Monday, April 25, 2016
"A Woman's Place Is On The Money"
Many of you have heard of the Treasury’s commitment to
replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the new $20 bill. The push for
change officially started last Spring under the direction of Women on 20s, a nonprofit campaign
dedicated to recognizing the often overlooked contributions of women to
American history. Lawmakers Sen. Jeanne
Shaheen (D.-NH) and Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D.-IL) were the first to sign on, both
introducing bills last April to get a woman on the 20. Dozens of lawmakers have since joined the
movement. After narrowing pool from 100 American heroines to 15, Women on 20
published an online poll asking which woman voters would most like to see represented
on our currency. Over half a million voters chose Harriet Tubman, Wilma
Mankiller, Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt as the four finalists. In the second round, Tubman won 33.6% of the
352,341 votes cast, solidifying her as the winner. After a year’s work, the
Treasury has agreed to accelerate the production of the new $20. Despite
backlash, they plan to keep Andrew Jackson on the back of the new $20, a
decision many find offensive considering Tubman’s enslavement and Jackson’s
slave-owning.
In addition to Tubman, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced
his intention to complete a large-scale redesigning of numerous bills by 2020
to commemorate the hundred-year anniversary of the passage of the 19th
amendment. The $10 will feature (albeit on the back) suffragists/abolitionists
Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth and
Lucretia Mott. Lew also suggested displaying historical events at the Lincoln
Memorial, such as Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on the back of the $5.
--Kathleen Melendy,
MWPC Intern
White Feminism: What Is It and What Does It Mean?
Recently, stars such as Taylor Swift, Amy Schumer, and Lena Dunham have been called out by feminist groups and people of the social justice world alike as not being actual feminists, but rather “white feminists.” Now, this may sound like a general statement of what they are and what they are presenting themselves to be: white women that happen to be feminists. But the term “white feminism” is not solely an adjective, rather than it is a negative connotation. “White feminism” refers to the practicing of a feminism that assumes white (cisgendered, straight, able-bodied, thin, middle-to-upper class) women as the default, actively avoiding the acknowledgement and understanding on any topic other than gender, therefore leading to cookie-cutter feminism that can only possibly be useful to those it’s intended for: white women. However, feminists that happen to be white aren’t all automatically deemed as “white feminists.” White feminism is just a feminism that ignores intersectionality.
White feminism comes from the fact that most white people don’t have to deal with discrimination based on the color of their skin, or racism. They don’t have to deal with the institutionalized and societal walls that women of color do. “White feminism” assumes that white women experience misogyny in the way that all women experience misogyny, which is incredibly untrue. White women have very much been able to break into industries where it is primarily white-male dominated, while women of color have to face barriers that white women just don’t. Within the media, this is very prevalent. When looking through a bathing-suit catalog and you see a basically nude white woman, she is often seen as “beautiful” and “elegant.” However, if a black woman is seen in the same pose, wearing the same amount of clothing, she is often seen as “trashy” and “ghetto.” The stereotype of the “loud, angry black woman” is a concept that intertwines with this, and is also very prevalent in today’s world. When a white woman stands up for herself and states what is on her mind, she is often praised, and deemed “inspirational and outgoing.” When a woman of color does the same thing, she is often seen as “too loud, opinionated, and angry.” This isn’t a shaming of women embracing their bodies, or embracing their voices. This is a shaming of the hypocrisy, and society valuing white women in a more positive way. Women of Middle Eastern descent that choose to wear a head-covering are constantly harassed for their culture, religion, appearance, and apparel. They have their burkas, niqabs, hijabs, and head-coverings alike pulled off of them by people in the street, solely for the sake of humiliation. This is an issue that white women just don’t have to face, and white feminism does not recognize this hardship that these women have to go through. Along with this, police brutality is very much a feminist issue, because it affects many women, including very saddening cases such as the death of Sandra Bland. Police brutality doesn’t affect white women in the way that it affects women of color today, so it is often ignored by “white feminism.” White feminism aims to close the wage gap, which is great, but it fails to recognize that many times minority women (Black and Latina) make even less than white women, and it shows no interest of acknowledging that.
Addressing “white feminism” isn’t about silencing these women. It’s about opening up the conversation for more diverse voices to be heard. “White feminists” are not bad, they just have a lot to learn, and a lot to understand. The most important thing that white feminists can do is educate themselves, listen, and engage in the conversation without silencing women of color. True intersectional feminism believes in the equality of all genders, sexes, identities, races, religions, cultures, ethnicity, disabilities, and everything in between. It is about recognizing the issues that other women face, and wanting to help even if the issue doesn’t immediately affect you.
This video from MTV’s Braless series hosted by Lacie Green with guest Franchesca Ramsey is a great summary: https://youtu.be/z-nmxnmt_XU
-Courtney, MWPC Intern
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Women’s Soccer - The Next Battleground for Pay Equity
On March 30th, The U.S.
Women’s Soccer team filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) accusing the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) of wage
discrimination on the basis of gender.
The athletes joined the fight for pay equity hot off their 2015 World
Cup win, in which they received $7 million less than the men’s soccer team did
for losing in round 16 in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
According to the USSF’s
2015 financial report, the women made about a quarter of what the men did,
despite bringing in nearly $20 million more in revenue. The EEOC also found that the women make
$99,000 each if they win 20 games, the minimum number of games required of the
team each year. Conversely, the men make
$100,000 each even if they lose all of those 20 games and receive bonuses of
$5,000 to $17,000 for each game played beyond the minimum requirement.[1]
"We continue to
be told we should be grateful just to have the opportunity to play professional
soccer, to get paid for doing it,” said U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo on NBC Today.
"We believe now the time is right because we believe it's our
responsibility for women's sports and specifically for women's soccer to do
whatever it takes to push for equal pay and equal rights."
The USSF has been pushing back, filing a lawsuit against the
union representing the women’s team.
They are hoping the court will rule that the current collective
bargaining agreement cannot be revisited until its expiration date, December
31, 2016.
In a recent Huffington Post article, Simmons College political
science professor Leanne Doherty notes the potential impact of the women’s
team’s courageous move. She writes,
“The very idea that
these women athletes, who are very public figures with strong domestic name
recognition, have brought this case forward opens up a policy window that all
pay equity activists can step through. The players themselves seem to recognize
their power, describing it as their “duty” to call attention to pay inequity
between men and women…. They are using their social capital for political
power.”
If Doherty is right, we could see the women’s team win their
lawsuit against the USSF and spark the momentum needed for the rest of the
country to enforce equal pay in all professions. As forward Alex Morgan
understands, however, this is not simply about the pay. "We want to play in top-notch,
grass-only facilities like the U.S. men's national team," Morgan said.
"We want to have equitable and comfortable travel accommodations, and we
simply want equal treatment."
--Kathleen Melendy, MWPC Intern
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Northern Ireland to endorse Donald Trump?
Three years ago in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, a nineteen year old girl decided to end her pregnancy by ordering drugs online. This nineteen year old, who is to remain anonymous, did not want a baby at the time and because of the “Offences Against the Person Act”, which has been in place for more than 150 years, she is now being sentenced to a 3-month suspended prison sentence.
This outdated law is highlighting a gap in women’s rights. It allows for those with the financial means to travel elsewhere to receive an abortion while those who cannot afford them, must suck it up and keep their babies, unwanted or even unwillingly. Furthermore, it pushes women to go to unnecessary measures in order to abort their pregnancies. Ordering drugs online as instructed by a health facility, although not under their supervision, seems to be one of the safest as women are throwing themselves down stairs and even drinking bleach to achieve results.
Personally, it seems like a contradiction to not allow these women to go through with an abortion when the law highlights that “abortion is only legal in cases where the mother’s life or physical and mental health are at risk” and that all other cases such as “when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, are punishable by life imprisonment for both the woman and anyone who assisted her”. What about the medical or mental changes that women go through after birth? Do these factors not impose some type of concern or argument again the current abortion laws?
If Northern Ireland won’t revise their abortion laws, then perhaps they may want to adopt Donald Trump and his policies. As of recent news, the Republican front-runner has proposed punishments upon women who seek and obtain abortions. After retracting his incredibly outrageous statement, Trump still believes that those who provide abortions; physicians, medical centers, etc., should in fact be punished. Which might still leave us with the same “worst-case scenario” as before. Women going to drastic lengths in order to terminate their pregnancies.
As a woman it is a frustrating sight to see others, men especially, contemplating what is best for us when it comes to the private, personal decisions we make around these sensitive topics. Although alternative plans probably won’t come around for some time yet, all politicians should strongly consider the well-being and lives of the women their future policies will affect. Without doing so, I don’t believe they can consider themselves as truly fulfilling their jobs of serving the public and promoting a safe and equal society.
Flegenheimer, Matt, and Maggie Haberman. "Donald Trump, Abortion Foe, Eyes ‘Punishment’ for Women, Then Recants." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
Kaplan, Sarah. "Sentencing of N. Ireland Woman for Aborting Her Pregnancy Revives Old and Bitter Debate." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
- Luisa Ibner, MWPC Intern
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Scalia’s replacement could mean an equal tug of war
Last week
the President came out to announce his nomination for the recently opened seat
on the Supreme Court, due to Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. The nominee,
Merrick Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Based on what is being said, it seems that
Garland would be an excellent choice as the next justice on the Supreme Court.
However, it seems that the GOP does not believe so and there are many strongly
worded opinions as to whom we should be seeing in that seat.
As a more
moderate candidate, Republicans fear that they will lose the “upper hand” when
it comes to the conservative v. liberal decisions made in the Supreme Court.
They may be on to something though, as it seems that Garland’s record leans
towards the more liberal/moderate side. With negative numbers reflecting a more
liberal stance and positive ones representing the more conservative, The
Washington Post puts Garland at about a – 0.5. The Washington Post describes
Garland’s ideology to lie between Justice Breyer, who is almost at -1, and Justice
Roberts, who is past 1 but not quite at 2[1].
Bustle.com
published an article, “7 Reasons Merrick
Garland's Women's Rights Record — Or Lack Thereof — Should Worry You” which shed some
light on some of the issues around Garland’s nomination[2]. More importantly, the
article gives us 7 reasons why he might not be the proper candidate for the
job. The article is a bit misleading to some as it only lists issues that have
not been addressed by Garland. Ever. Can we really say we can’t confide in
someone because of this, if he has yet to confront these issues?
These
assumptions are of course, just assumptions as one could find it incredibly
difficult to both assess an individuals actions, to determine where there
political views lie, and make claims on situations that have yet to happen.
What I believe should be taken into consideration is the fact that President
Obama, a just man, confides enough in Mr. Garland to nominate him for a seat in
the SCOTUS. Yes, ideally we do want to see more female Justices, but can we not
settle for a moderate-liberal candidate? Personally, I don’t feel that the
gender of the candidate matters as long as the views and positions embrace the
female population in order to better serve us.
Luisa Ibner, MWPC Intern
[1]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/
[2]
http://www.bustle.com/articles/148469-7-reasons-merrick-garlands-womens-rights-record-or-lack-thereof-should-worry-you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
