No Morning After Pill for This Court Decision... A Dangerous Erosion of Reproductive Rights7/1/2014
Well, that didn’t last long. And by “that” I mean my recent intention to write more positive blogs about all the wonderful accomplishments happening in social movements. I really meant that intention. And then THIS happened. The Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts’ law regarding a “buffer zone” for women getting an abortion to protect them from protesters. And THIS happened. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby—whose owners don’t want to provide coverage of certain forms of birth control for their employees, claiming that their right to “religious freedom” should exempt them from the provision in the Affordable Care Act with requires them to do so. Now, I don’t want to sound like Chicken Little, but I feel a bit like screaming “wake up, everyone! The sky is falling!” I absolutely support free speech and freedom of religion. But both of those rights have limitations. You are not allowed to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater. The freedom to say whatever you want is limited when it infringes on other people’s rights to safety. Unless, of course, those “other people” are women making their own decisions about their reproductive lives. And freedom of religion is the right to practice one’s religion—not to impose it on other people. Does anyone think that in ANY OTHER context the court would decide that a small group of people with a lot of power (a.k.a. your bosses) can impose their religious beliefs on a larger group of people with less power (a.k.a. a group of employees)? That is NOT freedom of religion. Anyone who thinks that yesterday's decision is about religious freedom is either lying to themselves or willfully naive. Both of these decisions are about politics and power. It became clear to me as I was reading CNN’s report on the latest decision that some see this as a “win” in their battle to oppose anything President Obama supports—that this decision will somehow lead to the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act. There is nothing so childish as making a decision that restricts the rights of women in order to say “take that, Obama!” All I can do is hope that this decision will make more Americans aware of the dangers of having a health care system that relies on employers. If nothing else, this ruling demonstrates the need for a single payer system, one in which no one’s boss gets to have a say in their medical decisions. Don’t even get me started on the “corporations as people” slant… Clearly, there are a lot of political implications of this court decision. But this decision is also about power. The case was not brought by a company owned by Scientologists who want to limit their employees’ access to anti-depressants or by Jehovah's Witnesses attempting to restrict worker access to blood transfusion. This was a case of conservative Christians opposing women’s reproductive rights. And the decision was another in a dangerous pattern of laws, policies, and court decions that have sought to erode women’s reproductive rights within the USA. Placing limitations on reproductive rights has been--and always will be--about placing limitations on women’s power. We should all be concerned about this. And by “we” I don’t mean just women. It is time for more men to join the fight to protect reproductive rights in the USA--as they impact everyone. Safe and affordable access to birth control allows women and families to make decisions about when/whether to have children. Such power decreases infant and maternal mortality rates, increases women’s utilization of educational opportunities, increases women’s employment choices, and on and on. Several studies have shown that the status of women in a country is an important predictor of the general quality of life My favorite history teacher in high school taught us about the social conditions needed for revolutions to occur. To sum it up in a grossly overgeneralized way (sorry, PVO!) revolutions require people to be at a “sweet spot” of discontent. When things are really terrible people are too busy trying to meet their basic needs they don’t have the energy to fight for more. And when things are “good enough” people don’t see the need to revolt. It takes just the right amount of excess resources and discontent to produce the conditions needed for people to work for change. I can’t help but wonder where the sweet spot will be in regards to reproductive rights. When will we wake up and realize that the sky is falling—not all at once, but cloud by cloud as lawmakers and the courts erode reproductive freedoms in the USA? Let’s not wait until birth control becomes illegal in the country to stand up for reproductive rights. Speak out. Protest. Sign petitions. Boycott companies. Support pro-choice legislation. Today is the day. -Britney Brinkman Recently I have become concerned that my blog posts are consistently rather negative. I have asked myself why that might be. Am I only motivated to write about things I want to change? Don’t I want to contribute to conversations about positive things? Am I trying to depress my readers?
The answers to those questions are: Maybe (uh-oh), absolutely yes, and no. So I am pleased to take this opportunity to write about some good news. Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the "Washington Redskins." The ruling came 8 years after the petiition was filed, and the office determined that the name is disparaging to Native Americans. Unfortunalty, this does not mean that the team will be required to change their name or to stop using the current one. However, it could end up costing them enough money that they would be motivated to make a change. The owner continues to argue that he will never rid the team of their racist name and the team plans to appeal the decision. We will have to wait and see how the story unfolds, but I am hopeful that this is a sign of improvement. Although activists have spent decades fighting to rid schools of Native American mascots (see my earlier post for more) there does seem to be new traction now and the movement has gained momentum. Many more people are talking about the issue than I have ever heard (I overheard a couple of college students dsicussing it in the Dallas aiprort last week). The tide is changing. Although some Americans are holding strong to their desire for tradition, many are invested in supporting equality and don't think the tradition of a name should outweigh the dignity of a group of people. Every day that we walk closer to a vision of an inclusive and respectful world is a good day in my book. Walk on, America. We've come a long way, baby....or have we? This blog post is one that has been long coming. As various events have unfolded over the past few months I have contemplated writing this post, yet continued to hesitate. "Do I have anything new to add to the discussion?" I have asked myself. "Will I just be too cynical?" I have wondered. But it seems that everywhere I look there are signs pointing to this topic: sexual assault on college campuses. I am writing this post on an airplane on my way home from vacation. In the airport I snagged this picture: Looking at this cover, I asked myself the same questions, but also one that I can't figure out how to answer. So many of the articles, stories, and discussions I have heard lately have suggested that there is a new wave of activism challenging sexual assault on college campuses: suggesting both that sexual assault and the activism to stop it is a "new" phenomenon. We've come a long way, baby! Right?! Or have we?
My response to the cover was such a bittersweet one. It is great that a magazine like Rolling Stone is covering sexual assault on college campuses (and the article is actually pretty good). Perhaps this is a sign that anti-violence initiatives are becoming more mainstream. Perhaps the activism taking place today on college campuses is new or more effective than ever. Yet, I can't help but hear the nagging voice in the back of my mind warning me that the situation is not so straightforward. Suggesting that there may be some danger to believing that today's activism has raised awareness in a way that has never before been seen. My husband who was with me was subjected to my impromptu rant (a phenomenon to which he is well accustomed) about how the cover that included the story about sexual assault on college campuses also included a stereotypical photo of a woman, somewhat scantily clad, placed in an awkward and vulnerable position and almost certainly photoshopped. Maybe I was overreacting. A quick glance at the other magazines in the little shop verified that this photo was far from the most offensive of the bunch, and I have seen worse. Is that really what conversations about violence against women and sexual objectification have come down to? "I've seen worse." Are our expectations really so low? Which brings me back to the reasons I have waited to write this blog post. As I write this post I am asking myself three questions: 1. Can I add anything to the conversation? 2. Is there anything "new" about sexual assault on college campuses and/or the response to this crime? 3. Is it simply cynicism that keeps me from celebrating small victories? Well, I finally decided that I can't definitively answer the first question and I have to leave it up to my readers to be the judge. I am, however, very grateful that so many others are writing thoughtful and interesting pieces about this issue and I hope if you are reading this you will find your way across those other writings as well. If my voice does more to echo that of others rather than change the direction of the conversation I am ok with that. In so many ways the conversation about sexual assault requires individuals to break their silence and contribute the dialogue. So, on to questions two and three. Is anything really new? I suppose that my hopeful answer is yes, but my fearful answer is no. I hope that change has happened and is happening. It is meaningful that the Obama administration has demonstrated support for victims of sexual assault. Joe Biden has long been an advocate for ending violence against women. Social media has allowed survivors to share their stories with a larger number of people, expanding awareness and building networks of advocates who are fighting for better laws and policies. Discussions about shifting masculinity have called into question dangerous beliefs about aggression and attitudes suggesting "boys will be boys." Maybe something new is happening. On the other hand, some of the conversations about the "newness" are a bit disturbing. In early May I was listening to NPR while getting ready for my day (my usual routine) and David McCullough Jr. was being interviewed about the controversial graduation speech he gave in 2012. My breath was caught when the interviewer brought up the recent trend of conversations about sexual assault on campus and asked McCullough if he thought the rise in campus sexual assault is related to the attitude of millennials who are "entitled" and “special” with the assumption being that a rapist feels entitled to another person's body. WTF? Now, I have to remind myself that it is very hard to get an accurate count of the frequency with which sexual assault occurs because so many people never report it or wait years before telling anyone. Maybe sexual assault is on the rise. But the implication that the sexual assault epidemic is new really blew my mind. The fact is that I don't know many women my age without stories of very personal connections to sexual assault. Stories. Plural. The day in my freshman year of college that a young woman living on my floor came to my room crying and telling me she had been raped the night before at a frat party is forever burned into my brain. Her roommate and I accompanied her to the hospital. I don't know whether she pressed charges-- we were not especially close and didn't stay in touch after our first year of college. I am not sure why she came to me that day, except that she knew I wore my feminism on my sleeve and suspected that I would help her without judging her. Try telling her that sexual assault on college campuses is a "new" trend. In the letters to the editor in the summer issue of Ms. Magazine a few people wrote responses to their article "Blowing the Whistle on Campus Rape." Ms. is one of few magazines that I read cover to cover. And today I am glad that I do. One letter came from an unnamed woman from Pittsburgh (my current hometown). She wrote about her experience being the victim of date rape in her first year of college and becoming pregnant as a result. Her mother arranged an abortion for her. She is soon to be 84 years old and had her abortion before Roe v Wade. I can't help but wonder if she was once a student at the university where I teach. Maybe she even lived in the dorm room that is now my office. Sexual assault on college campuses is not new. Its dark tentacles run deep, connecting women (and men) around this country. Activism fighting it is not new either. My concern about these assumptions is that you cannot solve a problem if you don't understand it. Blaming sexual assault on the millennial generation will get us nowhere. Perhaps it is cynicism, but this is part of my hesitance to celebrate the recent victories. I do believe that change happens incrementally and movement in the right direction is better than no movement at all. But I just can't manage to throw a party for those who are finally doing the thing they should have done all along. I like the fact that famous male actors joined the White House PSA about stopping sexual assault. The cause to eradicate sexual violence will go nowhere without men being on board. But I also can't find it in my heart to congratulate them for doing the right thing. Men SHOULD be opposed to sexual assault. They SHOULD vocally speak out against it. Treating men like they are heroes for doing so inadvertently suggests that men who don't oppose sexual assault are the expected norm. Forgive me if I want something more. I have worked in collaboration with numerous sexual assault treatment organizations and groups (most working within college campuses). Every single one I have been associated with has the goal of eradicating sexual assault. I hope that we are entering a new wave of awareness, that we are finding better ways to connect, educate others, and prevent sexual assault. I want SO badly to be unwaveringly positive about these accomplishments. But I fear we must tread carefully. We must hold onto a healthy amount of skepticism. Addressing sexual assault should not be relegated to another facebook fad. It is not enough to include an article about sexual assault in a popular magazine while also supporting rape culture in other subtle (and not so subtle) ways. I fear that the movement to end sexual assault has been met with so much resistance over the years that we will grab up any crumb of support that we can get, thinking that we are having a great feast. But to avoid future famine we must grow stronger, continue to move forward, and plant seeds. Let's nurture new allies as they join the force, but not allow them to grow so self-satisfied that the movement stops with a few recommendations and everyone feeling like they can sleep better at night because they are doing “good”. As long as 1 in 5 women on college campuses are being assaulted, we should all lose a little sleep. -Britney Brinkman News broke yesterday out of Salt Lake City, Utah (where I was born and raised) that Wasatch High School had photoshopped a number of year book pictures without the permission of the students and/or their parents. A number of students expressed concern when they flipped through the year books to discover that their pictures had been digitally altered. In particular, several girls in the school reported that their photo had been changed to add sleeves and/or raise necklines. The students indicated they were especially upset because the changes seemed to happen randomly. Some students’ photos were changed while others wearing almost identical tops were left in-tact. The school district has “apologized” [sorry-not-sorry] in a statement saying, “In the application of these graphic corrections, the high school yearbook staff did make some errors and were not consistent in how they were applied to student photos and the school apologizes for that inconsistency." Really?! It seems fairly apparent from this response that the school truly does not understand what the outrage is about. According to the school, students were warned that their photos might be digitally changed if they were not dressed in a way that conformed to the school’s dress code. The dress code repeatedly refers to the importance of “modesty” in dress and bans items of clothing that “cause an actual and/or perceived disruption of the educational environment or activities.” From all the reports I have seen, only female students’ photos were altered. Sadly, this story is not altogether surprising although it is rather disturbing. Similar events have happened in schools around the country where girls' clothing has been targeted because it is deemed as "distracting" to the male students. This new story comes less than one week after Elliot Rodger’s deadly rampage in Santa Barbara. The last few days have been filled with people’s attempts to make sense of that incident. As more and more info comes to light it appears that there were likley many factors leading to that deadly event: lack of gun control, reinforcement of a limited and stereotypical perspective of masculinity, mental illness. But it is most definitely clear that Rodger’s sense of entitlement about women and objectification of women (attitudes which he conveyed in his writings and videos) contributed to his decisions to act so violently. Obviously photoshoppping students’ high school photos pales in comparison to Rodgers’ violent behaviors, but the similarity in the underlying beliefs about women should worry all of us. Dress codes that imply (and sometimes directly state) that girls are responsible to cover their bodies in order to prevent “disruption” in the environment teach young women and men very dangerous lessons. They reinforce ideas that girls and women are objects and that boys/men are not able to control their sexuality. I get that schools need to have dress codes. But there is a difference between creating a positive learning environment and reinforcing rape culture. Schools can (and should) be a place where students are taught to challenge harmful stereotypes about women and men. It is time for them to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. --Britney Brinkman Today hundreds of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania are applying for marriage licenses, following Tuesday’s court decision declaring the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Somewhat surprisingly, the conservative governor, Tom Corbett, has announced that he is not intending to challenge the decision. When I moved to Pennsylvania five years ago, marriage equality in the state seemed to be a pipe dream—it now appears to be inevitable. The announcement was accompanied by much excitement and celebration, and shock for some who thought they would not see this day arrive. While I certainly felt the joy that others experienced, I think I used up much of my shock in December when a similar event happened in my birth state—the ultra conservative Utah. In addition to celebrating and supporting couples who are now getting married, this is a great time to reflect on the ways in which social change happens. PA is now the 19th state in which same-sex marriage is legal. Interestingly, in 8 of those states the decision was made by a court ruling, while 8 states legalized same-sex marriage by an act of state legislature and 3 by popular vote. While each of these methods lead to similar results as far as the legal rights of couples are concerned, they are accomplished in different ways and may carry varied implications. The Pennsylvania decision came at in interesting time, about a week after the 60th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education. This anniversary was an important reminder of the supreme court ruling which declared that the principle of “separate but equal” as it related to education and race was unconstitutional. These two court decisions, occurring over half a century apart, have important similarities and speak to the power that the US court system can have in implementing social change. In many ways the court system is uniquely positioned to push our society toward equality on topics where public opinion is mixed or even leans heavily in the direction of injustice. Courts are called upon to make decisions not based on popularity but based on the constitution, an aspirational document describing the nation’s support of equality for all—a value that is not always accompanied by action. The federal judge who made the ruling in the Pennsylvania decision, Judge John E. Jones III, also noted this similarity. He wrote within his decision, “In the sixty years since Brown was decided, 'separate' has thankfully faded into history, and only 'equal' remains. Similarly, in future generations the label 'same-sex marriage' will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by 'marriage.'” While I appreciate the judge’s sentiment and celebrate the win of equality on paper I must question whether this statement is held up by the facts. Although school segregation by race is no longer “technically” legal, one need only do a cursory examination of the educational system within the USA to see that it is far from “equal.” There are huge disparities in the quality of public education and access to resources in schools in different neighborhoods, often with the divides occurring on racial and social class lines. I point this out not to in any way diminish the importance of the Brown decision, but as a caution that we not hold up the “mission accomplished” sign prematurely. Equal treatment under the law is incredibly important and we should continue to celebrate the legal wins toward marriage equality within the USA. We should also continue to check the temperature of the larger cultural climate in which LGBT individuals live. The movement toward legalization of same-sex marriage is likely the product of decreased homophobia. Hopefully, it will also continue this trend by challenging people’s stereotypes (in much the same way that school desegregation changed attitudes by giving people more opportunities for inter-group contact). But marriage equality will not protect children from homophobic bullying in schools or eliminate workplace discrimination. If our goal is to move beyond tolerance to embracing and celebrating the dignity of all people then we must remain diligent. During Chatham’s commencement speech on Monday Denis Hayes cautioned graduates not to “sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.” I appreciate this sound advice, but also add that we not hide behind the “good enough” at the expense of people’s dignity. So let’s celebrate! Revel in the accomplishments and continue to live our values. Supporting equality is not rhetoric. It is an ongoing way of life. -Britney Brinkman Today the Internet almost imploded as a video was released of Solange Knowles physically assaulting Jay Z after last week’s Met Gala. You can see the surveillance video here, as well as every other place on the Internet. The surveillance camera shows Solange hitting and kicking Jay Z while a bodyguard attempts to restrain her. Beyoncé goes almost unnoticed as a bystander. Though the video itself is disturbing, this incident highlights the unsettling way in which our discussions surrounding violence are gendered (in addition to being framed by race and class, which I hope also get discussed). Since our conceptualization of physical violence is enmeshed with our gender stereotypes, physical violence by women towards men is often minimized (not to mention violence towards LGBTQ individuals and within LGBTQ relationships). Gender norms are toxic for everyone, and the messages we send about gender and violence are among the most harmful. They influence both our violent behavior and our reaction to violent behavior. We often talk about how these gender norms play out in instances of domestic and sexual violence towards women; but how do they influence our bias when reacting and addressing violence against men? Today, Twitter exploded with jokes regarding the incident. These responses are reflective of the gendered and racialized way in which we talk about violence. Although this kind of flippant response is typical of social media following any sensational celebrity news—violent or not—the way in which it is written and discussed among fans, news sources, and media outlets reveals how we, as a society, view violence.
There are clear assumptions regarding violence and gender in our culture, and those assumptions influence our reactions when incidents like this occur. We assume that (1) Men are, inherently, violent; therefore, when men exhibit violent behavior, it is natural and masculine. It’s difficult to reconcile the contradictory message that violence is both unacceptable AND natural. So when men exhibit violent behavior, we deflect or silence the conversation as a way of avoiding this contradiction. In contrast, we assume that (2) Women are inherently not violent; therefore, when women exhibit violent behavior, it is framed as both hysterical and comical. It is difficult to reconcile the contradictory message that all violence is unacceptable with the belief that women are nonthreatening and weak. So when women are violent, we get around this contradiction by minimizing the violence and turning it into a joke. It’s hard to confront our own biases about gender and violence. First, we have to ask ourselves how we would react if the situation was reversed, if it was Jay Z assaulting Solange in that elevator? But it’s time we take it a step further and ask ourselves why we are so quick to dismiss violence against men, and what messages that sends to both men and women, boys and girls? If we truly want to eliminate violence in our communities, it starts by understanding how we created a culture of violence in the first place. And with articles like "The Interweb's most LOL Solange and Jay Z fight memes and tweets," I'd say we have a ways to go. -AK Wednesday morning I found myself sitting in a coffee shop working on my upcoming book. CNN was playing on a TV in the background and I was ignoring it until something caught my attention: the word Pittsburgh. I looked up to a scene that took my breath away. Cameras were capturing the outside of a school, surrounded by cars and buses. The headline read “Stabbing spree in Pittsburgh area school.” The first thing I thought was “No, not again.” I flashed back to that day in April, 1999 when the city of Columbine, Colorado became famous for the worst possible reason. I was a senior in high school at the time and my school was put on lock down. The nation was in shock and no one knew what to say or do. I felt that shock again Wednesday morning as I saw a similar tragedy striking a community so close to my home. I since learned that at least one of my college students lives in the area and has friends and family who were in the school that day. I have experienced every possible emotion in the past few days. Sadness. Anger. Gratitude that he didn’t have a gun. There is still so much that we don’t know about this incident, about what motivated 16-year-old Alex Hribal to enter the school with two kitchen knives and stab 20 of his fellow students and one teacher. But as I saw the events unfold I couldn’t help but wonder if this experience was another in a long and terrible line of tragedies in which bullying and pressure to conform to strict norms of masculinity explode into unthinkable violence. Ironically, the book I am working on is about identity-based bullying which includes any form of bullying related to a child’s social identity or perceived identity. One of the things that I discuss in the book is the fact that identity-based bullying has not received enough attention, despite some severe outcomes associated with it. In her book, The bully society: School shootings and the crisis of bullying in America’s schools, Klein examines the evidence surrounding numerous incidents of school shootings. She found that most of these were committed by young men who had been bullied because they were perceived to not be “masculine” enough. They decided to seek out revenge in a hyper-masculine way—by committing acts of serious aggression and violence. We don’t yet know what Alex’s experience was in his school or why he brought those knives that day. But even the little information that we do have makes me wonder. One radio report on Thursday morning included a quote from a student at the school who said that Alex was “teased regularly”. Other reports have included descriptions of Alex as “shy, quiet, and without many friends.” Some have begun to question whether bullying may have been the motive. Maybe we will learn that Alex does not fit the trend that Klein and others have described. But we need to ask the question. Asking questions about the role of bullying and masculinity is not about diminishing the responsibility of the perpetrators or blaming the victims. And it is not about creating an artificially simplistic explanation for an act that is so hard to understand. Many kids experience bullying—in fact staggering numbers of kids, especially those who do not conform to stereotypes about gender—and do not respond with violence against others. Some struggle with depression or anxiety, some engage in self-destructive coping strategies, and some commit suicide. Others manage to be resilient in the face of teasing and exclusion. But if we are truly interested in preventing future tragedies that mirror this one, we must be willing to connect the dots. We must examine the ways in which our society constructs masculinity and the pressure that is placed on so many young men (often in the form of bullying) to conform to that construction. We must be willing to examine why and how we build expectations for men to engage in violence and be “tough” no matter the cost. I have cried when listening to the reports. I have cried tears of sadness and tears of anger. Tears for those who have lost friends and family in such violent incidents. And tears for all the men in our society who are told that they are not allowed to cry. When are we going to say that enough is enough? How many times must this scene be repeated before we commit to making real change? When will we decide as a society to no longer tolerate the violence and aggression that occurs in schools EVERY SINGLE DAY? We all have a stake in this game and we all have the power to make change. We can question limiting gender role norms and become more aware of the ways we reinforce them in our lives. We can get involved with groups that seek to end bullying and harassment in schools (like GLSEN) and learn more about campaigns challenging restrictive gender norms (The Representation Project). We can talk to the children in our lives about bullying. We can send our love, thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families at Franklin Regional High School. We can be brave enough to ask the hard questions, to have the challenging conversations, and to take responsibility to make change happen. Jack Johnson wrote the song “Cookie Jar” following the school shooting in Columbine. The words continue to ring true. It was you, it was me, it was every man. Let's demand something better.
-BB It is a common, although frustrating, reality that social movements are often accompanied by resistance and strong adverse reactions. Susan Faludi explores such resistance to the feminist movement in her book “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.” Backlash is often an unpleasant sign that change is happening--that those who enjoy the status quo are getting nervous. Arizona is providing the nation with the latest dose of backlash in the form of Senate Bill 1062. The bill is intended to amend the state’s current Religious Freedom Restoration Act which would allow business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers if they claim they are doing so for religious reasons. The bill passed both the Arizona state Senate and the House of Representatives, and is now awaiting a decision from Governor Brewer. Many suspect that Brewer will in fact veto the bill, possibly because of the controversy it has caused nationwide. Protesters rallied last Friday in Phoenix and Tucson, asserting that the bill is discriminatory and urging the governor not to sign it. Three GOP state senators who initially supported the bill are now asking the governor to veto it. Advocates of the bill seem to be surprised by the amount of protest the bill is receiving and argue that they are trying to protect people’s religious rights. However, many have questioned the need for such a law, as most businesses are already able to refuse service to customers and Arizona state law does not protect individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. It is hard to see this bill as anything other than an example of backlash against the gains that have made toward securing equal rights for the LGBT community in the United States. Even if Brewer signs the bill, it is not likely to last long. The battle between “freedom of religion” and discrimination against entire groups of people is not a new one in this country—let us not forget that there was a time in our recent past when laws that discriminated against African Americans were defended with religious arguments.Courts have been moving more and more in the direction of striking down laws that discriminate against the LGBT community so it is hard to imagine that such a blatant example would hold up. The movement toward social justice is not always a swift or easy one, and battling backlash can feel like trudging through a powerful storm. And just like a tough winter, it can be survived. No matter what Groundhog Phil or the haters have to say about it. --BB As to be expected, President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address was followed by lots of media “spin” and discussions for days afterword in which various experts attempted to analyze the speech and what it means for the president and the nation. One of the responses I was surprised to hear was the idea that Obama didn’t bring up any “big ideas” in the speech. I beg to differ. Obama spoke frankly about a number of economic issues facing workers within the USA that are often left unaddressed. He advocated for a raise in minimum wage and announced that he would use an executive order to increase the minimum wage for employees working under federal contracts to $10.10 an hour. He also highlighted businesses (both large and small) who pay their employees a wage above the minimum required by law and called on policy makers around the country to do more to move toward the creation of a living wage. No one working full time should live in poverty. Period. Obama also called out workplace policies that he said belong in a “Mad Man episode,” referring to the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar of what men make and the lack of workplace policies to support parents. While these ideas are not new, they rarely make the center stage of political discussion, despite the fact that they have an enormous impact on the lives of most Americans. What makes these ideas “big” is the President’s assertion that it is time for our nation to address them and change the way our workplaces function. Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1973, making it illegal to pay women less than men for the same work, a wage gap has persisted in the United States, decreasing over the decades, but not closing. Most figures indicate that currently, women on average make 77 cents on the dollar of what men make. When economists attempt to consider all the factors that contribute to the gap, about 5% can be explained only by the gender of the individual. Further, many of the other factors that contribute to the gap (field of study, for example) are impacted gender stereotypes and discrimination. (See my earlier blog post "Stop Calling Women Stupid" ) Understanding and eradicating the gender wage gap is complex, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it cannot be solved. But it is hard to find solutions if everyone keeps denying the problem. I am amazed how often students entering my courses have never even heard of the wage gap--which is why its inclusion in Obama's speech was so meaningful. In addition to the wage gap, Obama made reference to workplace policies regarding pregnancy and childcare. Many experts agree that the US is far behind other countries in family friendly workplace policies. The Family Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they have a new child or a sick family member, but some small business are exempted from this law. This act exists in stark contrast to other countries which provide paid leave to both mothers and fathers and various protections against discrimination of pregnant women. According to Stephanie Cootz, a combination of social and political forces may be to blame for the slow progress made on this issue in the USA. We will have to wait to see whether/how President Obama puts his statements into action. But in an era where most politicians have refused to even touch these issues it is refreshing to hear them addressed in the State of the Union. Because, as Obama said, the current condition of the policies is frankly, embarrassing. It is time for our nation to own up to these problems and work on real solutions. Let's leave the Mad Men policies to the TV writers and move into the 21st century. -Britney Brinkman Superbowl 2014 is less than a week away. As many in the country gear up to watch the game—and/or the commercials and the half-time show—there is much buzz about the sport. Most of that has focused on the weather and the possibility of moving the game to a day with not plagued with freezing cold or blowing snow (April, anybody?), and of course lots of talk about the two teams, the players, the strategies—basically lots of football chat I don’t understand. Even those who are not football fans are usually aware that the game is coming and talk about their plans for the day. Lots of organizations that have no association with football build off of the event in various ways. Pittsburgh’s local independent music station is hosting an alternative “souper bowl” including a fundraiser for a women’s shelter. This time of year is a reminder to Americans that football holds a spot in our cultural milieu. Which also means it is a great time to talk about one of the problems plaguing the sport—the use of racist mascots. Last fall Mother Jones announced that they were joining a few other news organizations in their decision to stop referring to the Washington Redskins by name, as a small but significant gesture meant to protest the continued use of the racist term. When I first read the story on Facebook I was thrilled and thought “It’s about time!” Despite decades of protest from American Indians and non-native allies, the Washington pro-football team continues to use as its mascot a term that most consider a pejorative against Native Americans. The issue has recently received new steam as a result of a federal lawsuit, Blackhorse et al v. Pro-Football Inc., in which a group of five American Indians are fighting to have the trademark rights removed from the team. Daniel Snyder, the current owner of the team, has responded that the team will never change its name, arguing that it has a longstanding tradition and the fans know what the name represents. Do they? And if they do, does that make it ok? I first learned about the fight to get sports teams to stop using native mascots during a class I took in college about the American Indian Movement. I was somewhat familiar with the topic already, being part Cherokee myself and attending a college that had a nickname based on a Native American tribe (The University of Utah’s Running Utes). By the time I was in college, the University of Utah had already dropped the use of a native mascot and urged students to not dress in native garb. There are new rumors that they will be dropping the name altogether and adopting an entirely new mascot. My firsthand experience with the mascot issue continued when I completed my predoctoral internship at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, a school that continues to struggle with mascot related turmoil. U of I had an 80-year tradition of using a native mascot, Chief Illiniwek, which they “officially” dropped in 2007 after the NCAA deemed it to be an offensive use of American Indian imagery. The NCAA banned the school from holding any postseason event until they changed the mascot. Before this time, students would don buckskin outfits and perform made-up dances at athletic events. I say that they “officially” dropped the mascot because during my time on campus (in 2008-2009) you would have been hardpressed to guess who the mascot was if it was not Chief Illiniwek—“Chief” gear was everywhere. Students wore regalia with the chief image, yards had signs saying “keep the chief”, and like most college towns there were numerous small shops filled with college gear—most of it had the chief on it. During my time at the University of Illinois I served as the liaison between the Counseling Center and the Native American House, a cultural and resource center on campus. The center brought in the renowned Cheyenne-Arapaho artist, Edgar Heap of Birds, whose installation piece on campus was vandalized five times. There was a student group whose sole mission was to reinstate Chief Illiniwek as the mascot. The atmosphere was often charged with tension around the issue—it was a challenging place to be Native American. Change is hard. People often only see things from their own perspective. Many of the students at U of I had family members who had attended the school. They grew up watching the school’s sports teams, hearing stories about family members’ adventures, and looking forward to one day becoming a “Fighting Illini”. As Snyder said of the Washington team—the fans saw the name as part of the tradition. While they genuinely felt a sense of loss of not having the mascot they anticipated, that loss is far outweighed by the costs of keeping the mascot. In 2005, the American Psychological Association called for the removal of all American Indian mascots and symbolism from schools, organizations and athletic teams. APA has referred to numerous research studies which demonstrate the harmful effects of native mascots on American Indians. The practice also reinforces stereotypes about Native Americans and traditions of oppression against entire groups of people. The fact that so many White Americans think that Indian mascots are “not a big deal” or that tradition should overrule the requests made by many Native American individuals and nations reminds us all that privilege is a powerful weapon. Snyder and many of the students who fought for a native mascot at Illinois argued that such mascots are a way to “honor” a group of people. Just for future reference, if a group of people assert that a practice and/or a term is offensive, continuing its use is not honoring them. The fact that the football team housed in our nation’s capital continues to hold tight to using a racial slur as a name is a disgrace. It is time for the team to make a change that many other professional sports teams, schools, and universities have chosen to do. It is time for fans to step back from their desire to support tradition and see the need to support human dignity. At the end of the day, isn’t the right for equality for all the bigger American tradition? So this year when talk of Superbowl Sunday rolls around, consider opening up a dialogue about retiring Native American mascots. The issue may not trend like a Janet Jackson half-time show, but let's see what we can do if we put our minds to it. -BB |
AboutEMPOWERTAINMENT aims to take a critical look at media in regards to how gender and women/girls are portrayed. From popular articles, videos, and websites, to original submissions, we want to not only examine the media and its relation to gender, but help shift it. Archives
November 2017
Categories |