Feminism and the Myth of "Women's Issues"

In the past year, I’ve become more socially aware than I ever thought I would be. Because of my studies of history, I’ve always been inclined to be interested in current events and how they have been shaped by the past. And how the past is used to explain or justify actions in the present. There are many issues that I find compelling, but there is one in particular I find central to my new found awareness: feminism.

Throughout all of Western history, essentially Europe and North America, women have been seen as lesser. Of course, in some societies, women have been equal, for example the Spartans. In Sparta, women owned property, were educated, and controlled most of society outside the army.

I’m not saying other societies didn’t value women: they did, but that is the problem. I’m going to limit this discussion to the time since, and inclusive of, the Victorian Era. The very first women’s rights and feminist movements began during this time, but so did the idea of separate spheres for men and women. Although not all women could limit themselves to one sphere, this idea “came to influence the choices and experiences of all women” (Abrams, “Ideals of Womanhood in Victorian Britain). According to the “separate spheres” way of thinking, “woman [were] in the private sphere of the home and hearth, man in the public sphere of business, politics and sociability” (Abrams). The Industrial Revolution helped fuel these ideas. With the abundance of factories and workshops completely separated from the home, women no longer could work and parent simultaneously. Women gained power as moral arbiters in society because of their “innate moral goodness” (Abrams). Fashion, at least for the wealthy and middle class women, changed as a consequence.

By the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, women’s suffrage movements were underway. Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst are some of the most famous leaders of these movements. Women wanted nothing more than to be able to vote for the people who governed them and they were mocked, attacked, arrested, imprisoned. In England, as a protest to their imprisonment, women, led by Marion Wallace Dunlop, started a hunger strike, which led to their eventual forced feeding. The situation in the United States was less physically dramatic. In 1869, the women’s suffrage movement split over the acceptance of the 15^th Amendment, banning voting discrimination based on race but not gender. What would eventually become the 19^th Amendment, which grants women the vote, was introduced in 1878.

The American women’s suffrage movement was split a different way as well. Some women thought change could only be accomplished through radical actions—breaking the structures that confined them. Other women embraced the idea of woman as moral compass and proposed to change society through the avenues already open to them.

Second-wave feminism began in the U.S. in the 1960s, spread through the Western world, and lasted until the 1980s. Second-wave feminism focused on sexuality, reproductive rights, workplace inequality, domestic violence, and divorce. The Equal Rights Amendment was the main focus of the movement. The ERA never passed. It would have read:

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.

A few years ago, I wrote a paper for my Modern U.S. History class about Supreme Court cases involving women’s rights. Had the ERA passed, many of the cases would have been ruled differently. Instead of challenging practices or laws based on the 14^th Amendment, or the 5^th, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, they could have been challenged directly by the ERA.

During this time, the United States Education Amendments of 1972 were passed. These Amendments contained Title IX. Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title IX allowed girls to participate in sports at all levels and with equal opportunities as the boys in their schools. Additionally, girls had to have the equipment to play, schedules to compete and practice, funding, locker rooms, and coaches and trainers. Schools were also required to provide housing and dining facilities. And the opportunity to receive instruction in mathematics only. Title IX remains significant and necessary.

Recently feminism has gained popularity. There are discussions whether “feminism” and “feminist” need to be rebranded. I think that is a stupid idea. Feminist means someone who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Or, in the radical notion that women are people. Things that get rebranded are things that no longer appeal to the masses. Like the reimaging of the Apple logo. Or the Adidas logo. Or the Pepsi logo. I’m not going to apologize for thinking the idea that feminism needs rebranding like a soda company is stupid. Has the definition of feminism changed? No. Has the need for feminism ended? No. Is there still structural inequality between men and women? Yes.

The difference is that “feminism” and “feminist” have been slandered so often that they’ve become somewhat dirty. People are ashamed to say they’re feminist. Instead of seeing a diverse group of people who simply want more from society, the popular image is a raving mob of bra-burners. This popular image is, let’s go with, wrong.

I could now inundate you with statistics of unequal pay for equal work and statistics of rape and rape culture. Or I could tell you of the number of laws passed that not only restrict access to abortions but to any healthcare at all. But I won’t. Although “women’s issues” generally relate to birth control and abortion, every issue is a women’s issue. Because women are members of society.

The term “women’s issues” is very troubling. It implies that women can only be interested, specifically, in abortion and such, rather than in every aspect of society. However, that isn’t the only reason I’m bothered by it. Let’s take birth control. Yes, it is a contraceptive. But it can also be used to treat other medical conditions. Free and easy access to birth control would vastly improve the lives of millions of people, worldwide. But the Madonna-whore complex is still prevalent. And women using contraception flies in the face of the idea of women as mothers first. And it would give women autonomy. So, our patriarchal society has a vested interest in limiting access. Instead of women being allowed to decide what is best for themselves, governments and religious institutions get involved. There are judgements thrust upon individuals.

There will be people who will say that birth control and abortion are certainly issues for all of society. That in order to prevent the “moral decline” of society men must to be involved. But what happened to the idea that women were possessed of “innate moral goodness”? And what about other issues that threaten the “moral decline” of society? Too often discussions of those issues do not include women in any meaningful way or women’s opinions are written off.

There are too many situations where women are devalued as people with legitimate ideas and opinions. Where we are objectified. Or treated as children. Or where respect is denied for seemingly no reason.

In order to fight the systematic injustices to women, we first must understand them. And then we must choose: do we work within the systems, no matter how unjust, to change things or do we demolish the systems and build new, equal structures?

Sources:

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20sparta.htm

Abrams, Lynn. “Ideals of Womenhood in Victorian Britain.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/ history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Remembrance Day 2014

            Remembrance Day, or as we call it here in the States, Veterans Day, has a long history. Or as long as just under a hundred years can be. As with many things in modern society, this day traces its origins to the First World War. As always, I have a bit of a history lesson and then some of my own thoughts.

            First, the history. Remembrance Day, as Remembrance Day, was designated by King George V on 7 November 1919 but is now observed on this day, 11 November. 11 November is Armistice Day—the First World War armistice became official at the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month. (The war did not end until the end of June 1919.) Today, Remembrance Day is celebrated (although I’m not entirely happy with “celebrated”) in the Commonwealth Nations—53 countries including the UK, India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Throughout the Commonwealth, the red poppy is used to symbolize the day.

            In France and Belgium, Remembrance Day commemorations are similar, but in France, the blue cornflower symbolizes the day. Germany does not mark the anniversary of the armistice, but rather has Volkstrauertag (people’s mourning day), observed on the Sunday closest to 16 November.

            And now the United States. In the U.S., 11 November is called Veterans Day, to recognized the sacrifices made by all veterans in all the country’s wars. Veterans Day was established after the Korean War. Memorial Day, celebrated at the end of May, commemorates the people who died while serving in the Armed Forces during conflicts. Memorial Day was established as Decoration Day just after the American Civil War. Some similar events were held in the final year of the war, but were not formal or nationwide.

The Tower of London put on a special poppy installation, Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red, starting in August with most of it being taken down tomorrow. In total there are 888,246 ceramic poppies, one for each of the British fatalities in WWI.

            The most visible sign of Remembrance Day is the poppy because of the large amount that grew in the fields of Northern France and Flanders, where the UK and Colonial soldiers fought most in Europe. One of the most popular First World War poems focuses on poppies. John McCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields” on 3 May 1915. It reads

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

            Like most World War One poetry, there is a feeling of desolation. When I was in Manchester researching over the summer, the Imperial War Museum Manchester had a early version of Wilfred Owen’s “Dolce et Decorum est”. It is one thing to read it online, but it is completely different to see a handwritten original copy.

            To me, Remembrance Day, or Veterans Day or Armistice Day, is not simply about remembering the sacrifices made in the past (or made in the present). It is also about thinking about why we the day exists. When we remember our family members who served, we should also remember why they did. I have spent much of my academic career studying the First World War, so I have a good understanding of the ways in which that war changed the world. (No, I do not think that to be an overstatement, however, the substantiation for that claim is the topic of another blog.)

            When we remember today, we should also remember the upheaval caused by war—the changes to geopolitical relationships, the changes to social norms, and the changes to economies. This type of remembrance is not easy; it takes some critical thinking. It is easy to wear a poppy, or to send a 140-character tweet, or to post a cookie-cutter Facebook status. But it is much more difficult to look at war and the damage it causes, especially the 20^th century wars, and to remember how we still feel the effects of wars that happened a hundred years ago (or longer, but, again, a subject for a different time).

            If you want to learn more about the First World War, I have a slew of books I can recommend. But, if you want something less academic, and more fun, I recommend the Horrible Histories First World War special. It is available currently in the UK on BBC iPlayer but in the US, you might have to do some digging. (I recommend Horrible Histories if you want a fun way to learn about history in general.)

            Though the methods change over time, war wreaks destruction on all societies. In remembering the sacrifices made during war, we attempt to maintain a connection to them. We honor them, but we also try to validate their suffering—to prove that we are different, that we have learned something.

            I will conclude here. With “For a War Memorial” (1922) by G.K. Chesterton:

The hucksters haggle in the mart

The cars and carts go by;

Senates and schools go droning on;

For dead things cannot die.

A storm stooped on the place of tombs

With bolts to blast and rive;

But these be names of many men

The lightning found alive.

If usurers rule and rights decay

And visions view once more

Great Cathage like a golden shell

Gape hollow on the shore,

Still to the last of crumbling time

Upon this stone be read

How many men of England died

To prove they were not dead.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/remembrance/how/poppy.shtml

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/poems/john-mccrae-in-flanders-fields.htm

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/177818

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supreme Court

As some of you may recall, one of the classes I took when I was is D.C. was “Controversy and the Supreme Court.” That class started my interest in the Court (SCOTUS). Since then, I’ve written a term paper about SCOTUS decisions relating to women’s rights. I’ve also read quite a few decisions for fun. Additionally, I think Court decisions are something everybody should at least be aware of. They set legal precedence and impact how laws are interpreted. A future blog might delve a bit into the history of the Court. This blog, however, is going to be about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG), my favorite Justice.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933 in New York and graduated from Columbia Law School. She worked for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. She was the first female member of the Harvard Law Review. President Carter appointed her to the Court of Appeals in 1980. In 1993, she was appointed to the Supreme Court. She was the second woman appointed to the Court. (Sandra Day O’Connor was the first, but she is a different story.)

RBG has always been a staunch advocate of gender equality. Many of the cases she argued before SCOTUS were gender-based, including a case that “involved a portion of the Social Security Act that favored women over men because it granted certain benefits to widows but not widowers.” She won the case. (In case you’re interested, the case is Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld.)

Part of the reason I like RBG is the way she writes. In the past 21 years, she’s written a ton of opinions, but I’m going to take a look at a few specific ones. First, her opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia et al. (1996), decided 7-1 in favor of the United States. In this case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the state of Virginia were sued “alleging that VMI’s exclusively male admission policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” In order for the Court to have decided in favor of VMI, they would have had to “demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for” denying women admittance, which it did not do. Ginsburg writes about VMI’s plans for education thusly, “However well this plan serves Virginia’s sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters.” She then addresses the Constitutional concerns: “The constitutional violation in this case is the categorical exclusion of women, in disregard of their individual merit, from an extraordinary educational opportunity afforded men.” There is no question of what is at issue in this case.

In Ginsburg’s Bush v. Gore dissent, she writes, “I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law.” She does not see this as the case in this instance. Inevitably, SCOTUS deals with state laws and possible conflicts state laws have with federal laws. However, “Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court.” The three cases listed as examples “are embedded in historical contexts hardly comparable to the situation here.” Ginsburg’s dissent is straightforward. She concludes with, “In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.” The final two sentences of her dissent are a harsh condemnation of the Court’s decision. And she omits the “respectfully” from her official dissension sentence.

In 2007, Ginsburg issued a dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. This was a case about gender pay discrimination, ruled 5-4 in favor of Goodyear. The ruling was based on a time limit on filing discrimination claims and a lack of evidence. Ginsburg equates pay disparities and hostile work environments because of their repeated, long-term nature. As for the lack of evidence cited by the majority, Ginsburg writes,

“To show how far the Court has strayed from the interpretation of the Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination… Specifically, Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular.”

This is my favorite part of her dissent in this case, although there are a few other sentences that are particularly good as well.

In 2013, Ginsburg issued the dissent in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. This case dealt with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically Section 5. Section 5 deals with preclearance—a requirement that sought to prevent districts, and states, with a history of discriminating against minorities in the creation of voting districts from redistricting in a way that furthers discrimination. Although the main offenders of racial gerrymandering were in the South, other counties and states were subject to preclearance. Outside the South, the whole state of Alaska and counties in California, New York, and South Dakota, and townships in Michigan, were on the list. The two counties in South Dakota are both Native American reservations. Ginsburg’s dissent starts by acknowledging the continued existence of voter discrimination and the steps Congress had taken to overcome that discrimination (mainly the repeated reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act) and then provides many examples of the necessity of preclearance. As in many of her dissents, Ginsburg’s conclusion is the strongest condemnation of the majority opinion. Here she says, “In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.”

RBG has written dissents in some other really important recent cases, al of which are good reads. Most recently, she issued a dissent in the Texas Voter ID Law challenge, to which no majority opinion was offered, at 5am.

Finally, there is a really good interview with RBG, available here.

I know this was a bit long, but I hope I’ve shared some of my love for the Supreme Court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. SCOTUS decisions are incredibly important. In conclusion, RBG is awesome.

Sources:

http://www.biography.com/people/ruth-bader-ginsburg-9312041#synopsis

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/justice-ginsburgs-record-breaking-day

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1941.ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZD.html

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_DISSENT_5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voter-id-dissent_n_6007612.html

York in Review

I've been back in the States for about 10 days and I thought this would be a good time for a look back at my time in York.

My experiences in York are really hard to sum up. I met so many amazing people and made so many friendships that I feel so different from the person who arrived in the UK just over a year ago. The first few months were hard and, although I met a lot of great people, I feel like I didn't really get to know them until January. Burns Night in January marks for me the time wen I started to fell confident there and a bit like I was at home. Spring term was great for me. Part of my course was a work placement where I researched the First World War--something I'd done and knew I could do well. By the end of spring term, I had a group of people I loved spending time with and I didn't get lost in the city center (a major accomplishment). Spring term was capped off with my first real ceilidh.

The Chaplaincy pilgrimage to the South let me form friendships with the campus chaplains and better friendships with the other students. Plus I got to travel. From staying in a gatehouse of a priory to taking a tour of Canterbury at night by candlelight, the trip might have been my single favorite week in York.

Throughout the summer, I dedicated essentially 100% of my time to my dissertation. It was super intense but, retrospectively, really fulfilling. Part of my research was to go to the Imperial War Museum North in Manchester. I went twice and both times were great. I also got to figure out the whole internet train tickets thing which was helpful for the rest of my summer.

The second super exciting trip I took was to the Lake District, which I covered in length recently. I will add, that every chance I get, I will go to the Lake District. It is the only place where I've really enjoyed hiking/nature.

The last week I was in York, my mom came to visit. We went to Hadrian's Wall at Housesteads Roman Fort, which was super cool. We also went to Whitby and Scarborough--complete with sea mist. We went to the museum where the research I did was part of a new exhibition. And I got to see some of my favorite people a couple times before I left. (Quick parenthetically shout out to Nick, who requested to be included.)

In all, my year in York was better than I could have imagined. And now, some of my favorite pictures from the year.

The statue of Constantine at the Minster is one of my favorite parts of York. From a convenient meeting place to an amusing site to people watch, the Roman emperor was handy to have around.

Another of Constantine, with the Minster this time. These two pictures are classic tourist pictures.

As is this one I took of Westminster when I was in London over New Year's.

I went to London in the summer with friends and saw the Elgin Marbles in the Great British Museum of Nicked Stuff, aka the British Museum. I really liked it but I didn't get to see everything. Although there are museums I would like to visit more, I would love to go back.

The Imperial War Museum North in Manchester from the other side of the quay. It is such a pretty building.

A typical day at the entrance to my building near the end of the year included passing somewhere between 6 and 10 ducks. Water fowl rule the campus.

Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire. My best friend in York essentially adopted me, and so did her grandparents. One weekend in August they took me on a walk across the North York Moors, which was amazing; another weekend we went to Rievaulx Abbey, which was stunning.

Hadrian's Wall from Housesteads Roman Fort. The scenery was spectacular.

I kid you not, this is Whitby Abbey. It was pretty cool to see it in the mist.

This is Scarborough Castle with sea mist. I was really cool too, but I wish we could have seen off the cliff out to sea.

This last picture is of Canterbury Cathedral and is one of my favorites from that trip.

That was just a brief look at my time in the UK. Of course, I have more thoughts, stories, and pictures, but those will have to wait for now.

The Lake District

This past weekend I went to the Lake District. I went with some friends as part of a birthday gathering. We spent the weekend in a youth hostel in Grasmere and did some hiking and such. That's the cut and dry version of events.

I left York Friday for a, roughly, 4 hour journey to Grasmere via bus, train, and bus again. Generally I walk to the rail station from campus, but it decided to rain just as I was leaving, so I took a bus--I figured I was going to spend a good part of the weekend rather wet anyway, why start early? It took three trains to get to Windemere (York to Manchester to Oxenholme to Windemere). Windemere is one of the main destinations of the southern Lake District, but really only because it has a rail station--all of one platform. From Windemere, I got a bus to Grasmere and found the youth hostel. The group I was with was made up of mostly people I'd never met, so I had a few minutes before my friend showed up. Friday was concluded with dinner and a trip to a pub.

Saturday we set off on a hike. Total walking, I'm told was 10 miles, but I'm not sure if that included vertical distance. I'm not really a hiking person. But, I will, from this point on, always make an exception for hiking in the Lake District. Always. We left Grasmere and headed to Ambleside where we had lunch. From Ambleside we walked to Elterwater, where we stopped for a snack (read: ice cream). We then headed back to Grasmere. Despite the unexpected hills/mountains we had to climb, I really enjoyed it.

Sunday a few of us caught a bus to Windemere for Mass and lunch. We then spent the afternoon in Ambleside and went to a movie in the early evening. The movie I saw was Belle. It was good, but that is a discussion for a different time. I, and the group I was with, missed the last bus by about ten minutes, so we ended up taking a taxi (a couple others got a lift back from one of the guys).

On Monday people were leaving at different times. I was the last to leave. So after having lunch in Windemere with a few people, I wandered a bit, had some tea and a scone, wandered some more, and waited. I caught my train and a beautiful sunset. I only had to change trains once at Manchester. I lucked out both times in Manchester in terms of platforms: the trains I was on and the trains I needed to catch were on the same platforms. When I got back to York, I got the bus back to campus because I was knackered--the effect of a super great weekend.

And know, pictures. The real reason for this post!

On the bus in Ambleside on Friday.

 

Grasmere, Friday afternoon.

The youth hostel we stayed at in Grasmere.

The next two are from Saturday morning, between Grasmere and Ambleside.

The Bridge House in Ambleside, I think the recording on the bus said it is the most photographed building in the Lake District.

Part of Saturday afternoon. We had amazing weather. This is between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Majestic sheep on a peak, between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Obligatory selfie, between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Ambleside and Elterwater.

A lake between Ambleside and Elterwater.

Between Elterwater and Grasmere Saturday afternoon.

The sunset Monday from the train.

So, that was my trip to the Lake District. The real question is, when can I go back?

Just a couple more notes:  I have just about five weeks left here, four till my mom comes. I have my dissertation to finish, which at this point is only a significant amount of editing. I'm not sure if I'll write another post before I leave, but I will do a few when I get home--my mom's visit, finishing up here, reflecting--that sort of stuff.

I hope everybody is having a grand summer! I know I have been!