The Official Rule-less Rule Book of Feminism

Recently, I have read a number of articles featured on feminist websites and by feminist writers discussing women’s roles, decisions, behaviors, and how they “should” be conducting their lives. I am deeply disappointed by the message such discussions send to women and how they negatively impact the goals of modern feminism.

The Atlantic and The Huffington Post featured a pair of articles in August discussing the hook-up culture and whether it empowers or degrades young women. The first argues that contrary to popular opinion, college-aged women embrace the freedom and independence of casual sex. Hanna Rosin asserts that women are rejecting the burdens and limitations of relationships, choosing instead to pursue higher education and demanding careers. Rachel Ryan, who happens to be a fellow Johns Hopkins alum, wrote a response article outlining the pressure on women to engage in casual sex when they really want a relationship. She feels the hook-up culture is anti-feminist and undermines women’s value; in this no-strings environment, men strictly gain and women lose.

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two views, but more importantly, that the entire basis of these arguments is destructive. The goal of feminism is equality. To achieve this, women must be seen as full human beings and rational agents. Discussing a single collective experience, motivation, perception, or behavior true to all women is antithetical to every facet of feminism. Similarly, discussing what women “should” do or dissecting a woman’s actions as “anti-feminist” are themselves anti-feminist behaviors.

Do women benefit from the hook-up culture or are they demeaned by it? Should we stay home to raise our children or continue to work full time? Is my skirt too short? Too long? If I buy a bra at Victoria’s Secret, am I embracing my sexuality or perpetuating the objectification of women’s bodies? Do we undermine feminist values if we let our dates pay for dinner? Does one size fit all?

There is only one acceptable answer to all of these (and similar) questions: it’s up to you. Feminism is about treating women as adults who are uniquely able to decide what is best for their own lives. Do you truly enjoy casual sex and feel it unshackles you to focus on your own needs and goals? Great! Have casual sex (with a condom, says my inner public health nerd). Do you hate hook-ups and yearn for a steady, monogamous relationship? Also great! Say no to one-night stands and go find Mr. Right. Do you feel more confident in high heels or more comfortable in flats? Guess what? Your footwear does not bear the weight of the entire feminist movement. You, as an adult, make the choice between Toms and Louboutins, and anyone who derides you needs to examine his or her own priorities.

I am sick and tired of these polarizing, shame-inducing debates that pit women against each other rather than bring us together. I do not need to be told how to live my life and such infantilization only holds back our universal goal of equality. So can we all make a pact, ladies, that we will stop criticizing each other’s choices and debating whether our actions are pro-feminist or anti-feminist? Can we all agree to just support each other’s ability to make the best decisions for her life? I, for one, pledge to stop assigning morality to other women’s wardrobe and relationship choices. Who is with me?

Binders Full of Women

Just had to make a meme!

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3rdmca/

Mitt Romney Searches for Life on Earth

Hope is a universal language: the case for "illegal" immigrants in America

I have focused on feminist issues the past few weeks, largely because they have been dominating the media. Please remember that this site is dedicated to everyone's rights, not just those of women. Today I will discuss a group that is so vilified and scape-goated that most would quickly trade places with an American woman listening to the GOP debate which parts of her body she is intelligent/civilized/moral enough to control herself.

I am referring, of course, to "illegal" immigrants. Because the vitriol is not aimed at those rogue Canadians who have overstayed their travel visas by a few days, we are specifically talking about immigrants of Hispanic origin.

This is an issue on which 9/10 (or more) of you will completely disagree with me. I recognize that my view is considered radical, and I therefore understand that there may be some backlash to what I write. I feel it is absolutely critical, however, that someone (even just a small-time blogger like me) stands up for a group that most people write off as criminal and sub-human without even pausing to consider its circumstances.

Let me begin by saying that I do not really believe in "illegal" immigration and neither have our greatest leaders. The poem in the base of our Statue of Liberty proudly declares, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This sentiment is the foundation of what it means to be an American. Our country was built upon the notion that all people (not just citizens) are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," as proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence. Further, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the US was an author) clearly outlines the rights of people to live where they choose, including:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Clearly it was not the intention of this great country to purposefully deny immigration rights to a specific group of people, yet that is what has happened. We can debate the basis for this discrimination all day--race, language, culture, educational attainment, etc. I argue, however, that the reason we focus our hatred on Hispanics is the same exact reason that we previously assigned it to the Irish, Italians, Polish, Chinese, Africans, and every other despised group in this country: money, or lack thereof.  Because while our political system may be democratic, our economic system (capitalism) is what really runs this country.

If you live in another country and you have wealth, power, or advanced education, you can come to the US. You can come here quite easily, without having to wait in line or jump through endless bureaucratic hoops. But what if you are one of those forgotten souls mentioned on our Statue of Liberty? What if you are one of the poor, the tired, the homeless, the oppressed? Unlike the rich and well-connected, you are told to take a ticket and find your place at the back of the line. We hope you brought your life savings for the visa charge and something to do because the wait could last a few decades.

Consider the lives of farm workers in this country. These are the people who harvest your produce. 85% are immigrants, most of whom are undocumented. Why? They work in brutal, slave-like conditions for 16+ hours per day, 6-7 days per week. They frequently make less than half minimum wage and they have no legal protections, no health care, and no job security. Yet this dehumanizing, destitute life is preferable to what they faced in their home countries. Take one second to truly process these circumstances: picking strawberries for a few dollars a day in the summer heat, without days off or medical care, is an upgrade for these people. They come from countries with rampant poverty and violence and no hope of upward mobility. So they do what anyone would do, and move to a place with education, the rule of law, and the opportunity to work to provide for their families.

This is the story of millions of people. They mow your lawn, pick your food, and clean your dishes at the local diner. They want what you want, what everyone wants--the opportunity to make their families' lives better. You gladly pay them to do your yard work twice as well as the teenager down the street and you complain when the price of strawberries rises above $4/pound. You then turn on the TV and nod along in agreement as Sean Hannity interviews Newt Gingrich on the damage done to our society by the "illegal" aliens. You vote Republican and decry the Dream Act. You call the local police when too many Spanish-speaking men are hanging around the Home Depot (after, of course, you pay a few of them $2/hour to come and paint your new deck). You treat this new group of immigrants the same way your Irish grandmother was treated nearly a century ago.

This is the most disgusting, un-American behavior I have seen in my 24 years on this earth.

What crime are these people committing by escaping hell in search of a better life? They are not asking for government handouts or a free ride. What would you do? Would you stay in a place where the lives of you and your children were threatened every day? No, you would not. If you claim otherwise, you are lying to yourself. And if you feel other people should bear such suffering rather than cross an invisible, man-made line in the ground without permission, you do not deserve the rights and privileges of this country that was created so that forgotten people like these would have a place to which they could escape. Remember what our Declaration of Independence says, what we wrote in the UDHR, what is inscribed in the Statue of Liberty. This country was founded on the principle of freedom, opportunity, and equality for all people.

Why do you and I deserve to live here, but not others? I did not earn my citizenship through a merit-based system, I simply won the genetic lottery. Who am I to face another human being and deny them the same protections and opportunities that I demand for myself?

That is the emotional, moral, humanitarian appeal. Here is the logical, fact-based argument for immigration. They not only have little to no impact on American wages and unemployment rates, they actually have a "net positive" effect on the US economy--increasing the average American's wealth by about 1% according to a Harvard economist. Numerous reports show that "certain businesses would not exist" without the immigrant labor force, and companies are "generating jobs that would not otherwise be there." Contrary to what most politicians and news pundits would have you believe, "most economists say that economic growth would be a half a percentage point to 2 points lower without immigrant workers."

When immigrants come here, they utilize the same goods and services as everyone else. They buy food, pay rent, and purchase clothing, all of which contribute to the growth of the economy. They are also net contributors to the government--when many undocumented workers share the same social security number, they all pay into the system yet reap no benefits for fear of getting caught. A White House report under President W. Bush found that the children of illegal immigrants "pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits."  It seems that every analysis comes to the same conclusion: immigrants are good for the economy.

Even so, we have spent $90 billion in the last decade to secure the US-Mexico border. Please note this figure only covers border security, not the cost of rooting out or deporting illegal immigrants. If we do not want these people to come here, we need to provide them with a viable alternative, preferably in their home countries. What if instead of shelling out money for failed border security, we invested that money in Mexico and Central America? What if we agreed to change our drug policies and offered financial support to the Mexican government to help them abolish the drug cartels? How many fewer people would cross the border if we helped build schools, roads, and hospitals in the countries from which immigrants come? What if we gave these people opportunities to succeed in their own countries, so they wouldn't have to become slaves in ours?

Ridiculous, most people would say. We are in a recession and can't afford to invest in Mexico instead of America. My response is that we have a choice. We can either provide a sustainable future for people where they already live, or we can allow them to come here to seek what they are currently denied. It is the human imperative to alleviate our suffering and attempt to better the lives of our families. People will continue to flow wherever such an opportunity exists, so we can create it in Central America and Mexico, or they will come here. This is an unavoidable truth, one that persists no matter how much money we dump into border patrols and fences.

Why then, is this never discussed by candidates in their stump speeches? Why doesn't Fox News report on this boon to the US economy? Why do we blindly push the failed policy of increased border security rather than solve the problem that pushes people into the US illegally? Because we need a boogey man. This country is in the midst of financial meltdown, social unrest, and record dissatisfaction with those who govern us. Like every civilization before us, we have found it easier to blame the dark-skinned stranger with a funny accent for all our problems than to look in the mirror and take responsibility for our failings. Hispanics who come here illegally are poor, disenfranchised people who cannot defend themselves from becoming our social, political, and economic prey. It is time we have an honest discussion about immigration in this country, based on facts and principles rather than jingoistic vitriol and beliefs divorced from reality. If you disagree, please don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk: stop buying commercial produce, eating at restaurants, and hiring a landscaping company. Don't build an addition onto your house or fix your car. In fact, drop off the grid entirely and see how well you get along by yourself, immigrant-free. I will see you in a few days, and will make sure to greet you appropriately. ¡Hola, amigo!

Antoine Dodson on the GOP

We Are Woman Rally

After a week of organizing pictures and video (not to mention getting sidetracked by the many "knowledge" bombs dropped on us this week by various members of the GOP), I finally have some coverage of the 8/18/12 We Are Woman Rally in Washington, DC. 

The mission of the rally was simple: demand an Equal Rights Amendment for women in the Constitution. The proposed ERA, first written in 1923, is the following:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Before you look at all the awesome pictures and videos from the rally, here is some history on the ERA, provided by equalrightsamendment.org:

"The ERA was introduced into every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. The seven-year time limit in the ERA's proposing clause was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at the deadline, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, leaving it three states short of the 38 required for ratification. It has been reintroduced into every Congress since that time.

In the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008), the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced as S.J. Res. 10 (Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA, lead sponsor) and H.J. Res. 40 (Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY, lead sponsor). These bills impose no deadline on the ratification process in their proposing clauses. The ERA Task Force of the National Council of Women's Organizations supports these bills and urges groups and individuals to advocate for more co-sponsors and passage."

This history should humiliate each and every American who is not actively working toward the passage of such a fair, simple, and common-sense amendment. This is not politically divisive, or at least, it shouldn't be. It does not propose an increase in taxes. It does not declare gender or class or religious war. It does not proclaim women superior to men, nor does it promote the supposed goals of feminism declared by Pat Robertson, who described the feminist movement as "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." That little gem will never cease to make me chuckle, and the delusions of an out of touch, over the hill, megalomaniac somehow do not seem to appear in the ERA. For all the success Pat Robertson has had in making predictions, maybe he should join the psychic hotline. Sorry, Pat, better luck next time. 

Can we all please pause for just a second to imagine Pat Robertson on a late night infomercial with Miss Cleo? If only I had paid more attention in my witchcraft class at the Hogwarts School of Feminism, maybe I would be able to magic such a delight upon us. 

Back to the ERA. As I explained in my last post, only 35 states have ratified the ERA, while the male version was passed 12 amendments and 142 years ago. I am not sure what we are still waiting for, and I welcome a rational explanation from anyone who can offer one. By failing to ratify the ERA, we are directly failing 50.7% of the population and indirectly failing the other 49.3%.

Now, for the fun stuff. Below are my pictures from the rally as well as 2 videos of speakers: Soraya Chemaly (feminist blogger for the Huffington Post) and Rev. Charles McKenzie (from the Rainbow PUSH Coalition). I highly recommend watching both--Ms. Chemaly delivered the same thoughtful, intelligent take on women and feminism that we have come to expect from her writing. Rev. McKenzie literally gave me goosebumps and made me wonder if I was watching the reincarnation of Dr. King. Enjoy!

Photo Gallery:

Rev. McKenzie:

Soraya Chemaly:

We are on Twitter!

i can haz rights now? is on Twitter! Handle is @icanhazrights
Special thanks to my little sister and my favorite HuffPost feminist blogger for the push into the 21st century!