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!

The Abortion Manifesto

The country (including me) is currently in an uproar over the remarks of Rep. Todd Akin and the resulting river of misinformation and propaganda. Excuse me, tidal wave may be a more suitable metaphor. We have learned that the Republican Party is endorsing a "personhood" amendment in its national platform, and that women who get pregnant from rape are lying, are blessed by God, or may not exist. Some fascinating new hypotheses have emerged on the biological mechanisms that would prevent a woman from becoming impregnated via rape semen: ovulation is prevented through "a hormonal response," that "the juices don't flow," or (my personal favorite) they "secrete a certain secretion" that kills sperm. Never mind the utter lack of any shred of scientific evidence backing any of these opinions, I personally find it amusing that they directly contradict each other. Which is it? Are my normal vaginal secretions interrupted by the terror of rape, thereby preventing semen transmission, or is my vagina (this time activated by said rape terror) able to produce magical spermicidal secretions?

This seems to indicate laziness just as much as it does sheer stupidity, in my opinion. Come on, right-wingers. Get it together. Don't you all gather around the local abortion clinic to strategize? I know you aren't too busy, because you somehow bring your photo-shopped dead baby pictures to my college, my little sister's high school, and every single feminist gathering I have ever attended (they don't seem to care whether or not it has anything to do with abortion).

All in all, it has been a pretty crappy week to be a victim of rape (male or female), anyone who owns or cares about someone who owns a vagina, or a person who appreciates critical thinking.

The thing I am most upset about, however, is how the conversation has already shifted.

As a nation, we frequently discuss abortion in politics. I will bet a million dollars that I will never see a governing body attempt to legislate how men can and can't use their penises or deposit their sperm, much less inform them that their sinful behavior requires an anal probe for no purpose other than to shame them into docility. Oh, and to have these decisions made almost exclusively by women without even allowing men to testify at the hearings? What a hilarious joke!

For half the population it is a very distinctly unfunny reality. Where is MY personhood amendment? Why am I attending a rally in the year 2012 to try and convince this country that women deserve an Equal Rights Amendment, something nonwhite men were given in 1870 (and white men, presumably, since they found the bigger stick when Homo erectus migrated out of Africa)? Would you like to know how many years separated the ratification of the right to vote and the assertion of equality for nonwhite men? Less than two years. Women gained the right to vote in 1920, more than fifty years after minority men. We are still waiting on that Equal Rights Amendment. Only 35 states have ratified the ERA. What's wrong, Florida? Or you, Nevada, are you worried your prostitutes will run off and find better ways to earn a living? I know, Utah, commitment is hard. Only 70% of the states in the most powerful country on Earth feel that women deserve the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men. Feeling embarrassed yet?

Now here is how this all ties back to abortion and some rather brilliant machinations by the Republican party.  The conversation this week has focused on rape and abortion. Whether rape victims should be permitted to seek abortions, what "type" of rape victims this applies to, whether rape victims can even become impregnated, and if women even know when they have been raped. Hey Chuck Winder, maybe while you are sleeping some angry women will surprise you with a 7-inch dildo in your anus. Let me know if you knew you were raped, or if you were confused on whether you were experiencing "normal relations" with your wife. I'll make sure to comment on what you were wearing and my suspicions that you are trying to swindle some sympathy and money out of the taxpayers. Deal?

As we get caught up in the media firestorm surrounding this issue, we shift the abortion focus from women to rape victims. How can we not? The thought of women being forced to carry their rapists' babies is so appalling that it is difficult to ignore elected officials suggesting this very nightmare. Along with this come all the usual accusations about women, including that they invent rape as an excuse to obtain abortions. As though women are running around, having unprotected sex with anything that moves, just so they can go get abortions as an enjoyable recreational activity. It's like a big slumber party!!

The Republicans have cleverly framed the debate in a way that moves all of us a big step to the right. A really big one. Should Democrats lose a few seats in the Senate and/or the Presidential election, we are looking at a situation in which Roe v Wade could be quickly overturned. The right already has us bargaining and pleading about the rape victims, so it's a logical step that progressives would then agree to just about any abortion deal so long as the victims (including those of incest) are excluded.

Now imagine an America in which abortion is illegal for everyone except rape victims. Every time a woman is raped, she needs to swiftly and skillfully collect evidence as though she is a prosecutor in case she gets pregnant and needs to prove she was in fact raped. Women will be jailed for miscarriages and forced to become government-mandated incubation centers. Eventually (and it can't take long), some poor girl will be in an untenable situation and will claim she was raped in order to obtain a safe, medical abortion rather than risk dying in a back alley like so many others. She will be caught, and there will be a media circus.

What conservatives claimed would happen--women falsely claiming rape in order to obtain an abortion--will happen. Because they made it happen. Then the country can say goodbye to the exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and hello to a country in which women are literally livestock and the cluster of rapidly dividing cells inside them is more valuable than they are. Mark my words, this is how this will play out if we let it.

Key word being "if". So while it is extraordinarily difficult to wrench ourselves from the rape narrative, we must. We, a coalition of forward thinkers, must demand legal, safe, affordable, accessible abortions without compromise. We will abide by the original mandate to regulate after viability, but nothing more. We must not give an inch and we must not allow them to dictate the conversation. This is a call to action not just for women, but for the men who will not stand to see their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters become dehumanized political pawns used to constantly one-up religious extremism. We must not fear the labels the right will use to brand us--let them shout Baby Killer, Whore, Feminazi; at least you will have your life. At the end of the day, I would rather be a "slut" who controls her own body than a "good girl" who has rights equivalent to those of a sow. I predict you agree.

Todd Akin's understanding of cervical function

The Romney/Ryan Economic Policy

"Rape" is a bit harsh. Let's call it "unrestrained love" instead.

As most of you have seen by now, MacArthur Genius Grant Recipient Missouri Senate candidate and Member of the House Science and Technology Committee Todd Akin made some very insightful comments on why we should not allow abortion exceptions for victims of rape. He demonstrated his impressive command of scientific and medical knowledge when he said, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Now ladies, before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain what Mr. Akin (resident expert of OB/GYN for the state of Missouri) is talking about. According to a 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina, "an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year." This study is quite misleading (what else would we expect from the radical feminist and pro-abortion agendas of the state of South Carolina?), as it fails to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape. Let's break it down to better understand Rep. Akin's comments:

-The study claims that "the majority" of rape pregnancies "occurred among adolescents." Obviously, teenagers who claim to have been "raped" are simply attempting to pass off blame for their pre-marital fornication. Even the non-consenting teen girls cannot be characterized as "legitimate" rape victims, as this group is notorious for dressing promiscuously and inciting "unwanted" male attentions. This is just common sense, a trait clearly linked to the Y chromosome.

-The study continues to report that most of the pregnancies "resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator." I will defer to leading psychiatrist Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder to explain why this automatically excludes such pregnancies from the "legitimate rape" category. He feels that women are not able to determine whether or not they have been raped: "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape." This clears things up considerably. If you are married, you cannot be raped. This has already been established by law in progressive countries. Additionally, our pre-Constitution proclaims that father-daughter sex is not rape if the father really wants it to happen. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude this entire group is rape-free.

-Most of the women who believed they were raped did not receive any medical attention after the incident. This is very damning evidence, as the US health system's wide accessibility and affordability provide victims many resources to go and ask their doctor if they were really raped, or were just having sex with their husband/dad. If the doctor is unsure, he can re-create the experience for her to be certain. There can only be one reason a woman would not seek such care: illegitimate rape.

-Finally, back to the science that Rep. Akin was trying to teach us before we got all PMSy and controlling. The study finds that 11.8% of the pregnant women experienced "spontaneous abortion" AKA miscarriage. The uteri of the legitimate rape victims were able to "shut that whole thing down," as Akin eloquently explained. As we have demonstrated, all other sources of pregnancy were not as rapey as these conniving women would have us believe, so we can assume that this final group is the only one experiencing legitimate rape.

A few brave men, including VP Candidate Paul Ryan and our dear Rep. Akin, tried to clarify the legitimate vs illegitimate issue last year by re-naming it "forcible rape." I propose they have not gone far enough. What is rape, really, but a man trying to show a woman the strength of his affections for her? It may even be good for her! Therefore, I believe we should re-title rape "unrestrained love" to help women better understand what is happening to them when men simply cannot hold back their exuberant joy to be with them.

Author's Note:
Please understand that I felt the only way I could address such an utterly ridiculous view was with an equally ridiculous response. This is a difficult topic and the sarcasm is employed to make it easier to discuss.

Welcome!

Welcome to "i can haz rights now?", a site dedicated to protecting and upholding the rights of all. We are currently in a culture that overwhelmingly supports the rights enshrined in our Constitution, yet does not understand their application or notice when they are being taken away. According to years of polling data, most Americans cannot name the rights they are granted in the Bill of Rights and even more have never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document the US not only signed but helped co-author (Eleanor Roosevelt was the US delegate).

With the advent of the internet and the 24-hour news cycle we should be more informed than ever, yet this does not appear to be the case. The addition of more voices seems only to have added to the noise, not the discussion, with disastrous consequences. Thomas Jefferson warned us of such a scenario when he said, "liberty and ignorance cannot coexist," yet here we are with more information and less knowledge than ever before. We are all attention deficient from smart phones, tabloids, cable news, and DVRs. We read the headline, but can't bother to read the article. We hear a 5-second sound bite and accept it as fact. We turn off the documentary on climate change and turn on the Kardashians. We text a friend while ignoring the one sitting next to us. We question if we really need to exert the time and effort to keep our bodies healthy or expand our minds; can't someone or something else just do it for us?

The answer, for most things in life, but especially for the maintenance of our free society, is a resounding no. To allow someone else to dictate the terms of our freedom is to surrender not only the control of, but access to said freedom. When we become spectators rather than active participants in our democracy, we hand over agency to whomever decides to take it, and that someone may not be the person we really want to have unregulated power over us.

To remain a free people, we must be an educated, engaged populace. Otherwise, we must be prepared to face the type of Orwellian dystopia we have always feared. Or are we there already?