situation through the news, I headed to the Mexican museum. I felt like I would get a better sense of what was going on through the art.

The collection at the museum was compelling. It ranged from ancient to modern to street art. The museum even housed a stage for children’s plays. Instead of starting the traditional way and working my way forward through history, I thought it would make more sense to start at the present and go back in time. I was eager to know how intertwined Latino history and culture were with Pilsen’s residents. The first exhibit was intense and tear-jerking: poetry about families being torn apart, torn-up Chicago Tribune newspapers, ironic and modern depictions of “Don’t Tread on Me,” and a film with a first-person view of homelessness. The list goes on. The exhibit was an uncensored response to the gentrification in Pilsen and its effects on the families there–especially the Hispanic families. I felt the pain and loss even though I had never experienced it myself; after all, I grew up in a comfortable, safe, and predominantly white suburb. Yet, when I was in that exhibit, it brought me face-first to the struggles some of the families endured. The next exhibit was similar, but it hit closer to home. A local school had gathered the art of some of its students to put on display at this museum. These students, however, weren’t just random and talented artists. They were young men and women that had fallen into the pit of gangs, street life, drugs, and violence. Many of them experienced depression and developed other mental illnesses. The school had courageously asked these students to make art instead of war, and the results were terrifyingly beautiful. There were no limits to the art forms or the themes. I read about how, for some, they felt like the streets were their destiny, and I saw what depression looks like when it’s mixed with street life. And, perhaps most importantly, I understood why these students felt like their home was being snatched before their eyes. These students were my age and could have easily been given the relatively comfortable life I had. Instead, they had to fight what they were given. As I left the exhibit almost crying, I traversed through the modern and ancient art exhibits and kept noticing one important aspect of Mexican culture: home.

For many residents, Pilsen was–and is–home. Whether it’s the young teenagers that got mixed into trouble or the immigrant parents seeking a better future for their families, Pilsen is where they share their culture and grow together. The prospect of losing your home, whether culturally or physically, is horrifying. It’s something that people try to avoid and ignore, and yet the families here face it with incredible bravery. I never had to know what it felt like to lose my home or my culture, but the words I read, the paintings I saw, and the music I listened to transcended any veil of ignorance. I recognized an entire culture that had been ignored for so long. The power of fear was strong in Pilsen, but the power of bravery was even stronger. To me, it is incredibly courageous for someone to face the prospect of losing everything important in their life with such a fervent and daring attitude. It is inspirational for someone to fight when they know the risks are high and the odds are against them. I learned how important it is to stay brave in the most troubling times and to fight for your culture–even when the chances of “winning” are low.

I will never meet the artists behind all the work at the museum in Pilsen but I don’t have to to know their story. They opened my blind eyes to a world of pain, fear, and, most importantly, persistence. I didn’t have any specific reason to be in Pilsen but, in retrospect, I now know it wasn’t just by chance. It’s important for me to pass on the story of Pilsen and the incredible lessons its residents taught me through their art. Although I can’t account for any personal experiences with losing my culture, I understand the fear associated with that, but also the courage one must adopt to fight that fear.

Works Cited

Bloom, Mina. “How Restaurants Feed the Gentrification Debate in Pilsen and Logan Square.” Eater Chicago, Vox Media, 6 Feb. 2018.

Lulay, Stephanie. “Pilsen Gets Whiter As 10,000 Hispanics, Families Move Out, Study Finds.” DNAinfo, DNAinfo, 13 Apr. 2016.

Pupovac, Jessica. “Pilsen Develops New Tools To Fight Gentrification.” WTTW, WWCI.

Posted on

Maternity Leave in the USA

Emilee Kennedy

After a new baby is born, the parents will often be feeling many very intense emotions. Love, excitement and happiness- all positive in response to the arrival of their child. However, in the United States, certain laws and policies can also have parents feeling the opposite way. These parents are scared that they won’t be able to afford this new life, worried about all the time the new mother will need to heal, and stressed about the new costs and responsibilities this new life will consume. The United States has been severely lacking in implementing fair maternity leave policies nationwide. If we were to improve or replace our current laws, not only would new mothers and families reap the benefits, but also the employers and even economy- in the long run. Our country has been unfair in prioritizing businesses over people, and should endeavor to provide more comfort and financial safety for new parents as a national priority.

The United States is one of only eight countries in the entire world that offers no paid maternity leave to new mothers. Of those eight countries, it is the only high income country to not offer paid time off. For a small family or a single mother, that unpaid time off is difficult to recover from, especially with the sudden increase in household costs due to the new baby. According to a report by The American Department of Agriculture, it costs more that $233,000 dollars to raise a child (Lino). This study done in 2015 accounts for costs from birth to the age of 18, and excludes the expense of a college education. Adding another person to a household drastically increases overall costs, and the physical reality for women is that they need some time off of work to recover from childbirth. Fathers also generally are allowed the same amount of time of unpaid leave, but seldom take it due to the necessity of women taking the time off for physical recovery. This means less bonding time between the father and child (Wallace and Christenson). A study in 2012 even found that fathers who took ten days of leave to care for the child found that they would be more likely to be involved in their child’s life as well as child care activities. But with new mothers (and in some cases-fathers) not going to work, overall incomes drop drastically. Although the laws in place cause obvious financial stress on the families, they also cause proven emotional stress on the mothers and children.

Studies show that these limited breaks given to new mothers can cause increased chances of postpartum depression (Ingraham). Approximately one out of seven new mothers experience postpartum depression, which can reveal itself as increased anxiety, sadness, mood swings, and in some cases even an adverse reaction to their own baby (Lieber). Arnold Lieber, a medical doctor, asserts that these symptoms can last for several weeks. Postpartum depression is typically caused by unbalanced hormones, changes in relationships, or emotional stressors including financial stress. It’s no wonder that there is an increased chance of this illness in the United States, where mothers are guaranteed no paid leave. Despite knowing they are causing stress on themselves, mothers are hesitant to leave work towards the end of their pregnancy, and rush to return due to financial strain. The limited time that they have to enjoy their baby is overshadowed by the stress of a reduced income, causing unnecessary stress that could result in postpartum depression. However, mothers are not the only ones who are negatively affected by unfair family leave policies. Limited contact time with the parents also has negative effects on the child. Breastfeeding is so crucial to the health of a child that many pediatricians agree that it is the best thing a mother can do to help a newborn thrive. A study in California in 2011 found that women with access to paid maternity leave breastfed for nearly twice as long as mothers who didn’t (Heymann). Breastfeeding has been found to reduce the chances of asthma, obesity, and infant sudden death syndrome in babies, while simultaneously benefiting the mother with reduced risks of breast and ovarian cancer, diabetes, and heart disease (Wallace and Christensen). However, after going back to work some mothers find the hassle of breastfeeding or pumping to not be worth the benefits. Very few employers offer convenient places for breastfeeding/pumping breast milk, and up until recently most mother were forced to do so hidden away in their office or locked in a bathroom. Being forced to pump in these conditions everyday are enough to make most mothers quit, assuming that the hassle and embarrassment isn’t worth it. There is significant research proving all the negative effects of short maternity leave as listed above, but there have also been studies that show how intense the positive effects are after countries provide better benefits to new families.

In countries where at least one parent stays home after a birth, we see significant increases in their quality of care over the first few years. Children whose parents were offered paid leave are 25% more likely to get vaccines, simply because they have the extra time to focus on their children (Wallace and Christensen). The reality of paid parental leave is that we will be more likely in the future to have increased well being of both mother and child. Mauricio Avendano Pabon, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health claims “This is really what economists call a human capital investment. You invest in this, you will end up picking up the benefits of this policy even years later.” So why is the US Government so hesitant to invest in the future of their own citizens, and create laws to enforce the necessity of paid parental leave? The truth is that America values businesses over people. With all of this proof of benefits for both the mother and child, there is no feasible reason paid family leave is still so inaccessible in the US, especially when other countries have implemented fair maternity leave policies with great success.

Finland is one of the frontrunners for best family benefits in the world. They have proved several times that their overall compassion and concern for the wellbeing of new families should be prioritized in a country. They are currently much further along on the path of fair maternity leave. This makes sense considering their first legal maternity guidelines were enacted in 1938, 55 years before America passed its first laws pertaining to family leave. Something unique that Finland provides to new mothers is a Maternity Care Package. These became available for all mothers in 1949, and provide childcare essentials such as clothing, bedding, diapers, and even educational material. The care package itself even doubles as a sleeping cot, perfect for a low income family. Finland has excelled in the field of providing adequate family leave. They also offer Maternity Grants, or lump sums of money to qualifying parents. This is unheard of in the United States, and this is only one example of why Finland is the most progressive country in terms of fair family medical leave. New parents in Finland are offered up to 104 days (3 months) of leave after the birth of their child. After this period of full pay, there are various services available to parents that can provide them with their partial, or occasionally even their full salary until the child turns 3. After the child has passed the age that this is offered, there are programs that can provide either partial childcare allowances or daycare allowances for working parents. The United States bleak family leave laws are nothing compared to the compassionate guidelines set by the Finnish government. Considering all the benefits that other first world countries are able to offer new parents, the details of America’s laws seem downright cruel.

The United States should be ashamed of its lack of family leave. Other high income countries are willing and glad to offer up to three years of paid leave. The US has always lagged behind its other high-income counterparts, passing the first law pertaining to family leave in 1993. FMLA, or the Family Medical Leave Act passed to guarantee 12 weeks unpaid leave to new mothers and fathers after a birth or adoption (Sholar). However, even this is difficult to be eligible for. By passing this vague law, the US decided that although workers who had to leave for family reasons are entitled to job security, whether they receive paid leave should be up to individual employers. While it is an option for employers, according to the National Women’s Law Center only 12% of workers are offered paid family leave. Although the reality of current laws in the US seem hopeless, there is a new legislation being pushed into Congress that could mean better rights for new parents. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (or the FAMILY Act) was proposed by Representative Rosa DeLauro and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and was introduced in 2017 (S. 337). The Act was proposed as a form of mandatory taxpayer-funded insurance, and would offer 12 weeks of paid leave to new mothers and father at a 34% pay cut (FAMILY Act FAQ). It is based on states with paid leave programs that are in place and showing incredible success such as in California, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. No further action has been taken on this proposal yet, but it’s existence is already a good sign for the future of family leave in America.

The few months after childbirth are some of the most emotional and challenging times for a new family. Increased financial stress can cause issues for all members of the family, which can result in serious mental issues later on. Paid maternity and paternity leave for these families could solve some of these issues, creating a healthier environment for the parents as well as the child. More time away from work could drastically increase the wellbeing of a child and the mother, with proof of better physical and mental health even years after birth. The future of improved family leave in the US looks bright, and hopefully the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act will be addressed by Congress in the near future. Raising a new baby is a challenge itself, and adding financial struggles and other stress to the family can be disastrous. The laws on required family leave should be less based on the inconvenience to the employers and more concerned with the wellbeing of the parents and child.

Works Cited

Chait, Jennifer. “Finland’s Family Benefits Prove Why It’s Ranked the Number One Place in the  World to be a Parent.” inhabitat.com, Inhabitots, 2013,   https://inhabitat.com/inhabitots/finlands-family-benefits-prove-why-its-ranked-the-number-one-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-parent/. Accessed 23 October. 2018.

Deahl, Jessica. “Countries Around The World Beat The U.S. On Paid Parental Leave.” NPR, NPR, 6 Oct. 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/495839588/countries-around-the-world-beat-the-u-s-on-paid-parental-leave. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

Heymann, Jody, et al. “Policy and Global Health: The Case of Maternal Leave.”   Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, US National Library of Medicine, 2011,                       www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150137/#. Accessed 19 October. 2018.

Ingraham, Christopher. “Analysis | The World’s Richest Countries Guarantee Mothers More than       a Year of Paid Maternity Leave. The U.S. Guarantees Them Nothing.” The Washington                     Post, WP Company, 5 Feb. 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018                    /02/05/the-worlds-richest-countries-guarantee-mothers-more-than-a-year-of-paid-maternity-leave-the-u-s-guarantees-them-nothing/. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

Liebelson, Dana. “How America Ended up with the Worst Maternity Leave Laws on Earth.” The Week – All You Need to Know about Everything That Matters, The Week, 27 June 2014,  theweek.com/articles/445827/how-america-ended-worst-maternity-leave-laws-earth.  Accessed 17 October. 2018.

Lieber, Arnold. “Postpartum Depression: A Guide to Symptoms & Treatment After Childbirth.”  PsyCom.net – Mental Health Treatment Resource Since 1986,  www.psycom.net/depression.central.post-partum.html. Accessed 16 October. 2018.

Lino, Mark, et al. “Expenditures on Children By Families, 2015.” Cpp.usda.gov, United States Department of Agriculture, Jan. 2017,                                www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/crc2015.pdf. Accessed 19 October. 2018.

Sholar, Megan. “The History of Family Leave Policies in the United States.” The American  Historian, The Organization of American Historians, tah.oah.org/november-2016/the-history -of-family -leave-policies- in-the-united-states/. Accessed 17 October. 2018.

“The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act: Frequently Asked Questions.”   National Partnership For Women and Families, Sept. 2018. Accessed 17 October. 2018.

United States, Congress, Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. 2017. Accessed 17 October.  2018.

Wallace, Kelly, and Jen Christensen. “Paid Leave Benefits Children and Families, Studies Say.”  CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Oct. 2015,  https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/health/paid-leave-benefits-to-children-research/index.html. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

 

Posted on

Wind Energy: Risk vs. Reward

Molly Campbell

 

In a world where climate change is a real and serious problem, governments and environmental organizations are on a desperate search for clean, green energy sources. Harnessing energy from wind is one of the cleanest methods of generating power because it does not produce pollution or greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It is abundant and infinitely renewable, and is considered by many environmental scientists to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and, potentially, a solution to the global climate change issue. However, like any developing technology, this method of power generation has consequences that must be explored and taken into consideration. Wind energy production has serious negative environmental impacts and poses health risks for humans and animals, and for these reasons it cannot be considered a safe or sustainable way of powering cities.

At first glance, it is easy to say that wind energy is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide emissions for electricity generated from fossil fuels are estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.0 pounds per kilowatt-hour, and for coal generated electricity, estimates are between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds. Wind turbines only produce 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour; at least fifteen times less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels and at least 35 times less than coal (Environmental). However, this is without regard to the amount of land that is required for the production of this wind energy. A recent survey by the United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that wind facilities use anywhere from thirty to 141 acres of land per megawatt hour of power generated, more than coal or fossil fuels (Environmental). Because wind turbines must be placed five to ten rotor diameters apart (Environmental), and the average rotor diameter of current utility scale wind turbines is 116 metres (Anatomy), there is a significant amount of wasted space between turbines in a wind energy facility, space that could be better used through a different energy production method. In a recent study based out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was discovered that one-third of the projected electricity demands of the United States in 2050 could be generated with solar energy on 11,000 square kilometres of land or with nuclear energy on 1,489 square kilometres (Jenkins). Doing this with wind energy would require 66,576 square kilometres (Jenkins). Trying to meet the world’s energy demands with wind is not practical or sustainable. While it is true that the planet will never run out of wind, it will eventually run out of open space needed to harvest this wind. Tens of thousands of acres of forest would need to be cleared, resulting in the destruction of the habitats of countless wildlife species. The natural environment that would be destroyed is worth more than the clean energy that could be produced.

The risks posed to animals because of this energy harnessing method are too great to be ignored. The large, fast-moving blades of wind turbines are very dangerous to flying animals, specifically birds and bats. Many species are at risk of being killed either by the blades or by the drastic changes in air pressure surrounding the turbines (Farmers). Bird experts say that this could cause a chain reaction across North America or potentially on a global scale because many of the at-risk species are migratory birds (Farmers). Supporters of wind energy argue that the safety of birds and bats is taken into account and assessed during the construction of each facility, but according to BirdLife International Scientist Raul Ortiz-Pulido these tests are only run with a few wind turbines over a very brief time period (Farmers). Because the research is done on such a small scale there is a fairly minor injurious effect on avian species, many scientists and wind energy activists consider it negligible. However, a negative effect during such a short amount of time and with very few turbines is going to grow exponentially once the wind facility is operating at its maximum capacity for an indefinite time frame. It is the long term effect that will be detrimental; many species of bats and birds could eventually face extinction if enough wind power continues to grow in popularity as an energy source. Wind harnessing facilities are placing birds and bats in direct danger of injury and death and therefore are not an acceptable energy alternative.

It is not only birds and bats, though, that are threatened by wind harnessing facilities. Wind turbines have been shown to cause a variety of symptoms in humans, which together make up what is known by some as “wind turbine syndrome” (Campbell). These symptoms are the result of constant low-frequency noise, the shadow flicker effect from the blades, and electromagnetic radiation emissions and include sleep disturbances, headache, nausea, dizziness, increased blood pressure, weight changes, irregular heart rhythms, mood problems, chronic fatigue, depression, and tinnitus (Campbell). Dr. Albert Aniel, a physician, explains some of these problems and warns, “With low frequency noise, primarily generated by turbines, people feel that they must breathe at that rate, causing loss of balance, dizziness, and psychiatric disorders” (Adams). Because the emissions of the turbines and the way that individuals perceive them are both highly variable, some scientists argue that these symptoms cannot be considered a real medical condition and are not direct evidence that wind turbines adversely affect human health (Information Paper). Nonetheless, the fact that people living in close proximity to wind facilities have experienced these negative effects cannot simply be ignored. Whether or not all medical professionals and environmental scientists choose to accept this research as evidence, it is verifiably true that wind turbines make people sick. If wind energy use continues to grow, the number of people affected will grow even more quickly due to the increasingly large area occupied by wind turbines. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions while sacrificing public health is not a reasonable solution to the climate change issue; this trade-off would do our world more harm than good.

The risks of wind energy are not worth the reward. Energy from non-renewable resources can be replaced with energy from wind, however this comes at a great cost— too great a cost to be considered a viable option. Powering the world with wind would mean giving up thousands and thousands of acres of land. It would mean threatening countless types of birds and bats with extinction, potentially leading to a world-wide wildlife crisis as migratory species are killed off. It would mean jeopardizing the health of the public. Ultimately, the negative consequences of wind energy far outweigh its benefits. So, what is the solution to the global climate change issue? It isn’t fossil fuels, and it isn’t coal. Maybe it’s solar energy, or maybe it’s nuclear energy. Maybe it has yet to be found. But it isn’t wind.

 

 

Works Cited

Adams, Eileen M. “Pros and cons of wind energy debated.” Tribune Business News. 5 Feb. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

“Anatomy of a Wind Turbine.” American Wind Energy Association. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. Campbell, Jackie, BScPharm, L.L.B. “Wind Energy and Health Effects.” Pharmacy Practice. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

“Environmental Impacts of Wind Power.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2015

“Farmers and Scientists Consider Risks in Developing Wind Energy; source: IPS].” Noticias Financerias. 02 Mar. 2007. Proquest. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.

“Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health.” National Health and Medical Research Council. Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Jenkins, Jesse. “How Much Land Does Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Energy Require?” The Energy Collective. 24 June 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.

Posted on

Mopping with Love

Molly Campbell

 

Think of some popular commercials. How do the most effective ones catch viewers’ attention? Are they funny? Serious? Sad? Simply informative? Everyday, people are exposed to so many commercials that they often see them as a nuisance and may not pay much attention to exactly what effect a certain commercial is designed to have. However, with a closer look one can see that each commercial has been created to target the audience in a specific way. The actors, settings, and stories to tell in a commercial are handpicked from millions of possibilities. In a recent commercial for the Swiffer WetJet entitled “Cleaning is Easier with Morty and Lee,” the Swiffer company specifically chooses to showcase the lives of an elderly couple in order to make their product emotionally and practically appealing.

By telling a real-life story, the Swiffer company creates a commercial that is relatable for viewers. The commercial is set in Morty and Lee Kaufman’s home, and they are a fairly typical couple. A common stereotype that men are the messy ones and their wives have to constantly clean up after them is highlighted in this commercial. Morty admits to being untidy: “I don’t do any cleaning. I make dirt” (Swiffer). Lee, on the other hand, represents the stereotypical housewife when she says, “I like a clean kitchen!” (Swiffer). While Lee is doing her best to get the housework done with her traditional mop and water, Morty just watches. While Lee marvels at the dirt picked up so easily by her new Swiffer WetJet, Morty just watches (Swiffer). In both of these instances it is not that Lee’s husband wants to ignore her feelings; it is simply that cleaning is just not important to him. Women who view this commercial will be able to identify with Lee; at one time or another they have no doubt found themselves tirelessly cleaning up after their onlooking husbands. On the contrary, Morty is a relatable character for men, the messy ones who are inattentive or oblivious to the housework their wives are constantly doing. Lee and Morty are a perfect example of this stereotype, and because it is so common in today’s society its representation in the commercial illustrates something that both women and men experience on a regular basis. It makes the commercial relatable for both groups and automatically causes it to resonate with them. This stereotype has been portrayed intentionally to make viewers feel emotionally connected to the commercial and is one major reason why Swiffer chose to share this particular couple’s story.

Next, the commercial specifically uses elderly actors in order to illustrate how simple and practical the product is to use and how far its design has come from the mops that are standard for people in Lee and Morty’s generation. In the beginning of the commercial, ninety year old Lee is shown struggling with her heavy old mop. She is shown trying to lift the mop up to the sink and wring it out and admits that she simply cannot do it: “I’m not big enough or strong enough for this” (Swiffer). Then, Morty and Lee find a box on their doorstep containing the Swiffer WetJet. Puzzled, Morty asks, “What is a WetJet?” (Swiffer). Lee, who is almost as confused, answers him: “I think it’s some kind of mopping device” (Swiffer). The box is so small that they can’t believe something inside of it could possibly replace their big traditional mop, showing that this is a practical, modern product. The Swiffer WetJet is infinitely easier for Lee to use than her conventional mop (Swiffer). The functionality of the product is emphasized when Lee shows her surprise at how well it works and how effortless it is to use. She says, “There sure is a lot of dirt on there. Morty!? Look how easy it is” (Swiffer). The creators of the commercial exaggerate this to leave potential consumers thinking that if a ninety year old woman can use the WetJet without difficulty then so can almost anyone else. The Kaufmans’ age is used to exaggerate the practicality of the product. Their amazed reaction to this new appliance is due in part to the fact that they are elderly, and Lee’s ability to use the product easily despite being ninety years old highlights its simplicity and user-friendliness.

Lastly, the creators of the commercial incorporate scenes of heartwarming interaction between the Kaufmans in order to get viewers to associate positive emotions with the product. Although Morty does not take an interest in cleaning himself, he is concerned about Lee trying to use the old mop. When he sees her struggling with it he worries aloud: “There should be some way to make it easier” (Swiffer). It is touching that although Morty is completely out of his element in the world of housework, he evidently cares for his wife enough that he wishes it did not have to be as difficult for her to get the clean kitchen that she desires. When the product is delivered to the Kaufman’s doorstep Morty calls Lee out to see it saying, “Here’s a box, babe, open it up” (Swiffer). It is endearing to hear Morty address Lee with such a romantic, charming term especially given that they are ninety years old. Then, after opening up the WetJet and having Lee show him how simple it is to use, Morty remarks, “It’s almost like dancing!” (Swiffer) and proceeds to twirl his wife around the kitchen. Scenes of affection and romance somehow always seem to be even more adorable when they involve seniors, and the Swiffer company takes advantage of this. Through the use of this elderly couple, the creators of the commercial are able to take scenes that would have been fairly emotive already and make them even more poignant. This is done deliberately to give the product sentimental appeal and make it memorable. When viewers see this appliance in stores, they will recall the emotional effect that the commercial had on them and will be more likely to purchase it.

In conclusion, it is very evident that the company chose to feature this particular couple for specific reasons in their commercial for the Swiffer WetJet. Lee and Morty and their story serve not only to demonstrate the usefulness and practicality of the product being advertised, but also to add emotional appeal to it. Lee and Morty are representatives of a stereotype that is seen frequently in society: men make messes, and women clean up after them. Swiffer uses this aspect of Lee and Morty’s lives to create a commercial that is relatable for male and female audiences, thus helping viewers develop a connection to the product. Even as an elderly woman, Lee is able to operate the Swiffer WetJet quite easily, proving its simplicity and usefulness. Morty is very affectionate towards his wife, making the commercial touching and causing viewers to associate positive emotions with the product. Swiffer could have selected countless other individuals for this commercial, but chose Morty and Lee because they make the product practically and emotionally alluring. After all, who could resist the idea of quick and easy mopping combined with a little love story?

 

Works Cited

Swiffer. Cleaning is Easier With Morty and Lee. Youtube. Youtube. 1 July 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.