Myers Park Hoofprint

The Myers Park High School Newspaper

Mia Dover

PCP Building Out

By

The growing urbanization and rates of people migrating into cities worldwide have raised the question: how can the housing market best support its citizens? There are a wide variety of arguments regarding building apartments versus continuing the trend of single-family homes. Apartments offer more housing per arable land unit at the cost of lifestyle and culture. It is not worth sacrificing one’s lifestyle in order to fit more people into densely populated areas. Cities need to maintain zoning for single-family housing.

One of the greatest benefits of single-family homes is the luxury of lifestyle they grant to their dwellers. Single-family housing units allow families to maintain their privacy allowing for individuals  to build and maintain a strong sense of identity. According to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC), “Protecting privacy is key to ensuring human dignity, safety, and self-determination.” The sense of autonomy that privacy allows for is also necessary for experiencing a fulfilling connection- a basic human need. People also deserve to experience breaks from the hustle and bustle of city life. While some might make the argument that these people could opt to live in less urban areas, there are simply not enough jobs and services necessary to support people in these areas. Single-family housing units allow people to come home after a long day at work and have quiet self-care time away from traffic and crowds of people. Another beloved feature of the single-family house is the yard. The accessibility of such outdoor spaces makes it more convenient and likely that people will spend time outdoors, yet another necessary activity for preserving mental health. The growth of apartments means surrendering the peaceful way of life that people rely on to maintain their well-being.

While some may argue for the development of apartments surrounding cities, this has devastating costs to the culture in the areas. When developers are seeking out locations for their new apartment projects they are likely to seek out popular or accessible areas.  These areas are usually “hip” or of growing popularity following gentrification, which is the process of moving wealthier people into a poor urban area, which displaces the poorer inhabitants.. With their large apartment complexes, these developers offer large sums of money in the face of small businesses, which would be absurd for small business owners- who have to make a living- to deny. The apartments swallow up culture and individuality in cities. Again, fitting more people into cities is not worth sacrificing the warm and friendly face of a culture that locals and visitors love and cherish .

The economy is critical in the argument for single vs. multi-family dwellings. Replacing existing infrastructure with apartments means destroying the materials and essentially erasing the services that have already been used and having to use completely new ones. This is a costly task and an unnecessary one at that. There is also unused land surrounding cities that developers seek out. Even then, building up is much more expensive than building out. Building up requires more labor and complex materials to support stairs, elevators, and support beams. Furthermore for individual homeowners, single-family home ownership is one of the best ways to generate personal wealth. Single-family housing units are financially beneficial to both developers and homeowners alike.

The way of life that single-family homes offer should not be sold to cities and developers only to further populate already dense areas. One of the main arguments for building multi-family dwellings is that it is better for the environment since less land would be getting swallowed up by the phenomenon of urban areas growing further and further out, otherwise known as urban sprawl. These arguments, however, fail to look at the environmental costs of tearing down current infrastructure and using even more materials to build new ones. Cities should prioritize the lifestyle, culture, and maintain zoning for single-family homes.

Fear of Stillness

By

With a quick-paced society and an abundance of external stimuli at their disposal, Americans are constantly moving from one task to another. Children receive praise for completing tasks and achieving goals from a young age. The goal is to achieve maximum output per given unit, which can be hours, days, or even a lifetime. What this means for individuals is that whoever is achieving the most is the most successful, emphasizing quantity over quality. This idea has stimulated an underlying stigma against rest and leisure. To actively seek out rest has become increasingly synonymous with laziness. This correlation, which is often mistaken, presents a dilemma: the American population’s growing fear of boredom as they become disconnected, unfulfilled, and experience burnout. All of these symptoms are a byproduct of capitalist values.

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. This system aims to maximize profits and increase efficiency, often producing more goods or providing more services in less time. The emphasis on the value of productivity in American culture can be attributed to the rise of capitalism at the start of the Industrial Revolution. As capitalism grew in prevalence, productivity became a key metric for measuring success. This emphasis on productivity was fueled by the notion that increased efficiency would lead to greater profits. This created a culture prioritizing hard work and productivity over other values, such as leisure time or rest. This work ethic is deeply rooted and often celebrated within American culture, emphasizing the positive relationship between hard work and success. 

Platforms such as TikTok and Instagram have glamorized an achievement-oriented lifestyle, creating false ideas of a productive routine. Many influencers and other users are partaking in trends featuring their daily routines. These routines are often highly unachievable and romanticized through aesthetic supplements such as the sparkle filter. One trend which recently went viral on TikTok was based on people trying to replicate Benjamin Franklin’s daily routines, which were recorded in his diaries. This routine was defined by non-stop movement and planning down to the minute. Although many recognize the humor in this trend, its origins still reflect the desire for success, and the American ideals carried out through constant productivity. The comparative nature of social media leads ordinary people to attempt to replicate the behaviors of those they see as successful, which is rooted in capitalism from an American point of view, and comes down to fame and fortune.

Too much focus on productivity can be detrimental to our mental health. American values of productivity create a negative stigma surrounding downtime. This fear and discomfort surrounding boredom is perpetuated by capitalism, which places those who can accomplish the most on a pedestal. This standard has left many Americans experiencing burnout. A study by the University of York found that individuals who regularly engage in activities that induce boredom are likelier to experience positive emotions and a greater sense of well-being. Both of these studies emphasize the importance of prioritizing time for leisure and relaxation over the external pressures of constant achievement. This is easier said than done; however, it can be made possible through planning, prioritizing tasks, and self-awareness.

While productivity can be essential for success, it is crucial to recognize the negative impact that this growing culture can have on our mental health, work-life balance, and creativity. Instead of placing so much value on productivity and achievement, we should strive for a healthy balance of work and rest and recognize the importance of downtime and creativity. By prioritizing consciously incorporating it into our daily routines, we can achieve a healthier and more sustainable balance between work and leisure.

Challenging Tradition

By

Over the past few years, the nature of school dances has been changing to better fit the times. It has become increasingly common to see girls asking boys to these dances or to see queer couples in attendance. The more progressive and inclusive school dances are, the better for under-represented students. One school dance tradition that has persisted despite being particularly outdated is the Sadie Hawkins Dance.

The Sadie Hawkins Dance- also called the Backwards or Girl’s Reverse Dance- is a school tradition where the girl is supposed to ask the boy to the event and perform the stereotypical role of males. This tradition originates from the Li’l Abner comic strip, created in the 1930s. The specific comic which birthed the Sadie Hawkins dance was a satirical feature about a woman who became tired of waiting for men to ask for her hand in marriage. Sadie Hawkins organized a race in which women would chase after men and, upon catching them, would force them into marriage. The tradition of the Sadie Hawkins dance is loosely based on the ideas of this comic strip.

While the Sadie Hawkins Dance does not involve women hunting down men and forcing their hand in marriage, it is founded on the misogyny that was normalized in the 20th century. The antiquated dance reinforces gender normativity by implying that it is out of the ordinary and quirky for women to ask men for a school dance or any partnership. This can disempower women and reinforces the expectation that women should be submissive toward men.

The Sadie Hawkins tradition also reinforces gender and heteronormative ideals in its failure to consider queer and non-binary students. When the dance was created, it was considered highly abnormal for someone to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Even further, non-binary identities were almost entirely unheard of; in fact, the first occasion of someone gaining legal recognition as non-binary did not occur until 2016. These dynamics are very different now, considering the increasing awareness of LGBTQ+ identities. Based on data from the 2021 Gallup poll, approximately 20% of Generation Z individuals over eighteen now identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community. These statistics prove the outdatedness of traditions like the Sadie Hawkins dance, which only considers male and female individuals and heterosexual relationships. It is crucial to challenge traditions that keep members of the LGBTQ+ community ostracized.

In efforts to challenge gender and heteronormativity, some schools are opting to replace the Sadie Hawkins dance. In 2015, the Phillips Academy, located in Andover, Massachusetts, replaced the Sadie Hawkins Dance with the Abbott Ball, named after the Abbott girl’s campus. The Director of Student Activities- Christopher Capano- said that they decided to do this based on the realization that they “want all [their] dances to be as inclusive as possible.” Other schools have simply been replacing the dance with winter balls or formals. These are straightforward solutions that can have a significant impact on allowing LGBTQ+ students and young women alike to feel more empowered. 

It is important to avoid condemning school committees for traditions that have existed since before many of the schools that practice them were even established. Most schools that practice these traditions do not intend any malice; instead, many are unaware of such traditions’ implications and origins. Even though this is a nationwide discussion, Myers Park is also taking this issue into consideration. Ms. Fiore, who is in charge of Myers Park’s SGA, says,

“There has been discussion surrounding the name of the dance. [SGA] is willing and open to changing replace the name of the dance if it’s in the student body’s best interest.”

This is why it is essential to continue creating awareness surrounding issues like the inclusivity of school dances that affect groups that have been historically discriminated against.

Sobriety in the Music Industry

By

Mac Miller, Taylor Hawkins, Juice World, John Bonham, Kurt Cobain, and Amy Winehouse all have two things in common. The first thing is that they were all top-selling musical artists; the second is that each one of them died while being excessively intoxicated. The list does not end here either; it would probably go on for ages if all of those in the music industry who struggled with addiction, of any form , were also accounted for. So what is the problem? Why does the music industry serve as such a substantial breeding ground for addiction and excessive drug use?

There is a surplus of money to be found in the music industry. As of 2021, the music industry was worth 26 billion dollars, according to The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Excess amounts of money mean that hedonistic culture can thrive here. Not only are artists able to afford expensive alcohol and the ability to feed their drug habits, but their substances may even be encouraged by the record labels overlooking their addictions to allow the artists to uphold a certain image.​​ This is especially prevalent in rock and hip hop genres. Along with their image that sells, the environments that artists inhabit on a daily basis are home to heavy consumption. Several studies have found that the environment plays a significant role in the likelihood of substance abuse. This explains why artists are more likely to develop substance abuse disorders when they are spending time at parties and concerts because they are surrounded by people getting intoxicated as a means of enhancing the music they are listening to and easing social anxiety. The same studies have also found that environment plays a role in the likelihood of relapse, meaning that artists who are interested in getting sober face a dilemma while maintaining their career and sobriety. The high addiction rates in the music industry may also be attributed to pressure on both up-and-coming and established artists to create new, unique music that sets them apart from others. Many artists claim that the use of psychoactive drugs allows them to be more creative when producing new work, although it is not scientifically proven  that drugs enhance creativity according to the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Top-selling artist Harry Styles discussed in an interview with Apple Music’s Beats 1 his use of psilocybin mushrooms in the process of creating one of his more recent albums, Fine Line. In the interview, the singer gives credit to the mushrooms for allowing him to be “fun and creative.” 

Messages like these that contribute success to substance abuse are extremely damaging.

While being a hotspot for addiction in artists, the music industry is also at fault for encouraging substance abuse among its listeners. Many musical artists boast about their excessive drug use either in lyrics, interviews, or on social media. Many of these artists also have huge fan bases who idolize them and truly internalize these messages about what it means to be cool or successful. Younger listeners are especially susceptible to believing these messages without recognizing the risks and pain associated with substance abuse.

The trend of substance abuse in musicians and the glamourization of drugs in music needs to be curbed. The ability to do this lies in the hands of the record labels that run the music industry. Instead of feeding off of their artist’s addictions or turning a blind eye, labels could provide resources to support their struggling artists. The issues of addiction and substance abuse will never be defeated entirely. They can, however, be decreased with the right actions.