The "Banned Word of 2015" We Refuse to Stop Using

          Feminism is an idea that has been around for years. The word itself was coined in 1837 by a French philosopher. That means we have gone all these years with this word affecting our world. Feminists have then stirred people to take action, helped bring about women’s rights, to the right to vote, to efforts towards equal pay acts and maternity leave, to important strives to end domestic violence or to improve reproductive rights, and so much more that still goes on nearly 177 years after the word feminism was first spoken. Despite the goals of feminism or even the steps we’ve already made in its name, there are still many adverse reactions to the idea of it, or sometimes even just the word. I can’t tell you how many times – and I’m sure you have seen it to – the word feminist has just left my mouth and the person I’m talking to scrunches up their face or narrows their eyes almost instantaneously. 177 years, and the stereotypes and discrimination are still there in the back of people’s minds, making them react as though they have smelled a rotting corpse.

And it’s not getting any better.

Time Magazine recentlyheld a poll on their website asking what word should be banned in 2015. The list included all those annoying terms that we’re sick of constantly seeing on Facebook and – because it’s just so annoying, right? – the word Feminist. The definition beside the word on the poll read:

“You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.” 
But if you have nothing against feminism, then the word feminist shouldn't be on your list. The issues feminists fight for and the changes they want to make are important to all of us. You can’t have feminism without the feminists. Somehow, the word was still the most voted for on the poll.

So what do we do about the visceral reaction to the old word that has helped us achieve so much? Maybe these people don’t really understand what it means in the first place; all we can do is remind them. Tell those people who shake their head at the word that Feminists are anyone who believe that all people, man or woman, should be treated equally and be equally free. Announcing you are a feminist is not like declaring a political party, it’s more like declaring you’re a good human being.

Why Are Gay-Rights Even Still A Debate?

Why Are Gay-Rights Even Still A Debate?

            I know, I am preaching to the choir. But before we continue to fight for (or in more ignorant cases, against) why is this even still a fight? In case anybody hasn’t looked at the calendar in the last 50 years, the year is 2014, and things have changed. We as a community in most cases have become more accepting and honestly why does anybody care. “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married” and it really is as simple as that.

            Slavery existed in North America for 245 years until people finally started pulling their heads out of their asses and realized we shouldn’t be treating people different because of the color of their skin. Times have changed so drastically since then. So, what, by any means, makes anybody think that gay marriage isn’t going to be the same way? Now we look back and think: “I can’t believe that we as a nation got away with having African-American slaves!” because by 2014 standards, it is morally wrong to treat somebody different based on the color of their skin. Doesn’t it make sense that one-day (and soon, seeing is how 33 states have legal same-sex marriage) people in our country are going to look back on time and think: “I can’t believe we as a nation got away with telling people who they could and couldn’t love!” Because, in 20 years, I bet you that it will be morally wrong to treat somebody different based on his or her sexual orientation.

            If you’re against gay marriage, I’m definitely not going to be able to convince you that you are being irrational with this blog, and I know that. But aside from the pure happiness that a happy couple (regardless of their sex) brings to a community, there are benefits involved with gay marriage. In fact, a year after New York passed the Marriage Equality Act, gay marriages generated $259 million in economic impact in New York City alone. And in Maine, a 2009 report on marriage equality found that allowing same-sex couples to marry would increase the state budget by $7.9 million a year. Not to mention the families that are being created by these people. An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent. That means, that without the desire to create a family between same-sex couples, roughly 65,500 children in adoption agencies or foster care facilities may still be without loving parents. Is it really worth it to prevent a positive economical impact and homes to tens of thousands of kids, because you don’t want to see two people happy?

The FAKE-zone

The “friend zone.” A new phrase being used referring to a relationship where one person (most commonly a man), wants to enter a sexual or romantic relationship, while the other person does not. When did this become popular? Why is it a thing? I like to tell myself that the “friend zone” came out and about because more women are having the confidence to say no to men. Which is totally awesome! If you’re not into a guy it’s really okay to say it. Just because he’s nice it doesn’t mean you should feel guilted into sleeping with him. Lets be real here, if a guy gets mad at you for not sleeping with him and putting him in the “friend zone” is he really that nice of a guy? Shouldn’t he respect you enough to know that if you’re not interested, you’re just not interested! Listen up guys! Women do not owe you their bodies. They have every right to say no, even if you are a nice guy. Just because you’re a “nice guy” does not mean that a girl automatically wants to sleep with you. What else are you bringing to the table besides the fact you’re pleasant? Think about it.

The “friend zone” besides being totally wacko is also extremely sexist. When you think of the “friend zone” you commonly think of the male being the friend zonee, and the female being the friend zoner. Why is it that? It’s not because women are “friend zoned” any less than their male counterparts. Women are conditioned to think that if a man doesn’t want them back its because “they’re not pretty enough”, “they’re doing something wrong”, or “I’m not his type”. Why is it that when a woman doesn’t want to hook up they’re a “friend zoning bitch”? The “friend zone” says a lot about men’s confidence levels. 

Sex isn’t something you deserve. You don’t deserve a hand job because you helped your female friend pack for school. You don’t deserve a quickie because you let your female friend vent to you. Being a good friend does not mean you deserve to get in their pants. Men need to stop believing that every nice deed needs a reward. Try doing something nice without expecting anything in return; otherwise you’re going to have a very disappointing future.

Not a Distraction: The Harm Strict Dress Codes do to Girls

          Often we have heard high school dress code polices referred to as a way to teach girls self-respect. Apparently, only girls dressed a certain way – with shorts and skirts to the knee and no shoulders showing – are respecting themselves. Yet, these policies, or those who support them, fail to see the lack of respect being shown to these girls by, not themselves but, the others in their school community. Often dress codes do the exact opposite; they do not promote self-respect amongst teenage girls, but actually damage it. Dress code policies in schools have created an environment that shames girls for dressing confidently in clothes that are made for them or are popular amongst girls their age. Even in hot, summer weather some schools do not allow girls to wear tank tops or shorts that are “too short.” Even yoga pants have been deemed inappropriate attire in some schools. This clothing was labeled by the school as “too distracting,” although many girls in high school today would quickly label them as “comfy pants to spend seven hours of the day in.”

Even worse is how often girls are often called out of class in front of their peers or teachers and then forced to go change their clothes when they do not meet the dress code. The problem with their attire then becomes a more important issue than their education. At a Staten Island High School, 200 students receiveddetention for violating the dress code; ninety percent of these students were girls, as the bulk of the restrictions at this school apply to girls. Pulling girls out of class or giving them detentions for how they dress can lead these girls to feel ashamed of their bodies. Instead of promoting confidence, schools are teaching girls what objectification is; when they can’t dress in a way that they feel comfortable with because there may be eyes on them.

On top of this shame there is the constant reminder that girls are a distraction. The way girls choose to dress is constantly being blamed for boy’s inability to focus in class. This objectification teaches girls to cover up to avoid boys from looking at them, rather than just telling the boys not to look. When a boy then calls a girl a slut, or other degrading terms that can often be heard in the halls of public high schools, these dress codes teach girls that it is their fault they are being called these things, rather than the boys fault for treating her with a lack of respect.   

Many girls around the country are already taking steps to fight their schools dress codepolicies. Girls argue that if they are dressed comfortably in class they can better learn, and that’s what they are there for, not to have others focus on their bodies. However, maybe boys should be upset about this too; are they really so easily distracted by a girl’s bra strap or a bit of her knee showing? These policies hurt girls but also make these boys seem like sex-driven animals with no control over themselves.

It’s time to show girls that they are the only ones in charge of their bodies. To teach boys that girls are not there for them to look at, that they deserve to be respected no matter how they dress. And also to teach the adults in charge that girls are not a distraction and don’t deserve to be shamed for the clothes they wear. After all, we can dress in any way we feel comfortable with, be it no skin showing or all skin showing, and still have self-respect. 

There's still a Pay Gap in 2014...

Everyday the question arises in my head as to how people can honestly think men and women are equal. With the sexualization of women it makes it hard for us as a whole to become equal with men in the workplace. Although women have been granted some baby steps to be equal to men there really have not been any large leaps. For example, the pay gap has not moved in a decade. From the years 2002-2012 women were still being paid 77% of what their male coworkers were making. That statistic goes up to the year 2012 because in 2013 the pay gap increased making the gap larger! However, now in 2014 the gap has decreased and women make up to 78% of what their white male coworkers make.

This is not even as bad compared to women of color who get paid even less than their white coworkers. Latina or Hispanic women make 54% of their male coworkers. Native American women make 59%. African American women make 64%. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women make 65%.

This past year every republican voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is the fourth time since 2012 that republicans have voted against the act that would allow an equal pay for women. The reason in which they voted against the bill was because it makes it easier to sue corporations over allegations of pay inequity. However, there is a pay inequity now. If the bill were to be passed women who have the same qualifications, and experience as their male coworkers would get paid the same and there would not be any need to sue.

 

Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU senior legislative counsel and co-chair of the National Paycheck Fairness Act Coalition, said that, “Pay equity is not a partisan issue, and paying women what they have already rightfully earned is good for them, for the nation’s economy, and for American businesses’ bottom lines. The fact that the Senate finally allowed debate on equal pay is a step in the right direction, but women workers need more than words when the next Congress takes up the Paycheck Fairness Act.”

Women are faced with this pay gap in almost every occupation. We have increased our presence in higher paying jobs but as a whole are still working lower paid occupations. It is 2014 and we are still fighting for basic civil rights. Not much has changed in the past few decades.

We’re Punishing Girls For Being Girls?

We’re Punishing Girls For Being Girls?

            The word “provocative” is more often than not used to describe the way a woman is dressed. In high schools around the United States, girls are continuing to be sent home due to their “provocative” dress. In the dictionary, the word provocative is defined as “arousing sexual desire or interest, especially deliberately.” But, principals and teachers across the country are defining provocative dress as yoga pants, v-neck shirts, spaghetti straps, and short-shorts. But, what teacher’s are labeling “provocative” and “distracting,” girls are feeling confident in, only to be sent home because boys are paying attention to their boobs rather than the board. And hey, everyone, newsflash: but you’re making girls feel ashamed for having a normal female anatomy.

            What really makes no sense though, is: Why are we punishing GIRLS for being GIRLS because boys will be boys? It’s important that if a girl is dressed for herself at school, in something that she feels confident in we do not reprimand her for looking too attractive. I read in a blog once that, when you interrupt a girl’s school day to send her home to change, you are enforcing that hiding her body is more important than her education. You are telling her that making sure that a boy has a distraction-free learning environment is more important than her education. ULTIMATELY you are telling her that HIS education is more important than HERS. What year is this anyways?

More often than not girls are going through crucial changes throughout high school and getting accustomed to how their body fits in clothing. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, for society, girls have boobs. With boobs for any girl, the result is cleavage. Girls should not be punished and forced to hide what they have no control over having. The difference between girls appropriately dressing to fit their curves and boys looking, is that girls have to dress the body they were given; boys do not have to look.

            It is crucial that girls be allowed to wear what they feel comfortable to reinforce confidence, in as long as it looks appropriate. If girls are showing off assets of their body to an extent where they can still look like high school students, (with 2 shoulders, 2 legs and a butt like everybody else) and not school of 16-year-old strippers, they should be able to wear what they feel confident in.

On "Sluttiness"

I don't like the word "slut" because it demeans promiscuous individuals, and promiscuity isn't really a bad thing as long as it's practiced in a completely ethical way. Throughout history there has always been the double-standard of promiscuous men getting the more positive label of “player” for having a lot of sex while promiscuous women get the label of “slut” for the same thing. I suppose that in a way, with the invention of the word “man-slut”, we are moving toward a more equal direction, but rather than unnecessarily judging more people I would like to see society move in the opposite direction and judge less people.

Does another person’s sexual history really have a negative impact on your life in any way whatsoever? If you’re planning to date the person it’s a good idea to make sure that you trust them enough to not cheat on you before committing to them, but otherwise the level of sexual activity in a person’s history shouldn’t be relevant to the way that we treat the person. If someone lives their life being kind to others and always makes a point of not hurting anyone, but they also happen to be promiscuous, they should still be seen as a good person and not as a “slut”. Does having a lot of sex really make someone any less of a person than they would be otherwise? I would consider a person’s morality to be based on the way that they treat others, not on their level of sexual activity.

Of course it is possible for promiscuity to be practiced in a bad way. For instance, if someone were to emotionally hurt a significant other by committing to a relationship but continue to have sex with other people anyway. But a high frequency of sexual activity on its own should not be treated as negatively as it is. It is natural to desire to explore sexuality in the young adult years, and labeling others as “sluts” for exploring that desire is unnecessary. Let people figure themselves out as it works best for them, and save the labels for behaviors that are actually disruptive to others.