Let your voice be heard

Category archive

Gender Issues

A New Look on Feminism: Breaking Misplaced Labels

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

When I was growing up, my family members made very clear that gender does not limit a person’s abilities. When I was in 8th grade, I realized they were wrong. I thought sexism had died off with cooties in elementary school, but learning about things such as the wage gap and cat calling opened my eyes to a whole new world of discrimination. Yes, I had mocked double standards growing up. However, that did not mean that the rest of the world had necessarily caught on. At 14 years old, I grew outraged at our world. How dare my gender determine my opportunities in life. How dare I get unequal treatment. And that’s when I discovered feminism, the idea that men and women should be given equal opportunities.

At first, my rush to feminism was personal: I did not want these obstacles in my path, and feminism promised to remove them. I spoke to classmates about how ridiculous sexism is, and encouraged them to slap on the label as well. But there were two major issues with this: first, I didn’t entirely understand feminism. I thought it was merely a group that required unconditional support for all other women. Second, I gave little to no thought on the wide variety of causes feminism advocated for, and instead focused on the ones that specifically pertained to me.

And then one fateful day I saw a post bash Taylor Swift in my instagram feed, complaining about her “white feminism” and subsequent lack of actual activism. I was confused; this feminist account literally just bashed another girl, which according to my idea of feminism wasn’t supposed to happen. My confusion and the further research led me to my first breakthrough; feminism isn’t about unconditionally supporting other girls, it’s about judging them using the same criteria you’d judge males. You’re “allowed” to dislike other women, but feminism just says if you do, then it better be for legitimate reasons and not because of the way she dresses or a misguided sense of jealousy.

And then the phrase “white feminism.” I had no idea what this term meant, so yet again I googled it. Wikipedia informed me that “white feminism is a form of feminism that focuses on the struggles of white women while failing to address distinct forms of oppression faced by ethnic minority women and women lacking other privileges.” Having grown up relatively sheltered, I had to do a solid bit of research to find out what oppression these non-white women were experiencing. And that’s when my privilege hit me.

While I was angry at the wage gap, particularly those 19 cents I felt personally robbed of, as of 2017 African American and Hispanic women were only making 68 and 62 cents to the man’s dollar respectively. More frighteningly, African American women experience domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females. Even yet still, American Indians are twice as likely to experience a rape/sexual assault compared to all races. I realized that women of color experience exponentially greater discrimination than I would ever ordeal; on the daily they encounter obstacles I have never faced and won’t ever have to. But race is only one factor in the broad spectrum of sexism; class and religion also determine the levels of discrimination a woman can experience. It was humbling and scary to think of all the ways the circumstances of my birth, my natural-born privilege, had shielded me from the harsher realities some women have to face every day. I did not deserve to be born to this life any more than a struggling sex worker on the street deserved to be born into hers. This is not to say that all sex workers are struggling or all of them were forced into the industry, but the point still stands: no one earns their privilege. Conversely, no one deserves to be discriminated against for factors outside of their control. Cue intersectionality.

Intersectionality is another form of feminist ideology that is almost the opposite of white feminism. The concept states all oppression in a society stems from the same certain ideals. Therefore, advocating against your one specific form of oppression creates limited progress, progress only for you and your small minority. In short, you need to tackle the roots of oppression, the ideals creating an environment of oppression for all, to enact real change.

For example, toxic masculinity leads to the belittlement of both women and the LGBTQ community, cutting down anyone who displays “feminine” characteristics. So women could either focus on just themselves and advocate for more female CEOs, or we could protest toxic masculinity and work to create a healthier environment for boys and girls alike, regardless of sexual orientation or pronouns. Both paths have an impact, but there’s no question as to which one benefits a wider range of people.  

White feminism is the opposite. It’s the advocacy of privileged women, whether by race or socioeconomic status, for increased representation in society. Although it can align with problems feminists in general deal with (catcalling, wage gap, workplace discrimination), white feminists tend to ignore the issues that disproportionately affect less privileged women (such as increased rape statistics, police brutality, and the cycle of poverty). This is what Taylor Swift had been called out for. The most prominent example of white feminism excluding less fortunate women is a highly educated woman advocating for paid maternal leave in her company but not giving her housekeeper the same parity. The white feminist isn’t malicious; her heart is most likely in the right place. She is most likely just unaware of the misfortune around her. If you see a hint of white feminism in you, take some time to introspect, but don’t dwell too much. You’re still leagues ahead of the people who insist they can’t be feminist “cuz they’re guys.”

So there you have it: while white feminists give priority to certain causes pertaining to the privileged few, intersectional feminists advocate for all. This means they don’t just show up to the Women’s March, but also Pride and Black Lives Matter marches.

While such unwavering solidarity sounds ideal, this exposes one of intersectional feminism’s biggest flaws: though it “creates a unified idea of anti-oppression politics”, it “requires a lot out of its adherents, often more than can reasonably be expected,” resulting in a lack of action. Basically, it’s hard to advocate for so many groups of people in all aspects of your life. While this criticism is definitely warranted, I personally find it worthwhile to at least try.

Having finished my research, I realized I was a white feminist and felt ashamed. While I thought I was advocating for feminism, I was really just advocating for myself. The idea of feminism is to uplift all women everywhere. That day I chose the intersectional interpretation: all women everywhere regardless of race, sexual orientation, ability, or socioeconomic background. And while it may be impossible to implement perfectly in reality, the awareness it champions for and the small steps we can take together make me a proud intersectional feminist to this day.

Graphic Design by Jackson Edwards

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+feminism&oq=define+feminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/

https://rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

 

 

Where do you draw the Lifeline?

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

Men should take a backseat when it comes to the discussion of abortion.

Allow me to explain.

More often than not, men are not present in the room while women give birth or receive abortions, and this is just one example of how they fail to comprehend the magnitude of these procedures on a woman’s life. Without this comprehension, it is easy to take an unrealistic stance on women’s rights. This is an issue because in our historically and currently sexist society, men have used and often still use their voice to shout over the woman’s position and opinion.* We see this when our male-dominated society calls female firebrands “crazy”, labels women irrational due to PMS, or even, such as in the issue of abortion, claims the moral high ground — even while lacking the understanding of how it feels to be pregnant in the first place. Men actually have the power in society to dictate what women do with their bodies despite not comprehending them, which is why excluding them from the abortion narrative would lead to more productive conversations. So, in an ironic twist of fate, allow me to dismiss the majority of men’s opinions on abortion. Simply put, there is no male equivalent. Abortion is an issue that is specific to people with uteruses.**

Let’s say you define life as beginning as soon as the egg meets the sperm. Good for you. While your opinion is certainly valuable if you yourself are pregnant and considering an abortion, it has absolutely no bearing on a woman whose circumstances you do not know. You are allowed and encouraged to define for yourself when life begins, but calling others murderers for not adhering to your definition is not okay. Determining when an embryo is considered a person is a personal choice and a personal decision, as is the decision to get an abortion. Furthermore, you don’t have to personally want an abortion, or want your mother or sister to get an abortion to be pro-choice. Pro-choice is simply recognizing that abortion is a deeply personal decision that each woman deserves to make for herself and should not have regulated for them by the male majority in Washington.

However, just because a woman can get pregnant does not mean that she should necessarily grapple with the question of abortion alone. Since it does take a man and a woman to create a fetus, if the mother wishes the father to be included in the conversation then by all means he should be. That is one thing. It is another thing entirely to offer a half-baked opinion limiting the rights of uteruses when you yourself do not have one. This is why I take issue when men who are excessively privileged and/or ignorant take the “morally superior” point of view, shaming women in the process. They equivocate abortion to murder, thus painting women who get abortions as murderers. Saying the zygote/blastocyst/embryo have the same rights as a fully fledged human being, and that those supposed rights trump those of the living, breathing mother is essentially taking away the mother’s right to choose what happens to her own body.

For lack of a better comparison: men, how painful is a swift kick to a sensitive area? Painful, yes? You could describe it to me at length and I will still never truly comprehend. Just as empathy is the closest I will get to understanding that kick, empathy is also the closest you will get to understanding what it’s like to be pregnant. You’ve never personally felt what it is like to have a pregnancy scare; it’s called a scare because women disproportionately bear burden of child-rearing, so if they are indeed pregnant their educations/careers/plans are essentially over. Now let’s take the social retaliation into account. As a woman, if you are unmarried and get pregnant by accident, from rape to a broken condom, society instantly labels you a slut.*** The automatic assumption is that the child was created by irresponsible parents, and the majority of the responsibility, blame, and shame gets placed on the woman, disproportionately so. We’re all familiar with single mothers, but there are much fewer single fathers, who are somehow held in higher regard. By contrast, our society tends to only celebrate mothers that are married and financially stable. Otherwise, you’re irresponsible.**** Taking the moral high ground in these situations is a slap in the face to all the women struggling against derision for carrying an unwanted child’s life to term and a slap in the face to all women who decide to forego the painful social, emotional, and physical backlash. It’s a lose-lose situation. You shame women for getting pregnant and then you shame women for wanting to undo it.

That being said, it turns out a majority of abortion seekers are actually mothers that know they can’t afford another child without hurting their existing children. Proof for this lies in the data before and after the 2008 economic crash: “every year since 2008, a whopping 72 percent of NAF clients looking to terminate a pregnancy were already mothers, up at least 10 percent from the years before the economy crashed.” If this is the case, why is there a stigma that abortion seekers are usually just misguided teens? Perhaps it’s because this fact only serves to undermine the pro-life cause. After all, it’s harder to demonize a working mother than a presumed ‘sexually indiscriminate’ teen. (Which shouldn’t invalidate their desire for an abortion anyways.)

That’s not even considering all the women who get pregnant and realize carrying the baby to term could kill them. One in 50 pregnancies is ectopic — meaning instead of developing in the uterus, the zygote takes root in the fallopian tube, putting the mother at risk of fatal internal bleeding as it grows. The national maternal mortality rate itself is actually on the rise, even as a study conducted in Michigan found “maternal mortality figures in this country may be underreported by as much as a half.” So in summation, lots of pregnancies endanger the life of the mother and this crucial argument is not getting the attention it deserves. There are also mothers who wish to spare their child with a known genetic disorder from a short, pain-filled life. Not to mention the mothers that are financially incapable of providing for their children’s diseases, as heartbreaking as that is. Though these cases are few, they provide another example of a choice that men could only ever empathize with, and prove that each woman should be free to choose for their individual cases whether or not to get an abortion.

Even if women receive proper education about sexual health, it is difficult for some to access the birth control they need. Proof for this lies in the National Organization for Women’s practice of recruiting volunteers to escort women into Planned Parenthoods. Why is this necessary? Because to this very day, hoards of pro-lifers surround the clinics that provide much-needed birth control and women’s health services and harass those who enter, regardless of whether they are seeking an abortion or merely a check-up. Without access to adequate birth control, how can we expect women to shoulder the burden of unwanted motherhood? And without access to proper sexual education, how could we blame them? Abortion has become increasingly concentrated among poor women, who accounted for 49% of patients in 2014.

If abortions are disproportionately needed by poor women, it makes no sense to have it be regulated by the affluent men that dominate Washington. Especially since when faced with the same dilemma, these men have the resources to discreetly seek out the same treatment without any consequences whatsoever. All this even as poor women resort to the only abortions they can access or afford — unsafe ones, putting themselves at risk of becoming pariahs, or even worse, suffering complications and even death. Furthermore, when poor women carry their unwanted child to term, especially without the social services a more affluent family could provide them, common sense tells us the odds of that child succeeding are astoundingly low, continuing the cycle of poverty.

And finally, the argument for adoption. The idea that, if you don’t want a child, you should let the zygote drastically change your body, develop it for 9 months, put your career on pause (regardless of whether or not you can afford to), and go through the life-altering experience of giving birth just to then give the child away. Regardless of the traumatizing emotions that accompany creating life and then giving a fully-formed child up to an uncertain fate, emotions men can never fully experience, adoption sounds a lot more pleasant than it is. There are already 428,000 children in the foster care system. Of those, 126,000 children are currently available for adoption. These children have on average three different foster care placements. That being said, it is not uncommon to hear of children who have been in 20 or 30 different homes. These harrowing statistics reveal there are already more children in America than families that can provide for them, and help explain why only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption.

It takes a special kind of person to deny the right to abortion to rape victims, mothers with mouths to feed, and women at risk of dying, so I hope this is something we can all agree they deserve. But I personally do not believe you have to be molested, destitute, or dying to earn the right to determine what happens to your own body. The experience of being pregnant for 9 months and giving birth is physically and emotionally life-changing. Forcing it on any woman who does not want it, regardless of the circumstances, is in short, cruel. And invalidating that experience by insisting they “just give the child up for adoption” without knowing the realities foster kids face every day is ignorant and insensitive.

So I have a proposition. If you are “pro-life”, you can claim the Moral High Ground, shaming women that desperately need an abortion for personal reasons in the process. Or you could use your pro-life label and find a way to improve social services for unwanted children. Almost 20 percent of children in the foster system wait five years or more to get adopted or reunited with their families. What if we changed this? Improved social services for children and families in the foster system might make adoption a more appealing alternative to abortion. Widespread sexual education and accessible birth control would lessen unwanted pregnancy rates. By providing more affordable healthcare and paid maternal leave, maybe mothers wouldn’t be forced to abandon a pregnancy due to monetary concerns. And even if the mother keeps the child, how can we help ensure that child leads a good life? A more comprehensive public education might help. Until we provide women with the means to care for an unexpected child, abortions will continue to be the leading solution, and denying women that solution while also denying them alternatives is just plain wrong.

*If your reaction to this sentence was “not all men”, you are missing the entire point of the argument. (Read this)
**This includes trans men! We see you!
***Obviously not all of society, but enough to where being pregnant and unmarried is making a statement at the very least. It’s also easier to shame someone for their choices when you’re never going to be faced with the same issues.
****And perhaps if we as a society provided more support and love to unwed mothers abortion would not seem like such an appealing choice.
Graphic Design by Jackson Edwards
https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2008
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/html
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A59832578/AONE?u=tlc209178764&sid=AONE&xid=4f8d6bee
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/ectopic-pregnancy/
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates

 

Should Boy Scouts Include Girls?

in Contemporary Politics/Gender Issues/Political Issues by

Recently, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced that they would be introducing girls into their Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs, which among other things, would allow girls to earn the coveted Eagle Scout rank, the highest award available to Scouts. Obviously, this announcement has met all types of criticism. As a scout myself, a few months away from becoming an Eagle Scout, I feel it necessary to respond to some common arguments against this controversial move.

#1. The Boy Scouts of America are just doing this to be politically correct.

The most common complaint I hear when people discuss this matter is political correctness. For some reason, they come to the conclusion that the BSA has felt pressure from outside authorities, such as the government or others, to open its doors to girls. This is absolutely not the case. During an interview, BSA Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh stated that the decision to allow girls arose from the demand from families already involved in scouting. These families simply wanted their daughters to also be able to take part in the unique activities BSA has to offer (see point 3). BSA’s motivation behind the change comes from their goal to extend scouting’s values and lessons to as many people as possible. Through numerous studies, they found this to be in the public’s best interests as well.

#2. The Boy Scouts are just doing this to boost their membership.

Technically, this is true. As stated above, the BSA wants as many young people to be involved in scouting as possible, in order to better achieve their goal of teaching people strong moral codes and excellent leadership skills that could one day make a positive difference in our world (Some notable Eagle Scouts include Neil Armstrong, President Gerald Ford and Sam Walton). Allowing girls to join means twice the potential for this.

#3. Girls can join Girl Scouts, they don’t need to be in Boy Scouts.

Well, yes and no. Girls can indeed join Girl Scouts, but why should that stop them from having the option to join Boy Scouts as well? Girl Scouts of the USA and the Boy Scouts of America are two very different organizations. Some girls would much rather be hiking the mountains of New Mexico at Philmont Scout Ranch, or serving their community through the completion of an Eagle Scout Project, instead of selling cookies or learning how to sew. In my opinion, the Boy Scouts of America is a great organization full of tons of great experiences, and there’s no reason why girls must be barred from this opportunity.

#4. Will Boy Scouts really be a good fit for girls, and will they get the same experience as boys?

Absolutely. The BSA would not be making this change if they did not feel it was in everyone’s best interest. They have made it abundantly clear that the girls who decide to join will absolutely not be put in a second-rate program. Everything will be the same, from the requirements to achieve Eagle, to the wide selection of over 130 merit badges scouts can choose to complete. Some argue that girls will feel unwelcome, as if they are barging in to something uninvited. I don’t believe this will be an issue at all. The Scout Oath and Law teach scouts to be open and kind to everyone, regardless of their differences. I feel that this value, which is ingrained in every scout’s head, will be evident as girls start to join Scouts BSA (which will be the new name for Boy Scouts).

#5. Allowing girls into the Boy Scouts will ruin the organization.

I hear this a lot from people not familiar with scouting. In fact, girls have been involved in Boy Scouts since 1971! Back then, girls were able to join a program called Exploring. Today, there are still notable co-ed programs in Boy Scouts like the Venturing Scouts. In this program for 14-21 year olds, both genders are able to take full advantage of scouting by going on campouts, attending youth leadership programs like NYLT and NAYLE, and braving high-adventure outdoor courses like Philmont and Northern Tier. The success of this co-ed branch of Scouting gives the BSA a good template for how to successfully allow girls into Boy Scouts, which brings me to my next point.

#6. How will the BSA accommodate both boys and girls in Scouts BSA?

Well, for one, girls and boys will be separated into single-gender troops, meaning they will NOT be mixed together. Many people complain that allowing girls into their troops will make both the boys and the girls feel uncomfortable. What they don’t realize is girls and boys won’t even be in the same troops. The troops would meet separately and would operate independently from each other. The only time different gendered troops might meet up would be during special inter-troop events (like the national jamboree) and certain summer camps. Additionally, sponsors such as churches, schools, and youth groups will be able to decide if they want to host a girls troop, boys troop, or both (St. John the Divine will have both a girls and boys troop starting in February). The BSA has been preparing for this change for years, and have determined that their program is 100% relevant to girls as it is to boys, so the lesson plan won’t be much different between the genders.

Through Boy Scouts, the BSA has been teaching young men invaluable lessons and skills for over a century now, and it’s great that they are finally extending this opportunity to young women as well. I urge everyone; if you know someone going into 5th grade or older, boy or girl, to encourage them to join scouting, as its a great organization full of awesome experiences that stick with you for life.

Graphic Design by Jackson Edwards
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/us/boy-scouts-will-allow-girls-to-join/index.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/12/boy-scouts-america-are-boys-not-girls/
https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/10/11/bsa-welcomes-girls/
https://livestream.com/bsa/nationalcouncil

Abortion: A Mother’s Decision

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

One of the principles our country was founded upon is a clear separation between church and state. So why are we still living in a country governed by religious ideals? In 2011, Texas, known for being a conservative state, slashed the budget for Planned Parenthood by 67%. Just last year, the Texas House approved new abortion restrictions, banning the most common form of second trimester procedure. As Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, eloquently states, “the sad truth is this bill’s supporters are peddling lies to shame women who seek an abortion and make it harder for them to get access to the reproductive health care they need.” Texas is making it increasingly difficult for women to get an abortion, resulting in an increase in teenage pregnancies, especially in poor communities. As a society, do we want children brought into unstable families where they are an unwanted burden on the mother? Being a mother is a monumental and wonderful undertaking, but most teenagers are just not ready for that endeavor and should not be deprived of their futures simply because the government does not subsidize abortions. Why is it okay for the Texas government to hamper  people from getting an abortion based off of religious values? It is completely justified to think abortion is wrong if that is what your beliefs tell you, but that does not give you the right to intervene in other people’s lives and prevent them from getting one. This is a complicated issue and there are still many debates about at what point in the pregnancy is abortion immoral, but the decision should ultimately be left to the mother and father of the child. Not the government.

Graphic Design by Jackson Edwards
Product of Errant Publishing Co.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/19/texas-house-approves-sweeping-anti-abortion-bill/
https://thinkprogress.org/texas-family-planning-cuts-3ed9f259c98e/
https://www.thenation.com/article/texas-made-it-more-difficult-to-get-an-abortion-and-teen-motherhood-increased/

Who can go to a Women’s March?

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

The mission of a woman’s march is to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change. The nature of a women’s march is naturally progressive and supports liberal beliefs. The national Women’s March website outlines the organization’s core principles to be women’s freedom from violence, reproductive rights, LGBTQIA rights, workers rights, civil rights, disability rights, immigrant rights, and environmental justice. These ideas tend to counter the opinions of President Donald Trump and many of his Republican supporters. After attending the Women’s March in downtown Houston, I noticed that the message endorsed by marchers and atmosphere amongst attendees was unquestionably anti-Trump. Amongst women crying for Trump’s impeachment, I couldn’t help but wonder whether there were ANY conservative women in the crowd, or does attending a women’s march require you to support liberal beliefs? Referencing the national Woman’s March mission statement, their marches are “committed to dismantling systems of oppression through nonviolent resistance and building inclusive structures guided by self-determination, dignity and respect.” The term “systems of oppression” can be interpreted in many ways, but it’s meaning makes all the difference. A liberal might equate Donald Trump’s presidency to a system of oppression, but a conservative would naturally counter that statement. Regardless of where you attend a Women’s March, there is continuity in the language and opinions of marchers. By extension, individuals are given the impression that to fight for women’s equality at a woman’s march, you have to be a liberal. Regardless of my own political opinions, I believe that a woman’s march should welcome ALL women. Since when does believing in women’s equality make you a liberal?

In 1913, women were fighting for women’s suffrage at the first women’s march on Washington. Now, in 2018, these marches have turned into a platform to support liberal beliefs which have no direct relation to the rights of women. However, that is not to say that a modern women’s march has been reduced to an anti-Trump protest. These marches are not centered on Trump himself, rather the rights which marchers believe he threatens. Still, the political climate of these marches has restricted those who can attend. A woman cannot simply march to celebrate the progress of gender equality and fight for continued reforms; a woman in attendance must align herself with liberal perspectives to garner “social change”. I cannot speak to whether this shift has more positive or negative implications. However, all women should be safe to attend these marches without having to question their stance on immigration rights or climate change. Not to say there is no place for these arguments, but do they belong at a march for women’s rights? The primary focus of a woman’s march should be to rally for the equality, safety, and respect of women alone.

Graphic Design by Frederique Fyhr
Product of Errant Publishing Co.
https://www.womensmarch.com/

 

How Taylor Swift Reveals a Dark Aspect of the Feminist Movement

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a renowned feminist icon, offers a simple definition of a feminist: “a person who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.” If this definition is true, it would be hard to imagine anyone not calling themselves feminists. However, in my high school experience, I have seen multiple well-intentioned guys and girls shy away from labeling themselves ‘feminists.’ I asked all of these individuals if they believed in the “social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.” They all claimed that they did. Naturally, I then asked them why they were afraid to call themselves feminists. All three of their answers included the words “angry,” “screaming,” and “rioting.”

This language parallels an old Taylor Swift interview. When asked about being a feminist, the singer eloquently stated, “So many girls out there say, ‘I’m not a feminist,’ because they think it means something angry or disgruntled or complaining, or they picture rioting and picketing. It is not that at all. It just simply means that you believe that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities.”  

However, since that interview, countlessthinkpieces” have been written on Taylor Swift’s “spineless” brand of feminism. Liberal women, in particular, have been vocal in attacking Swift for her complicit silence in the 2016 election. Where in  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s definition did she say being a feminist entails endorsing a presidential candidate? Many of Swift’s contemporaries, including Bruno Mars and Carrie Underwood, did not endorse a candidate; however, the number of tweets and Google results indicate there was significantly more backlash to Swift’s non-endorsement than Underwood’s or Mars’.  

When asked why the backlash to Taylor Swift’s feminism is so pronounced, liberals frequently argue that she exploited feminism to boost her career but did not authentically support the feminist movement. How exactly did embracing feminism bolster her career? Bruno Mars and Carrie Underwood, who have not publicly labeled themselves feminists (Underwood actually claimed that she would not call herself a feminist), received exponentially less criticism from “feminists” than did Swift. Putting aside her triumphant sexual assault lawsuit, Swift used her platform of millions to promote the ideology of feminism. Unfortunately, the backlash to Swift’s support of feminism exemplifies a dark, exclusive brand of feminism that ostracizes women for “not doing enough” or for “being a fake feminist.” Swift’s case merely illuminates a broader issue within the feminist movement.

Some extreme, radical feminists have hijacked the movement, creating a misconception of feminism that has repelled many people from the movement. A culture of attacking women for not doing enough for feminism seems, ironically, very anti-feminist. Perhaps this exclusive climate contributes to the hesitancy of young girls and guys to label themselves feminists. How can the feminist movement reach equality by putting down other women? Feminism should strive to be an all-encompassing movement of men and women, conservative and liberal, working together to address the systemic inequality between men and women. Bashing other women, however, does not seem to be a good starting point.

Graphic Design by Jackson Edwards
Product of Errant Publishing Co.

Waging a War on Gender Pay Inequality

in Gender Issues/Political Issues by

Despite countless studies proving that gender inequality exists in the workplace (both in terms of salary and treatment), seven out of ten people still believe that men and women are paid equally. Due to the widespread denial of the mere existence of the wage gap, the efforts to find solutions are far less concentrated than they should be. Frankly, gender inequality is an outdated term for male dominance, and the wage gap is used as a pawn in maintaining the existing power hierarchy.

The Second World War marked the first awareness of the wage gap. While in desperation for workers, women were forced to contribute to the war effort in various ways, leaving their children or families. Because most women had not previously worked outside of their houses, workplace inequality was a largely unnoticed phenomenon.  However, once the men left to fight and women began filling their roles, they were, on average, paid fifty percent of male wages, sometimes less but rarely more. In the seventy-nine years from the discovery of the wage gap until today, the gap has closed by only around 30%, placing it roughly around 80¢ per dollar.

Yale University recently hosted a study that provides substantial evidence proving the extent of the wage gap. To see sexism in STEM field (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) jobs, they used two completely identical resumes with only one expensive difference, one had the name John and the other with Jennifer.

The faculties of both genders were biased in favor of the male; furthermore, they were more willing to mentor, employ, and offer more money to John. Disregarding the fact that both people had the exact same qualifications and experience, Jennifer was perceived by professors and employers as substantially less competent. On average, women earn 75.7% of a man’s salary in the STEM field. Not only does gender inequality exist pecuniarily, but it also impacts the manner in which women are treated by their bosses in the workplace, which in hindsight significantly hinders their careers.

According to research from the World Economic Forum, if change continues at the same slow pace as it has done for the past fifty years, it will take a staggering 168 years—or until 2185 —for women to finally reach pay parity.  Financial equality would help more than half of working women and their families out of poverty in addition to adding approximately four hundred eighty-two billion dollars to the economy. With data supporting the economic benefits of equal pay and the potentially drastic change quality of life for so many families, the hesitance to pay men and women the same amount for the same job is beyond perplexing. Even if the wage gap somehow disappears  in 168 years, there are not any indications as to whether the gap will stay gone or what impact it will have on the younger generations. Ultimately, the wage gap is a solvable problem that, if solved, will have nothing but a positive impact on America’s economy and society.

 

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/dont-believe-in-wage-gap

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-women-in-world-war-ii.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2017/

https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

 

Go to Top