Morgan McMurray – Law Street

Cleveland Museum Called Out For Shaming A Breastfeeding Mom

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:22:08 +0000

"Baby K - Foot" courtesy of [David Clow via Flickr]

A disgruntled mom of three, Emily Locke, posted a lengthy Facebook status Monday about the experience she had while breastfeeding her youngest child at the Cleveland History Center in Cleveland, Ohio. The family was there for her sister’s wedding and, during pictures, her nine-month old decided it was dinner time. The mother reportedly sat down there in the museum to breastfeed, and it wasn’t long before a museum worker tried to stop her.

“I was approached by a woman who told me ‘you aren’t allowed to do that here.'” Locke says in the post. “I responded that I was actually legally allowed to nurse my child. She said it was against the museum policy and I had to stop. I refused and she said she would have to get her manager.”

The woman Locke assumed was the manager spoke to her as well, informing Locke there were areas of the museum she could “do that” and that she would need to move because it is a “family museum” and they were trying to “protect the innocent children.” Locke repeated her earlier statement that women are allowed to breastfeed wherever they need to, and eventually the manager left her alone.

Locke’s post has been shared thousands of times in the last 24 hours, and many enraged social media supporters have lambasted the Cleveland History Center to express their outrage.

“I was so disappointed and saddened by this,” Locke goes on to say. “I was treated as if I was doing something disgusting and inappropriate. That I was in some way hurting the innocence of children.”

The museum has since come out with an apology, claiming it has no policies against women breastfeeding on its property, and it will be re-training staff on its policies:

This evening, we were made aware of an unfortunate incident over the weekend where a nursing mother was urged to refrain from breastfeeding her child in a public museum area by museum staff.

We offer our sincerest apologies to this mom and her family. Cleveland History Center does not have any policies that prohibit breastfeeding in our public areas. We do not condone the behavior of the staff involved, and have begun taking next steps to address this issue.

Our hopes are that this incident will serve as a teachable moment and an opportunity to improve our guest experience as we continue to provide a safe and family fun environment for all.

This is not an isolated incident. Women are shamed for breastfeeding in public daily, even though 49 states plus D.C. have laws allowing women to do so (with the exception of Idaho — what the hell, Idaho?). Many of those same states also exempt breastfeeding women from public indecency laws.

But just because it’s legal doesn’t mean women won’t get harassed. YouTube social experiments, like the one from Joey Salads below, showcase just how prevalent the misunderstanding about breastfeeding is:

It’s extremely disheartening to see the number of women who shame a mother for breastfeeding, because that means those women have been taught that breasts are something to be ashamed of or to be hidden, when the purpose of a mother’s breast is simply to give sustenance to her child. There is nothing shameful in that. Mothers should know their rights and stand up for them, like Emily Locke did, but they should not be harassed in the first place.

To learn more about breastfeeding laws in your state, click here.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cleveland Museum Called Out For Shaming A Breastfeeding Mom appeared first on Law Street.

Indiana Is About To Pass An Ultra-Restrictive Abortion Law

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:03:55 +0000

"Mike Pence" courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Texas isn’t the only state that is trying to limit a woman’s right to her own body.

Last week, Indiana’s state legislature passed HB 1337, a bill that will severely restrict access to abortions in Indiana, and it’s now on its way to Governor Mike Pence’s desk. Like the Texas bill that is currently in front of the Supreme Court (and completely condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), HB 1337 proposes to establish several TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) rules that would, in effect, shut down all but a few clinics that offer abortion services, and make abortion procedures even more costly for pregnant women and facilities.

Among many regulations, HB 1337:

Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

This provision is complicated because (1) It is not the business of anyone but the individual woman as to the reason for the abortion, and (2) It means that a woman’s motive has to be proven before the abortion can be performed. If a physician has any reason to believe the woman is seeking an abortion because of the child’s race, sex, or mental handicap, she can be turned away. It doesn’t matter if she was raped, or if the child’s life would be severely limited or impaired.

The bill goes on to require that

Pregnant women considering an abortion must be given the opportunity to view the fetal ultrasound imaging and hear the auscultation of the fetal heart tone at least 18 hours before the abortion is performed and at the same time that informed consent is obtained.

So, not only does this hypothetical woman in Indiana who has made this difficult decision have to prove she is not having an abortion because of the race/sex/mental state of the fetus, but she must now be forced to listen to the heartbeat of that fetus and have an ultrasound (a procedure not wholly covered by insurance), after which she will be forced to see the fetus. After that emotional and costly ordeal, she must wait 18 hours before she can have the abortion. Which leads us to a TRAP (literal and figurative) for both abortion-seekers and abortion clinics: HB 1337:

Provides that a written agreement between a physician performing an abortion and a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county concerning the management of possible complications of the services must be renewed annually.

What are admitting privileges? Basically, hospitals keep a list of doctors and clinics that are allowed to admit patients to that hospital. The reasoning behind this TRAP is supposedly in case complications arise from the abortion procedure. Okay, that’s fair. However, given that the majority of abortions are performed by taking a pill, and abortions are safer procedures than having a routine colonoscopy, asking every clinic that offers abortions to also pay for expensive admitting privileges means that many of those clinics will not be able to run. Meaning there will be fewer clinics, and they are farther away, so that hypothetical woman from before who is waiting 18 hours for an abortion is probably doing that waiting in a hotel room that she has paid for out of pocket.

But what really slams the nail into the metaphorical coffin of Indiana abortion services is one of the last provisions HB 1337 makes, which says “a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains.”

And who do you think is paying for those services? Exactly. This woman, after being subjected to the emotional and expensive journey to her nearest abortion clinic, must now fork over even more money to the facility performing her abortion to bury or cremate the unborn fetus.

Now that the bill has reached the governor’s desk, all he has to do is sign it for this hypothetical to become a reality. It may be too late for Indiana, but women’s rights cannot continue to be stripped away like this in states that disguise oppression as protection. It is unconstitutional, and it must stop.

Morgan McMurray

The post Indiana Is About To Pass An Ultra-Restrictive Abortion Law appeared first on Law Street.

J.K. Rowling Sparks Angry Reaction with History of North American Magic

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:11:17 +0000

Image courtesy of [Daniel Ogren via Flickr]

Last year, J.K. Rowling relaunched her Harry Potter-themed website, Pottermore, which offers fans the opportunity to explore the stories firsthand by going through the sorting ceremony and purchasing a wand. Rowling has also used Pottermore as a platform to release more information about her magical world through several short stories. Her most recent series of writings cover the history of magic in the United States, as an introduction to the upcoming “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.”

But the first story in a series which could have been harmless fictional history lessons has resulted in backlash from some in the Native American community.

The piece, covering the 14th to 17th centuries, talks about magical humans within Native American tribes and how, depending on the tribe, these witches and wizards were either trusted or feared:

In the Native American community, some witches and wizards were accepted and even lauded within their tribes, gaining reputations for healing as medicine men, or outstanding hunters. However, others were stigmatised for their beliefs, often on the basis that they were possessed by malevolent spirits.

She also talks about the Native American “skin walkers” who, in the world of Harry Potter, are animagi. Members of the Native American community took to Twitter to protest Rowling’s generalizations of their culture.

It’s not “your” world. It’s our (real) Native world. And skin walker stories have context, roots, and reality. https://t.co/mRZD0M1UCf

— Dr. Adrienne Keene (@NativeApprops) March 8, 2016

We’re saying that there is problem when non-natives continue to use outdated & racist stereotypes as the basis for their native characters

— Johnnie Jae (@johnniejae) March 9, 2016

@jk_rowling you are not entitled to our history, culture, stories. They are not yours to re-invent, re-define, re-imagine, or to profit from

— A Tribe Called Geek (@tribecalledgeek) March 8, 2016

You must outta your mind if you think we should sit idly while a renown white author uses us as props in her fictional work.

— Native Beauty (@nativebeauties) March 8, 2016

Rowling has seemingly not responded to the criticisms, other than to explain in further detail what skin walkers are. Dr. Adrienne Keene, one of the outraged individuals who used Twitter as a sounding board, expanded on her objections to the story on her blog, Native Appropriations. She talks about how Native Americans are so often lumped together and marginalized, and sometimes equivocated with their spiritual stories. Dr. Keene said:

But we’re not magical creatures, we’re contemporary peoples who are still here, and still practice our spiritual traditions, traditions that are not akin to a completely imaginary wizarding world (as badass as that wizarding world is).

Is the backlash justified? It is understandable that any people who have had their culture slowly stripped away by colonization would take offense to a descendant of those colonizers whitewashing their history. However, in the case of these short stories, cultural appropriation might be too bold of an accusation. We’ll have to see how the controversy plays out.

Morgan McMurray

The post J.K. Rowling Sparks Angry Reaction with History of North American Magic appeared first on Law Street.

We Should All Be Talking About Lady Gaga’s “Till It Happens To You”

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:43:28 +0000

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group via Flickr]

There were several applause-worthy moments at last week’s Academy Awards, including, of course, Leonardo DiCaprio’s long overdue win for Best Actor and his subsequent speech about saving the environment.

I have immense respect for celebrities who use their public platforms to champion various causes, a phenomenon which has become significantly more common as things like feminism and race equality come to the forefront of political discussions in America.

One such celebrity is Lady Gaga, who has taken on the role of advocate for sexual assault victims, including fellow pop star Kesha, who is undergoing a legal battle with her alleged assailant and producer Dr. Luke.

Lady Gaga, along with Diane Warren, were nominated in the Best Original Song category for “Till It Happens To You,” a dramatic ballad about sexual assault for the documentary film “The Hunting Ground.”

“The Hunting Ground” focuses on sexual assault on college campuses. What the filmmakers found was horrifying, if not surprising: victims of sexual assault are hushed up and discouraged from reporting their assaults, especially when their abusers are high-profile. The documentary received backlash from schools and perpetrators who were featured, including Jameis Winston, the quarterback of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, whose alleged assault of another Florida State student is covered in the film.

But the producers refused to back down. One of them, Amy Ziering, said in an interview with Salon that campus rape is:

A pernicious, pervasive problem that’s been misunderstood for decades, and we really need to step up our game, rethink it, and figure out how to do something better about it. And just help people. That’s where our interests should be: Let’s help all the victims of this. Let’s acknowledge they exist. Let’s do right by them. Right now, we’re just really damaging everybody.

Watch a trailer for the documentary below:

While the documentary itself may have its faults from a storytelling stand point, the message is clear: nothing is being done about the staggering number of sexual assaults that take place on college campuses.

Which brings us back to Lady Gaga and her Oscar-nominated song.

“Till It Happens To You” has a title that is pretty much self-explanatory. It speaks from the point of view of a rape victim, questioning “What the hell do you know?” to those who dismiss the issue of rape without fully understanding its magnitude.

At the Academy Awards, Lady Gaga accompanied herself on piano, and towards the end of the ballad, welcomed dozens of sexual assault survivors–male and female–onto the stage with her.

The song did not end up winning the Oscar, but the global stage it received last weekend is very important. We need to keep this song and “The Hunting Ground” in the spotlight, and we need to keep the conversation about sexual assault in the news. We need to stop the culture of victim-blaming, and we need to stop glorifying the perpetrators. Only then can a true solution be reached.

Watch the entire performance here:

Morgan McMurray

The post We Should All Be Talking About Lady Gaga’s “Till It Happens To You” appeared first on Law Street.

Kesha’s Denied Injunction Spits In The Faces Of Rape Victims

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:39:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [Viv Lynch via Flickr]

The pop star who brought us such hits as “Tik Tok” and “Your Love Is My Drug” has been going through an intense legal battle over her contract with her producer and alleged rapist, Dr. Luke. Her lawsuit hit a snag last week when a New York judge denied Kesha an injunction that would have allowed her to record with other studios, instead forcing her to remain in her contract until the details of the lawsuit are settled.

Kesha’s fight against Dr. Luke has been in the public eye since 2013, when fans began the campaign to “Free Kesha” from Dr. Luke’s control. The singer soon revealed that her producer had not only restricted her music and lyrics, but verbally, physically and sexually abused her, culminating in a stay at a rehab facility. She filed the lawsuit in 2014 in an attempt to break her contract and record music elsewhere.

After the injunction was denied, Dr. Luke broke his silence on the matter, claiming he has never assaulted Kesha. Despite his statements, the singer has received an outpouring of support from fans and celebrities, including a $250,000 donation from Taylor Swift.

But regardless of whether or not you believe Dr. Luke or you believe Kesha, the denied injunction means the same thing: Dr. Luke and his record label’s money is more important than the well-being and mental state of the singer whom they claim to represent. Given the gravity of the allegations against Dr. Luke, it should not be the case that Kesha must stay in a career-throttling contract with her alleged abuser until he is proven guilty.

Contracts in the music industry are notoriously bad about allowing musicians any sort of artistic freedom, often signing them on for long periods of time with constricting regulations. Of the injunction, the judge said, “You’re asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.”

What makes her case atypical, however, are the rape and abuse allegations. Denying her an out is an attempt to diminish her claims, and the action shows a lack of support for rape victims in general. It says to them that, until their claims are proven, it didn’t happen. This is a result of the victim-blaming society in which we live, where rape victims are questioned and their abusers are allowed to go free.

In Kesha’s case, what more proof is needed? She has gone through rehabilitation and treatment for the trauma she experienced, and is pursuing a lengthy and expensive legal solution to her misery. If an artist simply wanted to break a contract, there are simpler ways to do so.

Morgan McMurray

The post Kesha’s Denied Injunction Spits In The Faces Of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:50:27 +0000

Image courtesy of [Eva Rinaldi via Flickr]

Anyone who has been on social media during the past couple of weeks has seen the slow descent of Kanye West into what we can only call apparent madness. From his eloquent assertion that Bill Cosby is, in fact, innocent (despite over 50 public accusations of sexual assault):

BILL COSBY INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 9, 2016

To his admission that he is millions of dollars in debt, and the request that billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg bail him out:

I write this to you my brothers while still 53 million dollars in personal debt… Please pray we overcome… This is my true heart…

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Mark Zuckerberg invest 1 billion dollars into Kanye West ideas

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Then, of course, we have the lyrics in one of his songs on the newly released album “The Life of Pablo,” which are allegedly about Taylor Swift: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / I made that bitch famous.”

It would be easy to brush all this off as a publicity stunt to draw attention to his album release, but this is not the first time Kanye has attempted to undermine Taylor Swift’s success. Let’s all flashback to the 2009 VMAs when he interrupted Taylor’s acceptance speech to tell the audience that Beyonce probably should have won.

T-Swift has reacted with humor and grace to most of Kanye’s gaffes, but even she had to take a stand against the misogynistic and disrespectful tone of this last attack. A representative of Swift said she was unaware of the lyric before the song was released, and did not by any means approve it.

While friends and supporters of Swift took to social media with their criticisms of Kanye’s misogyny, Swift used her Album of the Year Grammy win as a platform to call out Kanye, and on a broader scale, anyone who has attempted to minimize female success.

As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there, there will be people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame. But if you just focus on the work … you will look around and you will know that it was you and the people who love you that put you there. That will be the greatest moment.

This is not an unusual statement for the feminist artist, who has promoted self-acceptance and gender equality more than once on award ceremony stages. This particular feminist speech just has the bonus of shutting down the Cosby-supporting Kanye.

Keep being a fabulous feminist, Taylor.

Watch the moment below:

Morgan McMurray

The post Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:52:52 +0000

"Donald Trump" courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Monday night, Donald Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally before New Hampshire’s primary. In response to a statement about his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, a crowd member yelled, “He’s a pussy!”

Trump responded by repeating the slur, but in the context of a reprimand.

“You’re not allowed to say that…” Trump said. “…I never expect to hear that from you again.”

Then, looking out over his audience of prospective voters, he added, “She said he’s a pussy.”

His statement was met by raucous cheering, and a bit of a “what can you do” attitude from Trump.

Watch the whole charming moment below:

Trump, Trump, Trump…this could have been your moment to rise above the childish antics your campaign has been associated with! Instead, in the guise of taking the high road, you chose to insult your opponent with immature name-calling.

Someone deserves a time out.

Now, let’s talk about the word “pussy” for a moment. When someone uses the word “pussy” they are usually referring to one of three things:

a feline,
a woman’s vagina, or
a person who is weak.

The third definition, and the colloquialism Trump and his supporter used in the video above, is actually meant to be a shortened version of the word “pusillanimous” which does mean “showing a lack of courage or determination.”

Unfortunately, if you were to ask the average person on the street, they would assume the insult is in reference to the second definition: a vagina.

But wait a second! Why would weakness ever be associated with vaginas? Aren’t they super strong?

The answer is, yes! However, the association of female genitalia with weakness is the result of a patriarchal society. It even inserts itself into our day-to-day language. Look no further than the phrase “grow some balls,” which implies the person growing said balls would gain bravery and strength to accomplish a task or goal.

Trevor Noah on why it’s nonsensical that calling someone a ‘pussy’ should be an insult. #gendermatters #gender pic.twitter.com/NXIFr5177W

— Matthias Lehmann (@yongsagisa) December 8, 2015

So, Mr. Trump’s supporter, and Mr. Trump himself, didn’t just use the classic bullying technique of degrading by name-calling. No, they attempted to degrade Senator Cruz with a word that shouldn’t even be used for degradation. (Unless Trump knows the word pusillanimous, which I sincerely doubt.)

Let this be a lesson to us all: the word “pussy” in its iteration as a slur is really an insult to women. Let’s just stop, okay?

Morgan McMurray

The post Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult appeared first on Law Street.

Feminist Gloria Steinem Faces Backlash From Bernie Supporters

Morgan McMurray — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 19:20:24 +0000

Image courtesy of [Marnie Joyce via Flickr]

In an interview with comedian Bill Maher on Friday, feminist activist and bestselling author Gloria Steinem–along with her usual dose of humor-laced progressive statements–said something that was not so progressive. In fact, in their discussion of young female activism and the 2016 Democratic party candidates, Steinem’s statements sounded, dare I say it, sexist. She implied that young women only make decisions based on their love life, and that older generations of women are wiser because of their years dealing with oppression:

Women are more for [Clinton] than men are … First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience … Not to over-generalize, but … men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.

Women were quick to take to social media after Steinem’s statements, starting the hashtag #NotHereForBoys.

Let @GloriaSteinem know – we are here to ORGANIZE for and #NotHereForBoys: https://t.co/Iufi6VthIn #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/hp8dcUOwGf

— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) February 7, 2016

#NotHereForBoys. I support @BernieSanders because he stand for #climate action and workers’ rights.

— Aly Johnson-Kurts (@AlyJohnsonKurts) February 7, 2016

>@GloriaSteinem I’m here to elect a candidate not beholden to wall street donation. I’m #NotHereForBoys

— Moumita Ahmed (@MouBerningluv) February 7, 2016

I’m a 2 tour combat vet, here to vote for taxing big banks and businesses, civil rights, free tuition, universal healthcare. #NotHereForBoys

— sarah leifheit (@fleurdesarah) February 7, 2016

I never thought I’d see the day where I was thoroughly insulted by @GloriaSteinem #NotHereForBoys #FeelTheBern #IActuallyHaveABrain ✋

— Chrissy (@Christinker) February 6, 2016

Feminists, especially those feeling the Bern, have been left flabbergasted by Steinem’s statement. It comes from a woman who has praised millennial women for their activism, and who has actually endorsed Bernie as an “honorary woman” during one of his past campaigns. Bernie is, arguably, the most radical candidate in the presidential race, throwing a wrench into her theory that women radicalize as they age. What makes it worse is that Bill Maher, who is funny but sometimes walks the line separating humor and sexism, turned it back around on her, pointing out that if he had said the same thing Steinem probably would have reprimanded him. So what gives?

It goes without saying that, whatever your political stance, you should choose which candidate best matches your beliefs. And while it may have been true when Steinem was in her 20s that women changed their opinions to find men, it certainly is not the case today.

Watch the entire interview below.

Morgan McMurray

The post Feminist Gloria Steinem Faces Backlash From Bernie Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

Indictment of Pro-Life Extremists a Positive Step Forward

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:49:09 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

In a promising turn of events, the investigation into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended with an indictment, but not of the organization.

A grand jury in Houston, Texas, handed down an indictment of the two Center for Medical Progress (CMP) employees who slandered Planned Parenthood through doctored videos earlier this year. David Daleiden, the director of the Center for Medical Progress, and CMP employee Sandra Merritt were indicted on charges of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor charge in relation to purchasing human organs.

The news was quick to incite reactions, both from pro-lifers outraged that justice had been served:

I will be a champion of the unborn and will fight to defund rogue groups like Planned Parenthood. Join the fight: https://t.co/KKUDfyWyoc

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) January 26, 2016

Pro-life investigators respond to grand jury indictment: #PlannedParenthood is guilty,not us https://t.co/83jNUpAime pic.twitter.com/mO3AeDBnGU

— The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) January 26, 2016

And by pro-choice advocates standing behind Planned Parenthood and this major step forward in women’s healthcare rights:

Pro-tip: Don’t manipulate info about #reprohealth or you might get indicted: https://t.co/Pi9qXKwXZP

— EMILY’s List (@emilyslist) January 26, 2016

How the nationwide crusade against planned parenthood is failing https://t.co/djPcUVYxxT pic.twitter.com/16g6Wvnc5H

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 26, 2016

Cecile Richards, the director of Planned Parenthood, pointed out that states investigating her organization have failed to find any illegal activity.

In addition to Harris County, officials in 10 states have concluded investigations – each one has cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 25, 2016

But what does this indictment mean for the future of Planned Parenthood, and for women’s rights on a broader scale? The damage done by those videos is irreparable, and pro-life politicians are still attempting to defund the organization despite all the evidence against their arguments.

What this means is that, at least from a legal standpoint, the battle for reproductive rights will continue to be won. Planned Parenthood, it comes as no surprise, is not guilty of anything except providing affordable healthcare. The organization is more than abortions.

But what about politics? Fear-mongering and emotional appeals are strong campaign tactics, as we have seen from the GOP candidates and by the fact that a bill to defund Planned Parenthood made it all the way to Obama’s desk. The blatant facts seem to have little effect on politicians who let emotion and religion guide their decisions.

What pro-life advocates and politicians need to understand is that Planned Parenthood does not exist for abortions alone, and pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Just because the government funds a clinic that offers abortion as a service, does not mean it endorses abortion itself. Pro-choice literally means pro-each woman should make her own decision about her own body. And while conservative state governments will continue to attempt things like “All Lives Matter” acts to kick reproductive rights back a century, at least this indictment shows there really is no basis for such legislation.

Morgan McMurray

The post Indictment of Pro-Life Extremists a Positive Step Forward appeared first on Law Street.

NASA’s First Gender Equal Class Completes Astronaut Training

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:52:33 +0000

Image courtesy of [Paul Hudson via Flickr]

The latest class to complete the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) two-year astronaut training is comprised of only eight people. It is the smallest class in the organization’s history, but it is also the first class to be gender equal.

Four men and four women began the course in 2013, chosen from over 6,000 applicants to endure the rigorous training necessary to prepare future astronauts for outer space adventures. Now, NASA says these women and men will have the opportunity to apply for the first mission to Mars–along with the other astronauts currently working there–15 years down the road.

Would you go to Mars? Meet the four women astronauts who can’t wait to go: https://t.co/NvlyzmyUfr Via @glamourmag pic.twitter.com/BRjoyZX1C3

— NASA (@NASA) January 7, 2016

Which means that women like mission commander Melissa Lewis in “The Martian,” played by Jessica Chastain, may no longer be simply fiction.

Of course, these are not the first females to complete astronaut training, but this class does have the highest percentage of female contenders. According to NASA, that was not done on purpose. “We never determine how many people of each gender we’re going to take, but these were the most qualified people of the ones that we interviewed,” said Janet Kavandi, NASA’s director of flight crew operations, after the class was announced in 2013.

Regardless of whether NASA meant to make the training gender equal or not, these women have proven they have what it takes to undergo a mission to space. Astronaut training is not for the faint of heart. Candidates must endure numerous simulations for a variety of situations, including a fun little ride affectionately known as the “vomit comet,” which lets you float around feeling weightless.

They will now join NASA’s 49 other astronauts preparing for space travel. “From space you can’t see borders,” said newly-minted astronaut Anne McClain. “What you see is this lonely planet. Here we all are on it, so angry at one another. I wish more people could step back and see how small Earth is, and how reliant we are on one another.”

An elite few will be chosen for the planned Mars mission, and while the ones who go should not be chosen simply because they’re men or women, this gender equal class bodes well for a profession that has been historically male.

And regardless of how many of each gender make the trip, we can all hope our real life astronauts have a better time on Mars than Matt Damon.

Morgan McMurray

The post NASA’s First Gender Equal Class Completes Astronaut Training appeared first on Law Street.

Why We Should All Join Emma Watson’s Feminist Book Club

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:56:36 +0000

Image courtesy of [UN Women/Simon Luethi via Flickr]

Emma Watson continues to fight the good fight of gender equality, and is channeling everyone’s favorite bookworm Hermione Granger, with an online feminist book club.

It’s official – ‘Our Shared Shelf’ is up and running. First book – My life on the road. https://t.co/nVWNPy21za

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 7, 2016

So grab a glass of wine and sign up for Goodreads, because this is going to be excellent. Almost as excellent as this moment:

…almost.

Aside from her acting career, Watson serves as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, famously making a speech introducing the HeForShe campaign in 2014. She called all women and men to the fight for gender equality.

A feminist book club is a most appropriate way to continue the message that feminism is, in fact, for everyone. Not only is it online, free, and readily accessible for anyone with an Internet connection, but the club promises to be ready with open arms for any and all discussions and debates.

Watson says she was inspired to begin the club through her work with UN Women:

As part of my work with UN Women, I have started reading as many books and essays about equality as I can get my hands on. There is so much amazing stuff out there! Funny, inspiring, sad, thought-provoking, empowering! I’ve been discovering so much that, at times, I’ve felt like my head was about to explode… I decided to start a Feminist book club, as I want to share what I’m learning and hear your thoughts too.

She also promises to try and get featured authors and experts in various fields to join the discussion. The best part? Over 80,000 people have already joined. Who knew that all we needed to get every feminist in one place was a book club?

Clearly, 80,000 doesn’t encompass the totality of the feminist movement, but Watson only started floating the idea last week, so there’s plenty of time for the numbers to grow.

Hi Team, I want to start a feminist book club but so far have only brainstormed ‘Feminist Book Club’ and ‘Emma Watson Book Club’.

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 6, 2016

And the first book on the list? Gloria Steinem’s “My Life on the Road.” Which, I can attest, is a brilliant manifesto of the feminist icon’s life.

Naturally, this being the age of the Internet and thus of Internet trolls, an online discussion forum with a lead topic of feminism will be susceptible to mean-spirited comments and remarks of those who just don’t understand what feminism is. Luckily, those tens of thousands of feminists already signed up will be ready with witty comebacks–or at least a few good reaction gifs:

So go forth and read, you wonderful feminists!

Morgan McMurray

The post Why We Should All Join Emma Watson’s Feminist Book Club appeared first on Law Street.

Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:32:09 +0000

Image courtesy of [Beth Rankin via Flickr]

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

In case you’ve forgotten, the Sandy Hook shooting, which took place in 2012, ended with 20 elementary students and six staff members dead. Today, President Obama was introduced at the podium by Mark Barden, the father of one of those victims.

But apparently, crying while remembering the elementary school students who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook is a sign of weakness, psychopathy, and fake sadness.

He never once cried over death of vets, babies murdered abortion Obama cries announcing gun control | Daily Mail https://t.co/8mwsmrkWaj

— dawn goodfallow (@dawngpsalm63) January 6, 2016

When Obama cries, he can’t even do that right. pic.twitter.com/6GzZv62ezs — Bart Bartlett (@BartBuzz) January 6, 2016

BREAKING: Obama talks about gun control. pic.twitter.com/UTey5uiRgo

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 5, 2016

Near Obama right now… pic.twitter.com/AUKrSx7S7d — jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 5, 2016

There is just one word to describe this reaction from gun enthusiasts: childish. The speech Obama gave was over 30 minutes long, and trolls like those above and even people in the public eye like Fox News host Andrea Tantaros are focusing on about five seconds, using those seconds to call into question the President’s sincerity and his ability to “contain his emotions.”

Why is showing emotion on the same plane as showing weakness? And why wouldn’t he get choked up at the thought of those children? Would these people complaining about his tears rather have a callous, robotic president who showed no care for anyone? Apparently.

The problem here is that there is nothing in his initiative that violates the Second Amendment. There is nothing that says he’s taking guns away from everyone, and that’s what right wing gun enthusiasts expected. Without that fodder for their Twitter feeds and Facebook timelines, what are they left to complain about? What could they possibly find wrong with the steps outlined in these executive orders? Nothing.

“I believe in the Second Amendment… it guarantees a right to bear arms,” Obama said in his speech. “No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law… I get it. But I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

So, naturally, in the absence of solid, substantial complaints, Obama haters have reverted to childish bullying. Unfortunately, as all bullies must learn, making fun of people does not get you what you want.

Morgan McMurray

The post Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears appeared first on Law Street.

New Year’s Resolutions You Should Actually Make

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:33:33 +0000

Image courtesy of [Didriks via Flickr]

The tradition of making resolutions for a bright new year goes all the way back to the Babylonians, but the most common goals hardly ever change. You know the ones: lose weight and get fit, save more money, have a more exciting love life, etc.

Of course, by the time February 1 rolls around, those gym memberships are no longer used, your bank account isn’t looking any happier, and the closest you’ve come to meeting potential new love interests is binge-watching the last season of “Downton Abbey.”

So, how about this year, you make some resolutions that are not only easy to keep, but benefit humanity?

1. Become more politically involved.

In 2015, millennials became the largest living generation in the U.S., surpassing the number of baby boomers. That means adults ages 18-34 make up the majority of voters for the 2016 election.

In other words, our votes DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

But it goes beyond voting. Becoming more involved in your local political scene is one of the best ways to start utilizing your right as an American citizen to influence the policy of this country.

You don’t have to go so far as door-knocking for your favorite candidates, but at least research the elections that are happening in your district, city, county and state. Vote not only in the general election, but in your state’s primary or caucus. Know who your representatives, senators and councilmen are, and what they stand for.

Finally, pinpoint the issues you most care about, and start supporting the candidates who represent your opinions.

2. Treat everyone equally, and demand equal treatment for yourself

If you’ve read my blogs before you know that treating everyone equally, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, is the main definition of feminism. So, yeah, this year, resolve to embrace the title “feminist” and all that goes with it. This means no longer subscribing to gender roles dictated by society, and pointing out those antiquated gender roles when you see them in action. It means accepting everyone for their life choices, whether that means they run with a different political party, practice a different religion or come from a different country. And it means going into every conversation and debate with an open mind.

Of course, being a feminist also means you must stand up for yourself when others discriminate against you. That co-worker who is always making sexist comments? Call them out. Feel you deserved a raise but didn’t receive it? Talk to your boss. If you feel the inclination, join a rally for gender equality. Do something as small or as big as you want, and encourage others to do the same.

3. Be more charitable

No, this doesn’t necessarily suggest you need to be dumping ice-cold buckets of water on your head. Instead, donate your time to an organization you care about. Donate blood at a blood drive. If you’re affluent enough, become a monthly donor to a charity.

Basically, ask yourself what causes are important to you, and start helping those causes.

In the end, make some resolutions to make the world a better place. Here’s to you and a fabulous 2016.

Morgan McMurray

The post New Year’s Resolutions You Should Actually Make appeared first on Law Street.

How to Deal With Family and Politics During the Holidays

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:39:09 +0000

Image courtesy of [Bill Dickinson via Flickr]

There is a mixture of excitement and dread that permeates the air around the holidays. Excitement because, for most, we get a few badly-needed days off, we can expect at least a few gifts, and we get to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months. Of course, the dread comes in because we have to scrape together enough funds to return the favor of those gifts, and we have to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months.

Different generations have different fears about what they’ll run into on the long, wintry visit home. For high school and college students, it’s the questions from older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?” For professionals, it’s the questions from younger and older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?”

And for many, we are not looking forward to having the inevitable discussions about politics with the set-in-their-ways relatives whose views differ so completely from ours.

While we’d like life to be like the Thanksgiving SNL skit where all disputes are solved by playing a little Adele, sadly the the melancholy tones of “Hello” will not stop your aunt or your grandfather or your young cousin who doesn’t know any better from questioning your political views, or even your way of life.

To help you out, here is a list of issues that might come up, and how you can keep from pulling your hair out. Deep breaths, you can get through this. Though, breaking out into song may be necessary.

Islamophobia

A hot-button topic on the campaign trail and in the news is, of course, the Syrian refugee crisis and its connection to ISIS. These might be subjects you would like to avoid with your grandmother who says vaguely racist things on a daily basis, but what if they come up?

First and foremost, remain calm. This goes for any touchy conversation. It is probably the easiest to get angry with our own family members, but nobody ever changed their opinions after being yelled at to stop their racist bullshit.

Facts are your friend, in this case, so point out the facts. There are millions of U.S. residents who identify as Muslim, but there isn’t an exact number because census data doesn’t record religious affiliations. Do you know why? Because U.S. citizens are supposed to be free from religious persecution. “Supposed to be” being the key phrase, here. Furthermore, ISIS wants the western world to be afraid of Muslims, and it wants people to misunderstand Islam so the Muslim population will subscribe to ISIS’ extremist views. Luckily, despite misconceptions perpetrated by conservatives and the media, the millions of Muslims who live, work and protect America are not extremists.

Sexism

It is a truth universally acknowledged that men and women deal with societal expectations based on gender. The stereotypical “having it all” for girls means finding a husband, landing a great job, and having a few children. For guys, it means making enough money to easily and happily support their spouse and 2.5 children. Maybe throw in a golden retriever for bonus points.

But the reality is that not everyone wants what society expects. While your parents and grandparents may have fit into that model, an exceeding number of young professionals do not. Maybe you’re a woman who does not want marriage or children, but has instead decided to focus on her career. Maybe you’re a man who has decided to be a stay-at-home dad while your common-law wife works a 9-to-5. Whatever your life choices, the best thing you can do when you receive passive aggressive comments about them is not to apologize.

You don’t need to make excuses or explain your way of life. When someone says, “your biological clock is ticking” or “you’d better settle down with a man before all the good ones are taken!” call out those comments for what they are: judgmental and outdated. Nobody needs to conform to sexist gender roles to feel fulfilled. Do what makes you happy and don’t say sorry. *Cues happy dancing*

Homophobia

Don’t forget to pack your rainbow flag before heading home so you can wave it in the faces of all your homophobic relatives! It is sure to be both entertaining and effective.

In all seriousness, most peoples’ homophobia stems from religious beliefs. So, if anyone complains about the historical decision to legalize same-sex marriage, you can ask them for a reason LGBT people should not be allowed to marry–outside of religious excuses. If they cannot give any legitimate reasons (and let’s face it, there really aren’t any), just remind them that we are a nation of many religions, and not everyone agrees with Christian ideals. Then wave aforementioned rainbow flag.

“Those damn millennials!”

If you are one of the thousands of 20-somethings who suffer from student loan debt, you’ve heard yourself referred to as an “ungrateful millennial” more than once this year. The generations that came before worked their way through college, after all, so why are we complaining about paying back that money? Why do we all want free handouts?

You can remind whichever relative brings it up that, in 1979, the minimum wage was $2.90 and students could easily pay for a year of school (public schools were around the $3,000 price tag) by working a job over the summer. Today’s minimum wage is $7.25, and that $4.35 bump per hour doesn’t really cover the difference in tuition costs, which now leave students with an average of $30,000 in debt. And that’s just undergrad.

Show them the math, and then tell them about how much you have to pay back on your loans every month. That amount, plus rent, insurance bills, and various other expenses like car loans and gas money, don’t leave a lot of expendable income for young graduates trying to break into their respective industry. And that lack of money probably has something to do with many young people putting off other big ticket items in their lives: settling down, buying a house, having kids, etc.

Remember, the greatest tools in your arsenal are facts and a calm demeanor. Keep an open mind, and if all else fails, stop talking and stuff your face with sugar cookies.

Morgan McMurray

The post How to Deal With Family and Politics During the Holidays appeared first on Law Street.

2015’s Best Feminist Moments

Morgan McMurray — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:06:59 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jay Morrison via Flickr]

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same.

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

Morgan McMurray

The post 2015’s Best Feminist Moments appeared first on Law Street.

Angela Merkel Becomes One Of A Handful Of Women To Win “Person of the Year”

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:26:35 +0000

Image courtesy of [European Council via Flickr]

“You can agree with her or not, but she is not taking the easy road.”

So said the accompanying video to TIME Magazine’s announcement that Angela Merkel, the first woman to serve as Chancellor of Germany, was its choice for 2015’s “Person of the Year.”

TIME editor Nancy Gibbs announced the win, saying, “For asking more of her country than most politicians would dare, for standing firm against tyranny as well as expedience and for providing steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply, Angela Merkel is ‘TIME’s Person of the Year.'”

Merkel is more than deserving of such a title, given that since she assumed her position in 2005, she has led Germany with a compassionate yet sturdy hand, and is now one of the most respected leaders in the whole world. Most recently, she opened Germany to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees when many other countries barred them, and steered Europe through dealing with Greece’s debt crisis.

She is also the first woman to be named Person of the Year since 1986, when Filipino president Corazon C. Aquino took home the trophy. In all, you can count the women who have won as individuals (since it was established in 1927) on one hand– excluding 1975 when it ambiguously went to “American women”.

A few women have won as part of a group, including Melinda Gates (with her husband, Bill, and Bono in 2005) and Soo Mei-ling (along with her husband, the Premier of China, in 1937). Still, it has been nearly 90 years since TIME began this annual tradition, and women barely make up 10 percent of the names.

The criteria for winning is making what TIME considers the largest impact on the world that year, whether it was for better or for worse, and I’m pretty sure there have been more than 10 women since 1927 who have made significant impacts on the world. Some men, like Barack Obama, have even won it twice. He beat out activist Malala Yousafzai in 2012 for his second win. Joseph Stalin has also won it twice, but he definitely falls under the “for worse” category (so does Adolf Hitler, 1938’s “Man of the Year”).

So on one hand, props to you, TIME, for breaking your own cycle and naming an admirable woman a title she has deserved since 2005. On the other, why aren’t women more represented?

People have, naturally, questioned Merkel’s win, especially since the reader’s choice poll had Bernie Sanders winning by a large margin.

TIME readers wanted bernie sanders but instead TIME went with mrs. austerity: angela merkel smh… https://t.co/LG8ETgecYm

— Nicolas G. V-F (@soccerplayer626) December 11, 2015

Angela Merkel Named TIME’s Person of the Year, Bernie Sanders Snubbed https://t.co/V02LEtwtW7 via @YouTube — Gregzilla (@IamGREGZILLA) December 11, 2015

The @TIME Person of the Year means nothing at all to me but how did Angela Merkel win it over Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?

— Chris Booth (@extra_ChrisB) December 9, 2015

Listen here, Bernie supporters: I’m a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I feel the Bern daily. But Bernie has yet to make significant impacts on the world at large, though he has made strides in the United States. Merkel has been affecting the globe for a while now. I’m sure Bernie will get his chance to be “Person of the Year,” hopefully after a few more women win it. And as for you, Donald Trump…

I told you @TIME Magazine would never pick me as person of the year despite being the big favorite They picked person who is ruining Germany

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2015

Get over yourself.

Morgan McMurray

The post Angela Merkel Becomes One Of A Handful Of Women To Win “Person of the Year” appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:05:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [Charlotte Cooper via Flickr]

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit.

Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? That is simple: because the slanderous and hateful rhetoric surrounding those videos continued even after they were proven to be fake, and those fake facts were repeated over and over again by the media and by politicians seeking an emotional reaction from their audience and to bolster their numbers. They are by no means to blame for the tragedy that occurred in Colorado, at least not directly. But politicians do–especially those candidates running for president–need to hold themselves accountable for spreading lies.

It is no secret that politicians stretch and manipulate facts to suit their own agendas, but at some point manipulation turns into outright falsehood. The citizens supporting these candidates, though, don’t know that, and are unlikely to research the facts on their own when they are listening to someone they trust. This is great for people making a living from fact-checking debates, but very bad for the future of American policy.

After the shooting in Colorado, Democratic candidates took to social media immediately to show their support for Planned Parenthood.

We proudly #StandWithPP of Colorado Springs and the brave law enforcement personnel who fought to protect it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 28, 2015

Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015

My thoughts and prayers are with those in Colorado. #StandWithPP

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 28, 2015

Meanwhile, Republican candidates stayed relatively quiet. Who can blame them, really, when the place where yet another shooting happened was an organization they so vehemently denounce? A few of the GOP presidential candidates, such as Trump, Fiorina, and Huckabee, finally acknowledged the tragic event, but also turned it into an opportunity to mention, once again, the lie that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Carly Fiorina was asked whether she thinks the violent rhetoric towards Planned Parenthood is to blame for actions like those in Colorado, to which she replied:

First, it is not alleged. Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so. Secondly, this is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message…What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.

Here we see a prime example of fact manipulation, as well as blaming the opposition rather than taking responsibility for spreading lies. It would put Fiorina in an awkward position, of course, to contradict what she said in the CNN debate about the Planned Parenthood videos, which turned out to be incorrect. But is it better to hold tightly to false facts, rather than admit to your supporters that you were wrong? Only in a political career. It is extremely saddening to see that politicians, especially the politicians running for the highest office in the United States, are relying on such underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. It certainly does not bode well for us, the American citizens who have to put up with it.

Morgan McMurray

The post Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric appeared first on Law Street.

By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:33:49 +0000

Image courtesy of [Josh Zakary via Flickr]

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack.

It is entirely hypocritical of the United States to deny assistance to a group of people who are fleeing not only an organization we have vowed to take down, but also an area that we as a country have helped to unhinge. Some of the unrest in the Middle East is directly related to American involvement in that region over the past decade, and to say otherwise is fallacy. We are fighting a “war on terror” and in fact, records show that residents of Middle Eastern countries, and more specifically Muslims, are the group most affected by terrorism.

But what do we do when the terrorists are claiming the same religion as their victims? That is simple: ISIS and all its associated monikers are not true representations of Islam, and we should not judge the millions of people who practice Islam by ISIS’ actions. It calls itself the “Islamic State,” but the only word that should be associated with its members is “terrorists.” Arguments that Islam as a religion actually promotes such terrorism are not based in fact, but rather false stereotypes that have circulated for years. Just watch Professor Reza Aslan skillfully defend Islam in this interview with CNN last year, which has resurfaced since the Paris attacks:

Blatant facts are usually not enough to curb the rising panic of American Islamophobia, though, especially when a Syrian passport was allegedly found near one of the Paris suicide bombers. The facts and origins of this passport are hazy, and it calls into question not only the motives behind the suicide bomber carrying such a passport, but also the security of European countries, not America.

Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.

— Charlie Winter (@charliewinter) November 15, 2015

ISIS has blatantly stated that its goals are to fan Islamophobia throughout the West, proving to itself and to Muslim people that the West is a land of corruption and ISIS holds the key to eternal happiness. On his website, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Aaron Zelin has collected ISIS videos explaining its motivations. Their latest video is entitled “Would You Exchange What Is Better for What Is Less?” and warns Muslims against fleeing to Christian lands where they will be persecuted. Zelin explains along with the video:

The reality is, The Islamic State (IS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines IS’ message that its self-styled Caliphate is a refuge, because if it was, individuals would actually go there in droves since it’s so close instead of 100,000s of people risking their lives through arduous journeys that could lead to death en route to Europe.

And we are falling right into ISIS’ trap.

Since the Obama administration has announced that the United States still plans on accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, something we have been planning to do for months, several governors have written statements that they will not allow refugees access to their state. However, according to the Refugee Act of 1980, they don’t have the power to do so. The federal government will still resettle hundreds of refugees in each state, regardless of what these governors say. The federal government cannot, however, dictate the welcome these refugees will receive, and since so many Americans are giving into the fear of ISIS-incited Islamophobia, that welcome–or lack-thereof–could be terrifying in itself.

And it isn’t just American citizens who are letting fear dictate their actions. Politicians are joining in the frenzy as well. Sen. Rand Paul even went so far as to introduce a bill that would immediately halt refugee visas.

Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Monday:

Making policy based on this fear mongering is wrong for two reasons. It is factually wrong for blaming refugees for the very terror they are fleeing, and it is legally wrong because it violates our laws and the values on which our country was founded.

Those values are written plainly on the Statue of Liberty. We say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” But as John F. Kennedy sardonically wrote in his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants,” America has taken to adding: “as long as they come from Northern Europe, are not too tired or too poor or slightly ill, never stole a loaf of bread, never joined any questionable organization, and can document their activities for the past two years.”

We should be outraged that those words are as true today as they were in 1958. Yet our outrage is currently misdirected at refugees, rather than at the terror they are seeking refuge from. What adds to the irony is the argument coming from conservatives and conservative leadership that we should take care of the homeless, especially the homeless veterans, on U.S. soil before offering to help foreigners. The reality is that the past seven bills introduced in Congress that would have assisted those homeless vets were blocked by Republicans.

Which brings me back to this: American people and politicians are fighting each other rather than facing the problem as one unified force. We are giving into the fear that has historically produced some of the ugliest eras in our country’s history. In this pivotal moment, we must prove ISIS wrong. We must not persecute or blame the refugees, but lead the charge against the enemy we share.

We must remember that united we stand, and divided we fall.

Morgan McMurray

The post By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win appeared first on Law Street.

Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem Tells Young Women: “Do Not Listen To Me”

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:04:32 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jewish Women's Archive via Flickr]

Gloria Steinem is in her eighties and is still a trailblazer for feminism. Many know her from her work for gender equality in the 1960s and 70s, when she wrote radical articles about women’s reproductive rights, led protests, and was pegged as a leader of the feminist movement. She only recently shared the story of her amazing life in her new memoir “My Life on the Road,” which she discussed with “PBS NewsHour” this week. In the interview, she also said that young women shouldn’t listen to her.

“Here’s my advice. Do not listen to me,” she said to the interviewer. “Really… I want to support their listening to themselves.”

That is actually really great advice, and supports the idea that, as women, we should all be encouraging each other in our life choices. Young women can look to icons like Steinem for inspiration, but we do not, and should not, base our lives on hers. We each have different passions and goals.

Steinem went on to explain: “They know their own life and situations. I’m here to support that and say…Okay, you’re not more important than somebody else, but you’re not less important either.”

And that’s the very basis of feminism: everyone is equal. So why, over 40 years after Gloria Steinem got her start as a journalist, are we still fighting the same battle?

Steinem was thought of as “radical” in the 60s for her views on contraception and reproductive rights, on women having to choose between a family and a career, and on the widely-accepted and normalized misogyny of American society (she was, after all, the woman who went undercover as a Playboy Bunny). Now it is almost 2016, and we are still in the midst of the same battles. Reproductive rights are a hot-button item on the campaign trails of political candidates, women who want children aren’t given the necessary leave to maintain a healthy family in addition to a career, and that misogyny still runs deep–evidenced by the fact that men like Donald Trump have large followings of people who actually respect their oppressive viewpoints.

Why is it, that over 40 years after Gloria Steinem began spearheading the fight for women’s rights, those rights are denied again and again, often at the hand of conservative America? To quote another well-known feminist, Senator Elizabeth Warren: “Do you have any idea what year it is? Did you fall down, hit your head, and think you woke up in the 1950s? Or the 1890s?”

Yes, women can wear pants without being reprimanded and we can vote, but in so many other things, true equality across all genders and races, is still unrealized.

But we should not take up Gloria Steinem’s torch. No, she is still carrying that proudly onward. What we can do is light new torches with her support, and with the support of each other; start new stories inspired by but not copied from women like her. Maybe in our lifetime it won’t be “women’s rights,” but simply “rights.”

Watch the full PBS NewsHour interview below:

Morgan McMurray

The post Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem Tells Young Women: “Do Not Listen To Me” appeared first on Law Street.

Ariana Grande is a Doughnut Licker, and a Feminist

Morgan McMurray — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 14:46:01 +0000

Image courtesy of [covajana via Flickr]

A whole lot of bullshit happened this week, from a subset of Christians becoming outraged about the new, plainer, less-Christmasy Starbucks holiday cup, to finding out Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson doesn’t think the pyramids were used as royal burial grounds.

Seriously, who is supporting that guy?

But let’s talk about Ariana Grande for a second. Yes, the Ariana Grande who faced some legal trouble after licking those doughnuts.

At least she apologized? But anyway, there are many better things about the actress/singer to focus on.

For example, her recent interview at Power 106 FM, where, toward the end of a roughly twenty minute-long talk, the DJs asked her what she would choose between giving up her phone and giving up make-up.

She, rightfully, questioned the motives behind the question, and the DJs responded with sexist stereotyping and disbelief that a girl could go without her cell phone for hours. The sexist comments continued through talking about emojis, because apparently a unicorn can’t be unisex. Finally, when asked about what she would change in the world, she dropped this on them:

I have a long list of things I’d like to change. I think, judgement in general; intolerance, meanness, double standards, misogyny, racism, sexism. You know, all that shit. There’s lots we’ve got to get started on…We’ll start with you, though.

Feminists everywhere agree, Ms. Grande.

But even though the topics covered in their conversation were somewhat trivial, and Ariana’s message of equality was friendly and absolutely justified in this context, the response from social media was overwhelmingly negative. Many referenced her doughnut-licking fiasco as a reason not to take her seriously, and still others knocked her for what she wears onstage and in music videos, going so far as to suggest that she deserves such sexist degradation because of her persona.

No.

Ariana Grande, along with several other female celebrities who don’t dress according to what society thinks is “appropriate,” has long stood for equality and loving yourself the way you are. Take her recent reaction to someone comparing her to Modern Family‘s Ariel Winter:

here we go again…. Sure I’m not the only 1 feeling this way today!! in case you need a reminder, you’re beautiful pic.twitter.com/OPQIgzroEI

— Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) November 2, 2015

So just because you don’t like the music she creates, or you disagree with something she has done in the past, does that really justify shaming her when she makes absolute sense? No. Past performance is no indication of future performance, and anyone–celebrity or non-celebrity, woman or man–is absolutely allowed to change their minds, views, or opinions. But people don’t live by that rule, which is why we run into things like Hillary Clinton’s many, many Benghazi hearings.

If a person like Ariana Grande, who you may not particularly like or respect, says something that is absolutely true, your opinion of her should not devalue her message. Sexism, whenever it appears, should always be questioned and shut down.

Morgan McMurray

The post Ariana Grande is a Doughnut Licker, and a Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

#INeedFeminism Because Sites Like “Biblical Gender Roles” Exist

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:10:31 +0000

Image courtesy of [Abhishek Jacob via Flickr]

Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against people of the Christian faith. In fact, I know many truly decent, open-minded human beings who practice Christianity. What I do have a problem with is that subset of Christianity that uses religion as an excuse to encourage acts that violate basic human rights.

Take, for example, a writer for the website Biblical Gender Roles who goes by the name Larry Solomon (not his real name). In previous posts, he has said there is “no such thing” as marital rape because if a wife refuses sex with her husband it is “a disrespectful and unloving response… and there is no sin in you trying to initiate sex with your wife.”

He goes on to encourage husbands to have sex with their wives anyway, even if she flat-out refuses or does so “begrudgingly.”

Of course, he acknowledges that marital rape is not as pleasurable as consensual sex, and since the author wants the husbands to enjoy themselves anyway, he advises them to “focus your eyes on her body, not her face. Focus on the visual pleasure you receive from looking at her body and physical pleasure you receive from being inside your wife.”

Solomon explains that women just don’t want sex as much as men do, that sex is the primary way husbands feel close to their wives, and that if a wife denies her husband sex she is opening them both up to “temptation.” I assume what he means by “temptation” is extramarital sexual relations. So, he tells his readers, if your wife agrees to “fake it,” has sex begrudgingly, or just refuses, have sex with her anyway and ignore her face, because she’s probably giving you a look of betrayal.

What’s scary is that Larry Solomon, or whatever his real name is, isn’t the only person who thinks this way. He isn’t the only person who thinks that men have a God-given right of control over their wives or significant others. Somehow, it becomes the woman’s fault for not being “in the mood”; somehow it is her fault if her husband seeks companionship outside of their marriage. For example, the Duggar family came under fire recently because the oldest son had more than one sexual scandal in one year (if you need a refresher: it was revealed that he has previously molested two of his sisters AND had an Ashley Madison account while married). In response, the mother, Michelle, took to her blog to implore women to meet their husbands’ sexual needs even if they’re tired after a long day or “exhausted and pregnant.” She says that if you’re there for his physical needs, he’ll be there for your needs. So, essentially, fake it when you’re not in the mood for the health of your relationship.

Ladies, that’s bullshit. Marriage takes work, that is no secret. If one night you don’t feel like having sex, or your husband doesn’t feel like having sex, you don’t do it. Unless both parties agree to it, it’s not consensual, even in a marriage. If you’re refusing sex because of a deeper issue, such as a lack of communication or unresolved argument, clearly things need to be worked out emotionally before you and your significant other can get physical again and have it be pleasurable for BOTH of you. There is such a thing as marital rape, and there is no shame in saying “no.”

Marital rape is illegal in the U.S., but in several states, there is still language being used that allows spousal rape to go unpunished. According to the research in this Daily Beast article, a person can be legally drugged and sexually assaulted in some states if the perpetrator is the victim’s spouse. The existence of these caveats only adds to the rape culture already running rampant in the United States. To stop it, we have to keep sending out the message that “No Means No,” even in a marriage.

Learn More: Marital Rape in the U.S.: What are the Laws?

Morgan McMurray

The post #INeedFeminism Because Sites Like “Biblical Gender Roles” Exist appeared first on Law Street.

The Gender Gap is Everywhere: Disparity in Nobel Prize Winners

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:53:58 +0000

Image courtesy of [Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank via Flickr]

Last week, I talked about the gender gap as it appears in Hollywood’s hiring practices. This week, gender bias has reared its ugly head once more–with the Nobel Prize.

In a recently released analysis by Fortune, it is disturbing–though not all that surprising–to see that when it comes to the highest honor a person can receive in their field, most of the honorees are men.

The Nobel Prize was first awarded in 1901, and for those that don’t want to do the math, that was 114 years ago. In that time, we have had some truly remarkable female laureates. Malala Yousafzai is the youngest winner in history; at just 17 she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her work against the suppression of education. Marie Curie was one of the few people who won the prize twice, in physics and then in chemistry, for her breakthroughs in the world of science. Yes, women have contributed quite a bit to humanity, and have sometimes been recognized for it. But the numbers, as always, don’t lie. Since 1901, men have won the prize 825 times, and women have won just 49 times.

Out of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals, only 5.6 percent of them went to women.

According to Fortune’s analysis, the category with the most female winners is Literature; 12.5 percent of the winners were women. The category with the fewest women is Physics, with a whopping 1 percent. While those numbers seem disappointingly low, Fortune calls it “drastic improvement,” if only because the number of female laureates has gone up from four in the prize’s first two decades to 49 in 2015.

I’m going to have to disagree with Fortune on this one.

“Drastic” literally means extreme or radical. It should not be considered “drastic” for one gender to still have such a small representation in one of the highest honors in the world. Now, we don’t want Nobel Prizes going to people just because there is a gender gap that needs filling, but once again, the gap is just too big to be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert category here]”.

It isn’t necessarily the Nobel Prize committees’ fault, though. The pool of female candidates in certain categories, especially physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, is relatively small. So, that 1 percent of women who have won in physics seems a lot bigger when you realize that the entire field of physics only has a relatively small percentage of women associated with it in the first place. So, it isn’t the prize’s fault, but what these numbers highlight is a greater need for women in all fields, especially the sciences. And when there aren’t a lot of female role models for potential scientists to look up to, increasing that percentage is going to be difficult.

So what do we do? We encourage. We tell young girls and women that they can be anything they want to be, whether that means a housewife, musician, actress, physicist, or doctor. Women already in scientific fields can stand up and be role models for those just starting out in those careers. Only then will the percentage of female candidates increase, as well as the number of female Nobel laureates.

Morgan McMurray

The post The Gender Gap is Everywhere: Disparity in Nobel Prize Winners appeared first on Law Street.

Gender Discrimination in Film is Still the Norm

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:57:36 +0000

Image courtesy of [Shinya Suzuki via Flickr]

In what seems like an action that should have been taken decades ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an investigation this month into the hiring practices of Hollywood; specifically, how many female filmmakers are being excluded from the job pool based on gender bias.

The EEOC reportedly sent a letter out to about 50 women filmmakers, requesting interviews to see what actions could be taken against the worst offenders of gender discrimination in the film industry.

They have a lot of work to do.

The numbers have always been discouraging for women who want to pursue careers behind the camera. In an annual study released by San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, in 2014 women represented just 17 percent of “behind-the-scenes” roles in the 250 top-grossing films. These roles were defined in the study as including directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors, and cinematographers. Even more disheartening is the proportion of female directors for those films: just seven percent.

Television hasn’t fared much better. The Directors Guild of America (DGA) released its annual report on the demographics of television directors in August. It found what the DGA is calling “modest improvement”: out of nearly 4,000 episodes produced in the time span studied, 16 percent of those episodes were directed by women (this was a “modest improvement” from last year’s 14 percent). Only three percent of that 16 were minority women.

“The uptick in the number of episodes directed by women–modest but hopeful–is just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done…before we can begin to realize equal opportunities in television for our members,” said DGA President Paris Barclay. “Without employers making a concerted effort to bringing a more diverse mix of new entrants to the hiring pool, we won’t see meaningful and lasting change.”

Just how can we tell if employers for films and television are open to diversity? Hopefully, the EEOC will find out in its interviews. Obviously, we don’t want companies hiring women just to fill a void. Directors, writers, producers, etc. should be hired based on merit and creativity. However, that huge gap indicates a problem that can’t be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert job description here].”

Those percentages are just the tip of the iceberg in indicating how male-centric Hollywood–and media in general–actually is. It doesn’t just apply to women behind the camera. Going back to those studies conducted by SDSU, just under half of major television characters (42 percent) are women, with the majority of those characters belonging to ABC–thank you, Shonda Rhimes. That is a really positive number, but diving a little deeper into it, we start to see the inequality in that misleading 42 percent. According to the study, most of those female characters belonged to reality television programs, were younger than their male counterparts (very few of them were over 60), and 77 percent of them were Caucasian. So, you see, it isn’t just about the numbers. Representation can also be discriminatory.

We see these issues the most in film. With only 12 percent female protagonists in the top 100 films of 2014, a bias toward male characters is obvious.

Now, how many of those films with female protagonists can actually pass the well-known Bechdel Test? All it calls for are two female characters (they don’t even have to be named) talking to each other about something other than a man. It is surprising how many films fail such a simple criteria. While the Bechdel Test may not be a champion for feminist ideals or for great filmmaking, it is a good jumping-off point to see the commonality of gender stereotypes.

So what can the EEOC do with all this information, and the insights it will gather from its upcoming interviews? Class action lawsuits are the most likely, and unfortunately, it might not even come to that. What truly can affect change will be the actions of the women already in the industry. They can move forward with their own careers while reaching out to more women like them–hopefuls wanting to direct, write, produce, or act. Writers can create more dimensional parts for women. Producers can push for shows with more accurate female representation. Actresses can refuse parts that stereotype them. The more everyone becomes aware of the gap, the more we can all work together to close it.

Morgan McMurray

The post Gender Discrimination in Film is Still the Norm appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Time to Debunk Arguments Against Gun Control

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:10:12 +0000

Image courtesy of [Lulu Vision via Flickr]

The gridlock over American gun laws may actually be worse than the arguments over American healthcare. Whenever there is a mass shooting (defined in this post as four or more people killed), there are calls for stricter gun control, but those calls are never answered because an agreement on what to do is never reached. The voices against gun control are so loud and so rooted in paranoia in organizations like the National Rifle Association, that a meaningful solution seems impossible. We hear the same arguments over and over again, and over and over again, yet nothing is done and another act of gun violence occurs.

What people so adamant about the need for guns may not understand is that gun control–in all likelihood–will not take all the guns away. Instead, it will make the ability to obtain firearms much more difficult, and as we can see by looking at other countries who have successfully enforced such laws, the number of gun crimes will go down as a result.

“But we’re not like those countries!” Gun enthusiasts will say. “We’re America!”

Of course, they’re right. We aren’t like those countries. We’re larger, we have more guns per person, and damn it, our right to bear arms is right in our Constitution!

But when it comes to issues like this, when people are consistently losing their lives to gun-related crimes and accidents, the definition of insanity applies: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is ridiculous. It clearly isn’t working, so is it so insane to want to change something?

When faced with such a massively divisive issue, I find it helpful to go straight to the facts. In his speech acknowledging the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama implored news organizations to focus on the numbers. Many have done just that.

According to the above video, since 1997, the United States of America has had 51 mass killings. 51.

This is unacceptable.

Now is the time that the anti-gun control camp will chime in with this solution: more guns will make us safer.

If more #sane #people were #armed #crazy #people would get off #fewer #shots #LetsGetWordy http://t.co/g5f2HAvQkM pic.twitter.com/Ay1HO0Fd70

— Pete Thompson (@earningamotorcy) August 15, 2014

Well wait a second, didn’t we just learn that there are over 88 guns to every 100 people in the U.S.? Is that not enough guns to, supposedly, be protected? And even if someone with a gun were on the premises of every mass shooting, the one doing the shooting initially has the advantage, and people will probably still die. Instead of encouraging more gun sales, maybe we encourage better gun safety: background checks into those wanting to buy firearms, mandatory registration for every firearm owned by a United States resident, and a more developed process for obtaining concealed-carry licenses in each state.

But the Second Amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Isn’t a firearm registration system and stricter rules for obtaining guns infringement?

Here we find ourselves in a problem that applies to laws other than gun control: are the rules our founding fathers established still relevant in today’s society? In the case of owning a gun, not really.

You have to force yourself to think about society during America’s development: we were in the midst of a revolution, we had a much smaller population, and we were exploring new land to the west, so owning a gun to hunt for food and to protect yourself against enemy soldiers made sense. But what about now–in 2015? Gun control laws won’t take away your hobbies: heading to the gun range for target practice, or going quail hunting during its season. You will still be able to keep a gun locked up in your home for “protection,” so really, is the Second Amendment changing much? And if it did, would it really be a bad thing?

More than any other argument used to dismiss gun control, the one most often cited is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That’s right: people wielding guns kill people. We do indeed have a mental health crisis in this country, but it is not necessarily related to the number of mass shootings. If asked to characterize a mass murderer, what would the identifiers be? Crazy? Mentally unbalanced? Maybe, but how can we possibly tell that ahead of time? The obvious answer to this is a mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase a firearm. Even then, not all mass murderers are obviously unwell.

In fact, as John Oliver points out in the video below, fewer than five percent of gun-related killings are performed by mentally unwell people.

So what do we do about the gun problem we so obviously have in our country? It won’t be a simple solution, but at this point, any solution is better than nothing.

Morgan McMurray

The post It’s Time to Debunk Arguments Against Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare

Morgan McMurray — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:46:08 +0000

Image courtesy of [Charlotte Cooper via Flickr]

Like most elections in recent history, the hot button topics politicians use to illicit an emotional response from voters include education, immigration, and healthcare. Yes, we’ve all heard about Trump wanting to build a wall along the Mexico border. We have developed hope for Bernie Sanders’ plan to decrease student loans. We have heard one Republican after another decry Planned Parenthood for its supposedly illegal and morally questionable actions.

But the issue is bigger than Planned Parenthood. For many people, Planned Parenthood is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective solution that provides necessary men and women’s healthcare. It performs safe, legal abortions, yes, but more than that provides counseling, exams, pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women, as well as more general healthcare needs.

Again, the issue here is not what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. It’s a deeper problem of government bodies thinking it is okay to prevent women from having control over their own bodies and healthcare. It is not the job of Congress to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. That should be between her and her doctor WHEREVER she chooses to receive healthcare. Why should women who choose Planned Parenthood as their primary source of healthcare be denied these very beneficial services because some people in the government disagree with one of those services?

Protesters of Planned Parenthood think the organization should not receive federal funding because it performs abortions. Yes, it receives money from the government. As do all other non-profit, public health services. Planned Parenthood receives over one-third of its yearly funding from federal sources, but none of that can be legally allocated to abortion services, so that argument falls flat. Any money it receives from the government goes toward the very real need for reliable and affordable healthcare.

Republicans and Pro-Lifers like to cite the recent smear campaign videos that came out about the Planned Parenthood clinics. Carly Fiorina even used those videos as support for her arguments during the last debate. Unfortunately for Fiorina, the scenes she talked about don’t exist, and the videos have been doctored. Planned Parenthood is not illegally harvesting and selling fetal tissue. But that truth has largely been ignored.

Let me repeat: those videos were discredited. Yet, they keep coming up. Why? Because they cause a reaction, and politicians know that a majority of people will go with emotions first and check facts later.

But we must check facts, because otherwise organizations that help people–like Planned Parenthood–die out, and thousands of women will suffer the consequences.

Next time someone decides to justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood by citing its abortion services, which aren’t even funded by their federal grants, tell them the facts. Abortion services are only a small percentage of the many healthcare options the clinics offer, and your tax money does not go to them. Think about the women who rely on those clinics to receive life-saving care, and remember that not everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is true.

Morgan McMurray

The post The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

No, Survivor Isn’t Suing Kim Davis–But They Aren’t Happy With Her

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:16:44 +0000

Image courtesy of [Staffan Vilcans via Flickr]

There has been quite a bit circulating in the news recently about a certain Kentucky clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples. The clerk in question, Kim Davis, ended up in jail for contempt of court and was released a few days later. She emerged from prison to a crowd of supporters and did a victory march to a song some of you may have heard of:

“Eye of the Tiger” is the most recognizable song written and performed by band Survivor, who, needless to say, was not happy.

I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a C&D. This does not reflect my views.

— Jim Peterik (@jimpeterik) September 9, 2015

Peterik co-wrote the song, and after the band’s intention to serve a cease and desist order was publicly shared, a rumor began circulating that Davis would soon find herself sued for $1.2 million dollars.

But as much as we would all enjoy seeing this display of homophobia punished with such a hefty price tag, unfortunately, there is no evidence that it will happen.

The rumor seems to have spread from this article posted on NBC.com.co–a blog site with no actual affiliation to the National Broadcasting Company and a reputation for fake stories. Fake news tends to travel fast.

But, while it may have been untrue, it is just an exaggeration of Survivor’s outrage and legal intent. In a comment to CNN, Peterik said “I was gobsmacked. We were not asked about this at all. The first time we saw it was on national TV.”

Davis has not commented on the cease and desist order, but it looks like she will be “rising up to the challenge” of finding a new theme song.

The use of the motivational song “Eye of the Tiger” for Kim Davis’ purposes is disturbing for several reasons, not the least of which being that her actions are not inspirational. At all. And while we do enjoy freedom of religion in this country, what Davis did was not a reflection of that freedom. We are given the right to practice–or not practice–any religion. We are not, however, given the freedom to deny someone else’s rights, or to force our beliefs on other people. Especially when doing so would go against the commitment made to a job with the United States government.

The United States is a country that has a diverse mix of cultures, religions included. So, Kim Davis, while you may not agree with U.S. law, not everyone shares your viewpoints. If you cannot perform the job you agreed to perform, then quit. Problem solved.

Morgan McMurray

The post No, Survivor Isn’t Suing Kim Davis–But They Aren’t Happy With Her appeared first on Law Street.

If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:49:25 +0000

Image courtesy of [Vox Efx via Flickr]

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF! [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

How Did You Celebrate International Women’s Day?

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:08:58 +0000

Image courtesy of [UN Women/Stuart Ramson via Flickr]

Every year on March 8, organizations and individuals recognize what is known as International Women’s Day, during which thousands of celebrations take place across the world, recognizing all that women have achieved socially, economically, and politically. What started in 1911 in only three European countries has since grown into a global call for gender equality–and yet a better question for my title might be: Have You Heard of International Women’s Day? And if you have, did you contribute or did you let it pass by? The good news is, it is never too late to celebrate womankind.

As all good celebrations do, IWD always has a theme. This year’s was “Make It Happen,” focusing on the fight for women’s rights in every country. It acknowledges that in every aspect of a country’s social, economic, and political platforms: women matter. Equal rights for every gender, for every sexual orientation, and for every race, are long overdue.‪ International Women’s Day is not just for women, it is for everyone.

Marches for gender equality took place in New York City, London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Mexico City, and in countries like Nepal, India, Morocco, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Philippines, China, and Indonesia. Events ranged from “Ladies Nights Out” to award ceremonies for women who have gone above and beyond. Millions took to social media with hashtags like #InternationalWomensDay, #MakeItHappen, and #PaintItPurple.

HAPPY #INTERNATIONALWOMENSDAY YOU QUEENS Read: http://t.co/r13WiwS0t5

— camEEla cabeYo (@camilacabello97) March 8, 2015

You just got to remind yourself that you’re brave, you’re honest & you’re beautiful Happy #InternationalWomensDay pic.twitter.com/Am3tLocmrU

— Fifth Harmony (@FifthHarmony) March 9, 2015

Surprise:The U.S. Is one of 9 countries in the world that doesn’t provide for paid maternity leave.#NoCeilings #InternationalWomensDay

— maria menounos (@mariamenounos) March 9, 2015

“In many parts of the world, it is more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier” #InternationalWomensDay pic.twitter.com/LfyfGQEoMF

— MINA (@_MinaMurad) March 8, 2015

Happy #InternationalWomensDay everyday

It is incredibly inspiring to see so many men and women band together to make something trend on Twitter and Facebook. But International Women’s Day is just one day, and while it inspires millions to act, until we achieve equal rights every day should be Women’s Day.

And to those misogynists who are annoyed and frustrated by the love shown for women today, don’t worry! There is an International Men’s Day in November. They may be disappointed to find out, though, that the whole point of that day is to, among other things, “focus on…improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models.” So, in reality, both days dedicated to both genders are about gender equality. How can we celebrate?

Make. It. Happen.

Morgan McMurray

The post How Did You Celebrate International Women’s Day? appeared first on Law Street.

Patricia Arquette Under Fire Over Oscar Speech

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:19:29 +0000

Image courtesy of [Disney | ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

At this year’s Academy Awards broadcast, winners and presenters called our attention to more than one political issue, including racial equality and gay rights. (If you say you weren’t tearing up after Graham Moore’s speech you are LYING.) One of the most memorable moments, and one of the first, was Patricia Arquette’s call to action:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

As you can imagine, my reaction–and that of many others–was “YEAH! YOU GO GIRL!” I mean, anything that makes the great Meryl Streep react like this is truly amazing.

Yes. Everyone pretty much agreed that it was a fantastic acceptance speech.

However, after the show in the press room, Arquette expanded her speech, and with it ended up rubbing some people the wrong way.

So the truth is, even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface, there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women. And it’s time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.

What quite a few people are pointing out is that “all the gay people” and “all the people of color” still don’t have equal rights either, yet Arquette called them out to fight for women.

People of color and gays, it seems we owe Patricia Arquette for “fighting for us.” Did anyone capture any footage of said fight?

— jamilah (@JamilahLemieux) February 23, 2015

when you wake up in the morning and find out what else patricia arquette said pic.twitter.com/Edu5dUWXR4 — Anne T. Donahue (@annetdonahue) February 23, 2015

stop cheering for #PatriciaArquette, the feminism she advocates isn’t intersectional and that in itself is really rude

— Jocelyn Jones (@j_abriaaa) February 23, 2015

Maddening that even in a speech that screamed “pay attention to women!” some women are overlooked. http://t.co/5xkzzo7P74 — Latoya Peterson (@LatoyaPeterson) February 23, 2015

After the backlash, Arquette came back with responses on Twitter to try and explain her speech.

Wage equality will help ALL women of all races in America. It will also help their children and society.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) February 23, 2015

I have long been an advocate for the rights of the #LBGT community. The question is why aren’t you an advocate for equality for ALL women? — Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) February 23, 2015

Clearly what we have here is a case of a well-intentioned woman expressing herself the wrong way. Taken at face value, her speech in the Oscar press room truly does alienate women of the LGBT and racial minority communities. In my opinion, she meant to convey the fact that equal rights for all women will affect these communities as well. Equal pay is just one topic in the broader spectrum of equal rights, but you have to start somewhere.

So, should her original, Meryl-Streep-cheered-for-it speech be ignored because she didn’t explain herself well enough? Definitely not. If anything, her comments should incite more action in women–and men–of every race and orientation.

Morgan McMurray

The post Patricia Arquette Under Fire Over Oscar Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Social Media and Feminists: You Can’t Stop All of Us

Morgan McMurray — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:17:01 +0000

Image courtesy of [World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr]

I have spent quite a bit of time on this blog focusing on women who have gone viral with their feminist actions. There have been speeches, performances, videos, and even hashtags that, within the past year, have pushed the feminist movement forward into the digital age and shed light on the huge difference between being a man and being a woman in our society. Supporters of such women should be proud of their positive influence, but of course for every feminist who dares to speak out, there are those who want to silence her.

We live in an age when news is reported instantly, where an unemployed singer can become a YouTube sensation overnight, and where we can all comment on every aspect of someone else’s life via social media. Some of those comments are positive, many more are negative.

Celebrities get hit the hardest by trolls whose goal in life is to sit at their computers all day creating drama on internet forums. And if one of those celebrities dares to speak out against a social injustice? Well, death threats are not at all uncommon, and whether they are real or simply the bluff of an angry teenager locked in their bedroom, social media has a huge impact on the lives of people in the public eye.

Washington Post writer Michelle Goldberg recently published an article about feminist writers and social media entitled “Feminist Writers Are So Besieged By Online Abuse That Some Have Begun to Retire.”

Yeah.

Apparently, sitting behind a computer screen with access to a Twitter feed gives people the right to insult how somebody looks, and even threaten people they disagree with. According to the article, many of the writers featured receive death and rape threats on a regular basis. If these threats had been made in person or even by mail, legal action could be taken, but what happens when hundreds of angry sexists with screen names like “M3ninist69” all make the same threat? What happens when whole online groups are dedicated to shooting down women? How many of those threats are real, and how would someone go about prosecuting them?

These incredibly negative and sometimes dangerous online exchanges force women who make their livings online to either a) engage extremely volatile followers by defending themselves or b) ignore them, sometimes completely withdrawing from social media. Many in the Washington Post article explain the damaging effect bodily threats and insults to their appearance have on their psyches, forcing some into therapy and others into retirement.

When you enter into a role that has a lot of public exposure, it is generally accepted that you will have people who love you and people who hate you. The sad part is, that love and that hate gets translated differently based on your gender. Men do not face death or rape threats, at least not to the scale that women do, because for some reason that sort of violence is restricted to women who dare to challenge social norms. Says Goldberg: “Women, urged to tell their stories, are being ferociously punished when they do.”

Feminists are no strangers to naysayers, and since the first wave of the movement have had to fight against the norms set by a patriarchal society. Never before, though, has feminism moved on this scale, and therefore never before has it faced so much resistance.

So how do we move forward? We challenge the naysayers, and while it is never easy to put up with verbal abuse, there will always be feminist writers to do so.

Morgan McMurray

The post Social Media and Feminists: You Can’t Stop All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:00:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [Scott Crawford via Flickr]

You may have heard of a small erotic “novel” (I use the term loosely), which once started off as Twilight fan fiction and has become a worldwide, bestselling trilogy soon to be a major motion picture. I am of course referring to the phenomenon known as Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which follows the story of timid Anastasia Steele and her BDSM-loving boyfriend Christian Grey.

I take several issues with the books, not the least of which being the absolutely atrocious writing. I tried and failed to get through the first book mainly due to the horrible prose, but also because–like the series it is based off of–the main relationship is so obviously abusive.

If you haven’t put yourself through the torture of reading them, don’t worry! You can see the whole toxic love story play out on the big screen when it comes out on Valentine’s Day (no obvious commercialization there…). I would never pay money to see it, though I am curious as to whether the movie will portray the undertones of abuse and rape that were so prevalent in the books.

Please note, this is not a critique on people who live a BDSM sexual lifestyle. It is my understanding that those who do follow strict rules to maintain safety and enjoyment for everyone involved. In Fifty Shades of Grey, that is not really the case. Christian Grey uses his role of Dominant to ensure Anastasia’s submissiveness in literally every aspect of her life. It is fiction, but unfortunately, many women live in a constant state of fear from their physically and mentally abusive and controlling partners–men like Christian Grey. These women do not give their permission to be treated thus, but instead are forced to stay in violent relationships based on threats and low self-esteem.

This sort of abuse should not be romanticized, yet that is what we find in this best-selling trilogy, lauded for allowing women the freedom to express their sexuality. While it certainly did bring romantic literature to the forefront and got millions interested in bondage and S&M, women’s sexuality is so much more complex than what the dangerous story line in these books portrays. If we are looking for a book that encompasses and celebrates a woman’s right to whatever sexual fetishes she chooses, there are definitely better stories (and better written stories) out there.

So this Valentine’s Day, instead of celebrating and encouraging abuse, let’s celebrate the stories of those survivors who got away from toxic relationships, and bring attention to the fact that domestic violence and rape are very real, very horrible things that exist in our world.

For more information on how you can prevent abusive relationships, visit the National Domestic Violence hotline website.

Morgan McMurray

The post Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Super Bowl Wrap Up: “Like A Girl” is the Best Moment

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:44:05 +0000

Image courtesy of [The Q Speaks via Flickr]

The Super Bowl is one of those traditions that I don’t fully comprehend but take part in anyway. I am not particularly fond of football, but the commercials are always entertaining and the half-time show is always either the “blown away” or the “that was painful” kind of fun to watch.

So this year I picked up the hot wings and spinach dip, opened a beer, and sat down to watch the game. Or, rather, live tweet the commercials and play Trivia Crack the rest of the time.

I cried during the Budweiser commercial, predictably, and laughed when Liam Neeson appeared in a Clash of Clans ad (#SconeForLiam), then nearly cheered when I saw a commercial I recognized from a little feminine hygiene company called Always.

Ad spots during the Super Bowl are the most expensive of the year due to the record-setting viewership numbers, and in the last few years many companies that can afford such commercials have used their air time to address big issues–whether meaning to or not.

Who can forget the 2014 Coca-Cola commercial that caused such controversy, simply because “America the Beautiful” was sung in several different languages? It brought attention to the ignorance of some United States citizens who said things like “Speak American” when the United States doesn’t even have an official language.

The commercial has now been viewed more than 12 million times and became an advertisement for freedom.

Hopefully, the Always commercial will do the same for gender equality.

I first saw the commercial after it aired in June 2014, featuring men and women and a young boy demonstrating what it is to fight or run “like a girl.” Without even thinking about it, they demonstrate the actions weakly. The show that “like a girl” or “girly” becomes synonymous with “less” and “weak.”

Then, young girls–age ten and below–demonstrate what it means to them to run and fight like a girl, and the result is inspiring. Watch the full length video below for yourself.

As the video shares, during and after puberty, girls become discouraged and are demeaned because of their gender. It does not have to be that way. Society has turned “like a girl” into a joke and an insult. Society has the power to change that.

In the short time since the commercial aired during the game, #LikeAGirl has begun trending on Twitter, where thousands of men and women have joined forces against those who would make fun of being female.

My vote is still #LikeAGirl for best #SuperBowlAds – what is everyone else thinking?

— Angie Ahrens (@angieahrens) February 2, 2015

Boys might make fun of that #LikeAGirl commercial, but it’s 100% true & I’m so glad that was finally publicized — Sydney Carpenter (@Sydney_Grace57) February 2, 2015

in the future, i hope that people don’t need commercials to remind us of the injustice prevalent in society #LikeAGirl

— danielle (@DanieFreezee) February 2, 2015

You go girls. And boys.

And to those people making fun of #LikeAGirl, or somehow turning it into a Meninist (a.k.a. why is that even a thing?) argument–that commercial showed up during a four-hour broadcast dedicated to being male. You can’t let girls have one minute?

In conclusion, Katy Perry riding in on a mechanical tiger then flying out on a shooting star was pretty awesome too, but the Always commercial gets my vote for best Super Bowl moment.

Morgan McMurray

The post Super Bowl Wrap Up: “Like A Girl” is the Best Moment appeared first on Law Street.

HeForShe: Emma Watson Does It Again

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:30:25 +0000

Image courtesy of [UN Women/Celeste Sloman via Flickr]

“Women share this planet 50-50, and they are under-represented; their potential astonishingly untapped.”

So said Emma Watson, United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador, at a press conference in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday. The young diplomat most recognized for her role in the Harry Potter franchise was speaking partly in regard to HeForShe’s new initiative, and partly to give thanks for the immense support HeForShe has received since her speech in September.

“I think it would be fair to say that my colleagues and I have been stunned by the response,” Watson said. “The HeForShe conference was watched over 11 million times, sparking 1.2 billion social media conversations, culminating in the HeForShe hashtag becoming so popular that Twitter painted it on the walls of its headquarters.”

Adding to that, Watson shared that men from “almost every country in the world” had signed on to help in HeForShe’s effort.

These are staggering numbers and encouraging statistics, but Watson went on to articulate that now is the time to act on our words of commitment. Being the masterful orator that she is, after thanking the masses who have responded to the campaign thus far, she used that gratitude to call us to action once more.

The initiative UN Women was there to launch is called IMPACT 10x10x10, which the UN describes as an effort to “engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality.” Watson added that beyond “concrete commitments” to women gaining equal ground, she wanted “to hear from the human beings” within the organizations targeted:

I spoke about some of my story in September – what are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally?…Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too?…Writers, have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media? CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

These are powerful questions with undoubtedly powerful responses. How have we answered Watson’s call from September? Did we simply retweet with “#HeForShe,” or have we taken steps against the inequality we all see on a daily basis? It is not enough to simply say you support the cause. You must, in your daily actions and conversations, consciously implement your support.

Watson went on to share that many have verbally committed to HeForShe’s campaign, but have been unsure about how to proceed. “Men say they’ve signed the petition, what now? The truth is the ‘what now’ is down to you.”

Each of us has a different life and different ways in which we can impact the fight for gender equality. Any way you help, as Watson points out, “is valid” and helpful. Take a moment to think about what happens in your life on a day-to-day basis. How have you seen women degraded or discriminated against? How has the language you use been affected by a patriarchal society? Decide what you can do to change the answers to these questions. The answer is never “nothing.” That’s how you can initiate HeForShe in your life.

Morgan McMurray

The post HeForShe: Emma Watson Does It Again appeared first on Law Street.

Cardinal Blames Feminization for Homosexuality and Pedophilia

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:30:13 +0000

Image courtesy of [Saint Joseph via Flickr]

Let’s be real, Pope Francis is the best thing to happen to the Catholic church in a long time. He is slowly but surely moving the antiquated system into the twenty-first century, denouncing those clergymen who live in excess, and generally showing goodwill toward everybody regardless of race, sexual orientation, political views, or economic standing. You know, the things Catholicism was originally based on.

And yes, some Catholics are not at all happy with Pope Francis’ modernization of church doctrine, especially when it comes to his views on sexuality.

One such naysayer is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who has made headlines before with his insults and reprimands of Pope Francis, as well as his extremely conservative political views. Pope Benedict had placed Burke in a high-level position within his administration, but once Pope Francis came along Burke ran into a lot of trouble.

In a Buzzfeed interview in October 2014, Burke discussed Pope Francis’ contemporary leadership with little-concealed hostility: “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith.”

That is true, the pope cannot just say whatever he wants based on his personal opinions, but the truth is that he hasn’t. He has opened his arms to certain groups that the Church has previously shunned, based on the fact that the Church, historically, is supposed to do just that.

But just when you think things are getting better for the Church, someone like Cardinal Burke comes along and says something like this:

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

This statement comes from an interview Cardinal Burke gave on January 5 to a website called “The New EMANgelization,” so you can see it just gets better. The subject of the interview was the “man-crisis” in the Catholic Church and the “feminization” of the men within it.

Cardinal Burke went on to say how the feminization of the Church is to blame for men who do not develop true “manliness,” and that men who are “confused” should be taught to “overcome these grievous temptations.”

According to Burke, though, luckily there is a whole new group of “strong young men who desire to serve God as priests.” He goes on, “This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.”

Hear that women? Feminized men become sexually confused. Feminization is, according to Burke, to blame for homosexuality AND pedophilia.

Yeah…no.

Historically, women’s place in Catholicism is as the mother and the homemaker. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a mother and a homemaker, as long as it is actually your decision. The Church has a long-standing reputation for discouraging gender equality based on the idea that women are primarily sexual creatures, bent on seducing men away from faith (they blame Eve for a helluva lot). That is why we end up with several old-fashioned religious fanatics who are, in reality, just misogynists.

I could go on for a long time about the Church’s horrible treatment of women, but for now I will just say this: people like Cardinal Burke spew opinions not truly based anywhere within the Bible or Church teachings, but rather from a place of misogyny and hate. Catholicism, at its roots, is based in love and acceptance, and luckily Pope Francis seems to grasp that.

Oh, and things like “The New EMANgelization” should definitely not exist.

Morgan McMurray

The post Cardinal Blames Feminization for Homosexuality and Pedophilia appeared first on Law Street.

J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:06:28 +0000

Image courtesy of [lozikiki via Flickr]

Hello again! It feels like it has been a year since I’ve written. (Get it? Because it is 2015 now? Lol?) But I am back now, and it’s time to get into the thick of it.

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens.

Whenever there is an act of extremism related to one system of belief, there are those who call out the entire group. I don’t know why this does not go without saying, but ONE BAD APPLE DOES NOT SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH.

While Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups call themselves Muslim, not all Muslims belong to Al-Qaeda. Yet, people like news magnate Rupert Murdoch go off and blame the entire religion.

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) January 10, 2015

Uhh….

Luckily, we have witty and intelligent people in the world like J.K. Rowling, who some of you may know as the author of a little series called Harry Potter, to put people like Murdoch in their place.

I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. http://t.co/Atw1wNk8UX

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

.@dom209 The Spanish Inquisition was my fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker.

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

It is always promising when voices of reason speak out, especially when those voices have four million Twitter followers. Rowling’s cutting sarcasm continued with responses to fans who joined in her satire, resulting in a truly entertaining and enlightening Twitter feed.

When horrible things happen, like the events in Paris on January 7, instead of playing the blame game, those with sizable influence–like Murdoch–should join in the fight for justice. Yet, too often, we see hate answered with hate.

We can be thankful that most of the world’s population, including many political leaders, have joined together and targeted the real source of the attacks: religious extremists. Infamous hacking organization Anonymous has even declared war on jihadists, laying out a plan of attack centered in cyber world. It is not the responsibility of practitioners of Islam to rid the world of Islamic extremists. We are all affected by their acts, and we can all help in the effort to “destroy their growing cancer.”

Morgan McMurray

The post J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

2014: The Year of Feminism

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:25:49 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jay Morrison via Flickr]

It’s no secret that feminism became a huge talking point in the news and on the web this year. More than ever before, we saw women standing up for themselves and calling out the bullshit that is gender inequality. We still have more to do, but let’s just take a moment to appreciate the progress that was made this year thanks to some amazing women–and men–who took up the feminist mantle.

#YesAllWomen

In May, after 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in California blaming women for rejecting him sexually, women and men took to Twitter, using the hashtag #YesAllWomen to share stories of misogyny they have experienced.

Because my hormones make me an ineffective leader and a man’s hormones absolve him of rape #yesallwomen

— Tessa (@TessaKerlin) May 27, 2014

There’s not a woman I know who wouldn’t fight for a man who was being denied equality & freedom. #YesAllWomen — Muriel B (@QuiltingMuriel) May 27, 2014

No, #NotAllMen are violent against women, but #YesAllWomen have to navigate a world where those who are look the same as those who aren’t.

— Karin Robinson (@karinjr) May 25, 2014

Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One. #YesAllWomen — Emily (@emilyhughes) May 24, 2014

“I have a boyfriend” is the easiest way to get a man to leave you alone. Because he respects another man more than you. #yesallwomen

— Juliet Bennett Rylah (@JBRylah) May 25, 2014

I shouldn’t have to hold my car keys in hand like a weapon & check over my shoulder every few seconds when I walk at night #YesAllWomen — Sophia Bush (@SophiaBush) May 25, 2014

The hashtag received several hundred tweets a second, and just four days after its inception had reached over 1.2 million tweets. It is still going strong, and the solidarity shown by the men and women in the face of sexism and misogyny reached further than most attempts previously.

Calling out catcallers became an internet phenomenon

After one woman’s Cards Against Harassment campaign went viral on YouTube, catcalling became a much-discussed issue on the internet.

The debate centered around whether or not catcallers were being complimentary, and if women should just ignore it. Short answer: street harassment is harassment, and is not a compliment.

Later in the year, a woman walked around Manhattan for ten hours to record the catcalls she received during the day.

Which of course, prompted misogynists everywhere to focus on justifying the behavior of the men in the video, not the woman receiving the harassment. This video too, went viral, and currently has just shy of 40 million views on YouTube.

The media response included a debate on CNN, where the man in the video tries to justify the employment of catcalling. This video also circulated the web after he is completely shut down for his misogynistic views.

Hopefully the women at CNN taught men everywhere something with their debate. Women are speaking up and out against harassment from strangers, but the fight is long from over.

Beyonce’s Feminist Performance

Millions watched the MTV Video Music Awards this year, where Beyonce literally lit up the stage with her feminism. She showed women everywhere that you can be proud of your sexuality, be a wife, a mother, dance sexy, and be famous while still calling yourself a feminist. She did it all while broadcasting one of my favorite feminist quotes of all time:

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.

-Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Whether you like her music or not, it cannot be denied that Beyonce is at the forefront of feminist celebrities fighting for the cause.

Emma Watson’s UN Speech

Another feminist celebrity, who was named by the Ms. Foundation as the Top Celebrity Feminist of 2014, is Emma Watson. As an ambassador for the United Nations, the former Harry Potter star shook up the world with her speech on gender equality.

She called men and women to action, detailing how it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of gender, to seek equality for both sexes. She stated, “both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong.”

Male feminists on the rise

They have always existed, sometimes silently supporting the rise of feminism in the 21st century, but the year 2014 saw even more men joining their female counterparts in vocalizing their discontent with society. Even more men took their cues from celebrity male feminists like Joseph Gordon Levitt and Aziz Ansari, who proudly wore the title of feminist while explaining to men everywhere why it just makes sense for men to support gender equality. If you think men and women should have equal rights, you’re a feminist.

The number of women in Congress shot up

For the first time in American history, there are over 100 women in Congress. Yes, it still makes up less than one-fifth of the seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but that record breaking triple-digit number is extremely encouraging. We are still a ways off from having the 50/50 ratio that would represent the United States population, but the fact that so many women were elected this year gives us evidence that times are changing.

Morgan McMurray

The post 2014: The Year of Feminism appeared first on Law Street.

How to Handle Sexism at Work

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:31:39 +0000

Image courtesy of [Phil Whitehouse via Flickr]

Most women can say with certainty that they have experienced sexism at work. It does not matter what profession or industry; at some point all women will come into contact with a coworker or boss who will look down on her simply for being female. It is frustrating, saddening, and often there is not much she can do to combat it–especially if the misogynist in question is her superior.

But if we do not fight it, nothing will change. And although we may not be able to come right out and say to their faces “you’re a sexist asshole,” we can stop that sexism from affecting the way we do our jobs.

1. #SorryNotSorry

It is a habit that I have noticed in myself and also in friends and female coworkers that we apologize–a lot. Most of the time the apology is unnecessary, and seems as if we are saying “sorry” for giving input, or for requesting something to which we’re entitled.

Watch the video below, produced and marketed by Pantene, as they take on this phenomenon.

Once you realize how much you say it, you can stop. When interacting with a misogynistic coworker, don’t apologize for things that don’t need apologies. Saying “sorry” only reinforces the idea that you are somehow weaker or less than. Put yourself on the equal footing you deserve.

2. Don’t change the way you look or dress.

How to spot a sexist: they will comment on your appearance. No, not compliment–I am not saying “you look nice today” or “I like that dress” are statements that are inherently sexist. More like “your skirt is too short” or “look at you in your sassy librarian boots!” (yes I have heard that before). Obviously, you should dress for whatever your profession may be, but if you are getting negative attention or you are told you need to dress more conservatively–don’t. Unless outlined in your contract, you do not need to dress a certain way. Wear what makes you feel confident and good, and don’t dress to please anyone else but yourself. When faced with negative or sexist comments about the way you look, don’t acknowledge them. Change the subject. Don’t give them the power to demean you.

3. Call them out on their bullshit.

Clearly, you may run into some serious “you’re fired” problems if you just up and yell at the misogynist for being a woman-hating imbecile. Good thing subtlety exists.

My favorite response is to ask questions. If someone–most likely a man–was given a project you deserved, ask why. If a less-qualified man is promoted over you, ask why. When you get vague responses in return, keep asking questions to force them to be more specific. Don’t lose your cool: stay calm and collected and watch them lose theirs. If you can do this in front of other coworkers, even better.

The most important thing to remember is this: don’t let people like sexist men or women hold you back from achieving your goals. One day, hopefully soon, we will live in a world where women are not seen as inferior simply because we are women. Until that happens, don’t be afraid to be you–the amazing, wonderful woman that you are.

Morgan McMurray

The post How to Handle Sexism at Work appeared first on Law Street.

Victoria’s Secret Angels Model Lingerie and Feminism

Morgan McMurray — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:41:05 +0000

Image courtesy of [Wonderlane via Flickr]

It always amazes me when extreme left-wing, second-wave feminists and extreme right-wing, stuck-in-the-1800s conservatives agree on something. Yet when it comes to tonight’s annual runway party we know and love as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, backlash comes from both sides. The left thinks the show objectifies and demoralizes women, whereas the right thinks the show is inappropriate and overly sexual.

Well, I am here to tell you they’re both wrong!

“But Morgan,” you may say. “Aren’t you a feminist? How can you disagree?” Notice that I referenced a very specific kind of feminism. A type that I like to call “faux-feminism” because it failed to move on from the extremist, misandrist views held by those women in the 1970s that people still like to associate with feminism today–incorrectly, of course.

The fashion industry has never been clear cut on the issue of women’s rights. On the one hand, you have a business that thrives on women starving themselves and that perpetuates the idea that only one body type is beautiful. On the other hand, you have models like Cara Delevingne who broadcast their feminism on a daily basis, and more and more fashion advertisements geared toward “normal” body types and positive body image.

Victoria’s Secret, as we all know, is an underwear company. Women around the globe, myself included, love to buy their five for $25 panty specials and comfy campus sweatpants. They sell the idea that women–regardless of size–are the definition of sexy. Aside from some beauty products and an ever-shrinking clothing line, they make their money off of lingerie. It follows that their fashion show would feature just that. What’s more, instead of acknowledging the long-held stereotype of underwear models as “sluts” they make their models “angels.”

But not the cliché of pure, virtuous angels. Victoria’s Secret instead chooses to laugh in the face of the dichotomy of women being either angel or devil: their models are both. They walk the runway in what conservative society deems inappropriate or risqué, and they smile, laugh, and blow kisses at the audience while they’re at it. It’s thanks to feminism that they have the right to walk the runway in their corsets and bikini-cut panties. It’s thanks to feminism that they can enjoy it without judgement.

Oh but wait, we don’t live in a perfect society! These models, who walk the runway and model this lingerie willingly, are still judged for their choice to do so. I hate to repeat myself, but as I have said in several previous posts, feminism allows women to do and wear and be whatever they want. These women choose to be underwear models.

And they are damn good at it. Do I think the fashion show objectifies women? You could make the argument that it does. But from years of tuning into the fashion show, most of the time I just see a fun celebration for the models. Besides, recognized feminists like Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and even the models themselves, perform on that runway. Obviously they don’t take offense to the outfits. Do I think some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertisements objectify women and are geared toward men? Sometimes, but that is a topic for another post.

My point this time around is, if a woman wants to model underwear for Victoria’s Secret, more power to her. Who are we to judge?

Morgan McMurray

The post Victoria’s Secret Angels Model Lingerie and Feminism appeared first on Law Street.

Racism: It’s on All of Us

Morgan McMurray — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:30:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [Christian Matts via Flickr]

Racism still exists in America. I see it every day, and having the increasingly common experience of being a white minority in the city I live in, I know that racism is not merely restricted to Caucasians. Yeah, I said it. Every race can be racist. Every race has stereotypes associated with other ethnicities, and every race has prejudices against those ethnicities based on years of perceived oppression. It does not matter if you are Caucasian, African, Asian, Mexican, or South American–you have experienced racism at some point in your life.

But the race issue is exacerbated by the media and by those who think racism is simply one-sided, i.e. white against every other color. Which is why cases like what happened in Ferguson, frankly, piss me off.

I agree that police officers should be held accountable their actions, and my thoughts are with Michael Brown’s parents, as no one should have to lose a child. But as their story spread and grew it became less and less about a cop shooting an 18 year old 12 times and more about a white man shooting a black man. Thieves and looters, under the guise of “protest” took the opportunity the media gave them and began destroying property, stealing, becoming physically violent toward police officers and each other, all in the name of justice for a black teenager. The protests fueled the media frenzy and the whole cycle repeated and blew up.

Again, Brown’s actions in the surveillance video above, which was taken from just prior to him being killed, do not justify him getting shot a dozen times. But painting him–as some stories did–as a martyr and a saint is a serious over-exaggeration. Yet citizens of Ferguson took the race part of the story–not the legal part–and made him their mascot.

We will never know for certain what happened that day after Brown left the store. What I can assume, though, is that if the officer responsible had been African American, we would not have heard about it. If Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown had both been white, we would not have heard about it. Had the races been reversed–black officer shoots white teen–you can bet shit would have hit the fan just the same.

The truth is, according to the 2013 FBI Crime Report: 83 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites. Ninety percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. We don’t hear about those cases. The reason this homicide got so much attention? Race. Plain and simple. It would have been more understandable if the news and the protests had focused on a cop abusing his power, but that is not the story we got. Police officers, historically, have often gotten away with things that would have been illegal for regular citizens, regardless of race. Why couldn’t the news have focused on that injustice?

Michael Brown’s story got blown out of proportion. Criminals used his name as an excuse for heinous acts, we were hounded for months with news stories focusing on never-ending protests of criminal behavior, and his parents were left to mourn by dealing with the violence committed in their son’s name. Violence they did not and do not condone. All this because the police officer happened to be white.

Racism is a problem, but to help alleviate that problem we have to stop assuming that every act one race commits against another is rooted in prejudice. We have to stop assuming that Caucasians are the only people who still associate certain races with certain stereotypes. We have to stop calling each other “white” or “black.” Acknowledge one another as people, not as a skin color, and the country can finally be rid of this horrible practice.

Morgan McMurray

The post Racism: It’s on All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

How Can You Be a Feminist If You’re Married?

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:30:14 +0000

Image courtesy of [Mike Atherton via Flickr]

As a liberal, opinionated, and feminist woman, living in the conservative South can sometimes be interesting. Just the other day I was having coffee with a new acquaintance and the subject of feminism came up. She asked me: “How can you be a feminist if you’re married?”

Surprisingly–or maybe it’s not so surprising–she is not the only person who thinks calling yourself “feminist” comes with restrictions; that it means if you’re married to a man you couldn’t possibly be a feminist because feminists hate men.

Along with the upsurge of men and women claiming the title “feminist” there has also been an increase of women and men speaking out against what they think feminism stands for. Take for instance this Tumblr account dedicated to women who think they don’t need feminism. Add that to the female celebrities who denounce feminism without really knowing what it means, and the misogynists on sites like 4chan and 9gag who think embarrassing feminists will stop them, and we have a real problem.

Now, it is not necessarily their fault that they aren’t aware of what feminism truly is. We have been brought up in a society where feminism has a negative connotation. The first thing that pops into most people’s heads when they think of “the F word” is man-hating women setting fire to their bras. That picture is then projected onto all feminists, and they are made out to be women who hate men and who want to oppress them.

This skewed view of feminism is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

What people need to understand is that, while there are misandrist (man-hating) feminists, not all feminists are misandrists. There are extremists in every group, and the unfortunate part is they are often the most vocal, and therefore, the most noticed.

Feminism’s basic definition is the belief that men and women should have social, political, and economic equality. That’s it. Feminism is the reason women can wear pants, hold jobs, and vote. It’s the reason single mothers can win custody of their children, and why women can hold public office. Feminism is responsible for so much of women’s freedoms today.

But there is a whole lot more to do, which is why those women who claim to be against feminism scare me so much. They say they don’t need it because they are not victims, because they are independent, because they can do and be whatever they want. That may be true, but so many women continue to be victims: of rape, sexual harassment, and sexism in the workplace. Their independence continues to be oppressed by emotionally and physically abusive boyfriends, family members, and managers. Women can be whatever we want, but still represent only a small fraction of those in leadership positions. Women can do whatever we want, but the men in those leadership positions still make the decisions of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Women can be whatever we want, but are still paid less than men on the same career track. Women can do whatever we want, but I’m still afraid to walk home by myself at night.

These are issues that are not magically going to go away, and while women have made social, political, and economic progress, we are far from achieving equality. Feminism’s ultimate goal is to give women the opportunity to be who and what they want, without being held back or judged because of their gender. Whether we want to be a CEO of a large company, a senator, a stay-at-home mom, a priest, a stripper, an entrepreneur, or anything else we could possibly think of, we should have the option. This is why feminism exists, and this is why all women need it, whether we think we do or not.

Feminism is not misandry, and it’s high time society understood that. I am a feminist. I am also happily married to a man, and I like wearing dresses and I like putting on make up. I want equal rights for women, so that all women can marry whoever they choose, or not get married, or dress in 7-inch heels or cowboy boots–so that all women can do whatever they want.

Morgan McMurray

The post How Can You Be a Feminist If You’re Married? appeared first on Law Street.

TIME Ends Feminist-Banning Poll, But It’s Too Little Too Late

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:30:07 +0000

Image courtesy of [Christian Heindel via Flickr]

Okay, so it didn’t try to ban it as much as it suggested that it should be banned–in a poll asking readers to vote which word should be removed from the English language.

Which is still a problem.

TIME is kind of a big deal. I mean, it is nationally recognized for breaking news and excellent writing. So why would a high-brow publication imply that “feminist” is a bad word? And why in the world would it place it alongside words whose use absolutely should be forbidden like “bae” or “turnt”?

Apparently, TIME does not think feminism itself is bad. It just think the word is bad. Yes, let’s by all means quit using the word associated with such a fantastic movement. What would it have us do instead, telepathically communicate our feminist discussions? Keep fighting for feminism, but without talking about it?

The reasoning behind its inclusion on the list seems simple: “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.”

LOL YOU’RE SO CLEVER, TIME.

Just because celebrities decide to discuss feminism does not mean it is any less important. Besides, celebrities discussing the movement keeps it in the news and in discussions. That is good! As for whether or not “this word applies to them,” doesn’t feminism apply to everyone with social or political views? As in you either agree with feminist ideals or you don’t?

To make its argument even more irrelevant, its cover girl this issue is Taylor Swift–a recently declared feminist–who even discusses her adoption of the title in her TIME interview. The inconsistency is astounding.

For awhile, “feminist” was the option that was ahead in the polls–thanks for the most part to troll factories like 4chan.com and 9gag.com, which have made news recently for targeting feminist celebrities by leaking their nude photographs.

Luckily, TIME editors came to their senses and discontinued the poll. Managing editor Nancy Gibbs even inserted a little note on the article:

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

Thanks, Nancy, but maybe you should have caught on to the loss of its “nuance” before the poll was published. Instead of inviting a debate focused on feminism’s true meaning, you invited anti-feminists to exploit the polls and brought negative attention to the concept.

In response to TIME, I will conduct a poll of my own in which you vote on which word is worse than “feminist.” Tweet your vote to @TIME and be sure to include #wordsmoreannoyingthanfeminist. Here are your choices:

Patriarchy
Male dominance
Rape
Inequality
Racism
Bipartisan

Let TIME know what you think.

Morgan McMurray

The post TIME Ends Feminist-Banning Poll, But It’s Too Little Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

Just Stop it With the Street Harassment Already

Morgan McMurray — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:31:21 +0000

Image courtesy of [Paul Weaver via Flickr]

Since its appearance on the web at the end of October, a video produced by Hollaback! has gone viral and caused a lot of controversy. Hollaback! is an organization dedicated to ending the unfortunate cultural phenomenon of street harassment, more commonly known as “catcalling.”

The video features a young woman dressed in black jeans and a black t-shirt, who walked through the streets of New York City for ten hours while someone walked ahead of her with a hidden camera. The result was a disturbing PSA that highlights exactly how bad street harassment can be. If you haven’t seen it, take a moment to watch the video below.

As always, when the subject of catcalling comes up, it splits viewers into one of two camps:

1. Confusion: Some viewers did not understand what the big deal was, because shouting your appreciation for a stranger’s appearance is a compliment right? Why can’t girls just take the compliments, say “hello,” smile, and move on? (FYI that was sarcasm). Others took note of the fact that white men seem to be absent from the video, and cited it as an example of racism.

2. Outrage: Some viewers identified with the woman’s experience in the video, or maybe never experienced that level of harassment, but declared their support of the organization’s mission.

@iHollaback @staceysager7 The video was shocking! I had no idea how pervasive that problem is. What really disgusted me were the comments.

— Carl Weiner (@carlweiner) October 28, 2014

Street harassment is a form of violence against women. Period. http://t.co/6Ql7qGthxk #VAW @TheCurrentCBC @iHollaback @FeministaJones — Ernestine’s WS (@ErnestinesWS) October 31, 2014

They should remake that catcalling video, starring my Twitter inbox.

— YAYzorblades (@YAYzorblades) November 2, 2014

The point of the video is not to target one race over another as the source of catcalling. It was to show that street harassment is not just men saying “hello” or “hi there” to women passing by, but rather objectifying them regardless of what they are wearing, what race they are, or if they know them. These are not compliments, they are an example of men perceiving themselves as entitled to women’s bodies. Saying “hello” is one thing, but it is rarely just “hello” or “good morning.” No one, man or woman, walks down the street wishing a stranger would talk to them and give them lewd glances or stares.

And catcalling is definitely not a problem restricted to New York City or minorities. A woman who lives in Minneapolis began a campaign called Cards Against Harassment this summer after becoming fed up with the amount of catcalls she and her friends received in the Twin Cities. She even recorded herself handing the cards out to the men who catcall her, informing them that their attention was unwarranted and unwanted.

Reactions to Cards Against Harrassment were much the same as the reactions to Hollaback!’s recent video. Men and women alike questioned why the woman bothered doing this, or why she didn’t just take the compliments. The consensus seems to be that yes, catcalling exists, but there is no way to stop it so why try?

I absolutely hate that mindset. If something is wrong, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to change it?

Catcalling and street harassment is annoying, uncalled for, and in some cases dangerous. Greeting a stranger on the street is one thing, but commenting on her appearance, telling her to smile, shouting profane names at her or otherwise objectifying her is unnecessary. When in the history of the world has a catcall ever gotten the catcaller positive attention from the victim?

Unfortunately, street harassment is a deeply ingrained part of our male-dominated society. It will be extremely difficult to eradicate, but it is possible. As organizations like Cards Against Harassment and Hollaback! have shown, awareness of the issue is growing rapidly and the more people see it as wrong the more likely it will be that it disappears.

There are, in fact, areas of the world where street harassment doesn’t really happen. Take this video shot in Auckland, New Zealand, in which a model tries to replicate the Hollaback! PSA.

Aside from a request for directions and one man trying to talk to her, the model received hardly any reaction from people as she walked down the street. The same model has said that she has resided in New York City before, and the catcalling there “was extreme … I don’t want, or like the attention at all. It’s not a compliment.”

If the New Zealand video should show us anything, it is not that catcalling doesn’t exist, but that it does not have to exist.

Men and women of the world, take note: shouting at strangers on the street is never wanted. Women don’t go out wishing random men would tell them they’re pretty, just as men don’t walk around expecting women to tell them they’re handsome. Stop catcalling, and the problem stops.

Morgan McMurray

The post Just Stop it With the Street Harassment Already appeared first on Law Street.

Women Still Losing the Battle for Equal Rights in 2014

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 11:30:46 +0000

Image courtesy of [jamelah e. via Flickr]

If you hadn’t heard — meaning of course you had no access to television, internet, mobile data, or human contact — we had an election on Tuesday. The headlines were predictable in their predictions, telling the nation which party would most likely win the U.S. Senate. Yesterday we were accosted with news stories of the Republican takeover, states legalizing marijuana, and a few stories made their way to the front pages about the states that raised their minimum wages (finally). What the hundreds of news outlets covering the election failed to mention, though, is that women are still losing in the battle for equal rights in 2014.

Tennessee, North Dakota, and Colorado all had proposed amendments that would outlaw abortions of any kind — even those that would save a mother’s life. These measures in North Dakota and Colorado also would have banned the use of birth control methods like the pill or intrauterine devices. Had those measures gone through, women would not have access to life-saving medication or procedures. Unfortunately in Tennessee, the abortion service restrictions were approved, and by all accounts will become stricter.

Yet again, the nation has focused on abortion as a hot topic — endangering women’s health in the constant struggle between a majority of white men.

What about women’s rights?

In 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have given women equal rights under the constitution, was introduced to Congress. It was not until 1972 that it passed through for ratification, and by 1982 only 35 states had ratified it. It has been introduced to Congress again and again since then, never reaching the point of ratification in that body.

Now in 2014 we are still waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to become law. Meanwhile, only one state in the entire United States — Oregon — had a women’s rights act on the ballot. And guess what? It went through! But where in the hundreds of news stories on major news outlets are the stories about that? And why is it that in the year 2014 only one state proposed equal rights for women? Many states have equal opportunity employment clauses, but where is the nationwide call for women’s rights?

But hey, at least we know which party controls the senate.

How is it, that for a country that claims to be so forward-thinking, we can be so backward? How is it that women are still considered less than men in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law? When will we, as a nation, get over the petty rivalries that keep opposing political parties in the news rather than the important issues that would make America better?

Stay tuned.

Morgan McMurray

The post Women Still Losing the Battle for Equal Rights in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Children “Drop F-Bombs For Feminism,” Are You Listening?

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:31:36 +0000

Image courtesy of [Cali4beach via Flickr]

Recently a video has been making the rounds on my Facebook feed, posted both by people cheering it on and by people questioning the sanity of its producers. The now-viral video features little girls dressed up as princesses and talking about women’s rights. It doesn’t sound so harmless, right? What is so controversial?

The video boasts the title: “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism.”

Aha.

The video is produced by FCKH8.com, a for-profit clothing company that features t-shirts with mottos like “This is what a #feminist looks like” and “Some kids are gay, that’s okay.” Since its inception in 2010, it has donated more than a quarter-million dollars to foundations fighting for equality, and boast celebrity customers like Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, Dan Savage, and Zac Efron. Now, it can add “viral video production” to its list of accolades. It has nearly 100,000 “likes” and more than 400,000 shares on Facebook, and nearly one million views on YouTube.

Watch the video below, and if you are at work or around sensitive ears, I suggest the use of headphones:

Obviously, the first time you watch these little girls swearing like a middle-age man with road rage, it is pretty shocking. We’re not accustomed to hearing proper young ladies use such language!

Here’s the thing: it is meant to shock you. It is meant to grab your attention, and it succeeds. Through all the f-bombs and a-bombs (and I don’t mean atomic), their message is loud and clear: sexism still exists, and it needs to stop.

Or, in the words of one princess, “F*** that sexist sh**!”

Many of the complaints lodged against the video are about the children using curse words. Clearly, though, their parents gave them permission to be in the video, and their message is more important than their foul language. The point is that the rampant sexism and hate in society today is more shocking than girls and boys saying “f***.” Don’t focus on the swearing, focus on the statistics and the facts they are sharing.

Others agree with the message, but dislike the use of children to communicate it. One Facebook commenter said “using children to push a political agenda is one of the quickest ways to lose my respect.” While I agree that young kids should not be forced to share the political opinions of their parents, or stand on street corners holding signs supporting one politician over another, I think these kids do understand — at least fundamentally — what they are saying. They are all old enough to have experienced sexism already, like being told to play with Barbies instead of Tonka trucks or to dress up as princesses instead of superheroes. As the boy featured at the end said, “When you tell a boy not to act like a girl, it means you think it’s bad to be a girl.” Gender roles and sexism are ingrained in us early, and these children are meant to represent that.

One of the big points the girls make is that women are still paid less than men for the same work. Some viewers of the video had a real issue with that, one male Facebook user even posting this ill-informed meme:

The response to this is simple. Companies cannot hire all women for the same reason they cannot hire all men or all people of one race: equal opportunity. Yet, even with this supposed “equal opportunity,” women will be offered lower salaries. The pay gap is real, and by all accounts will not close anytime soon.

“F*** that sexist sh**!”

Along with pointing out the pay gap, they bring attention to the fact that one in five women will be sexually assaulted, using themselves as examples, and saying “Instead of telling girls how to dress, start teaching boys not to f***ing rape!”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So, go back and watch the video again, share it, discuss it, and look past the swearing. They have to put quarters in a swear jar at the end anyway!

Morgan McMurray

The post Children “Drop F-Bombs For Feminism,” Are You Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Athlete Favoritism 101: A+ For Everyone!

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:25:12 +0000

From the time I understood the concept of “sports” I understood that the athletes who participated in such activities were loved and respected. They showed up on the fronts of my cereal boxes, on TV, and some even made the somewhat ungraceful transition into film.

As I grew older, entering high school and then college, I came to realize that student athletes were not only loved and respected, but given special treatment. They could miss class, skip tests, and all around give half the effort a normal student would have because they had to stay focused on whichever sport they happened to excel in.

I did not have a stereotypical “American” upbringing in which sports reigned supreme. My father taught music and my mother taught dance, and so I grew up with a healthy passion for the arts. My sister and I went to “rival” state schools, but since we didn’t choose those schools because of their football teams, that rivalry didn’t matter. I became a little bitter toward those athletes who had it all while art classes were cut, and dancers or drama students who had rehearsals late into the night were still expected to perform academically. To me, that didn’t seem fair. Besides, doing a triple pirouette en pointe takes way more skill than running down a football field right?

Obviously, the slightly biased opinions I held toward sports as a student are not completely factual. The various performance and visual arts require different skills than those of various sports, and so it is impossible to compare the talents of a soccer player to the talents of a ballerina. However, it is true that athlete favoritism exists in academic institutions.

Just this week, the University of North Carolina has come under fire for its preferential treatment of student athletes. UNC is a well-respected university, lauded for both its academic superiority as well as its exceptional sports programs. Recently, the school had defense attorney Kenneth Wainstein perform an internal investigation on some discrepancies in its former Afro and African-American Studies department. What did he find? For the last 18 years the department has been enrolling athletic students in freebie “paper” — or non-existent — classes to keep them on the field.

Eighteen years.

Obviously, these classes were only meant as grade boosters to maintain the athletes’ eligibility. For your viewing pleasure, here is the only required paper from one of those courses, which received an A- :

Whistleblower says UNC put athletes in classes that never met and required only one final paper. This one got an A-. pic.twitter.com/HShyr6ivGm

— Bryan Armen Graham (@BryanAGraham) March 26, 2014

The text says:

On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.

Gripping stuff.

After the truth behind the fake classes was revealed, UNC fired the faculty members responsible for starting and “teaching” those classes. The student newspaper, though, the Daily Tarheel, revealed that the fraud went much further, saying the report “found clear evidence that academic counselors from the football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball teams asked for players to be enrolled in bogus independent study classes in order for them to be eligible.” That answers the question of how no one in the last 18 years noticed that the classes weren’t actually meeting — the athletic chairs and faculty members already knew!

This scandal is just one example of athletic favoritism, which has existed since colleges first started athletic programs. Apparently, football is so important to some people that they will break school policies — and sometimes laws — to keep their athletes playing. It is just insane. In most schools, if a student who is involved in a non-athletic club or activity fails a semester, they give up that club or activity until their grades are better. Several on-campus organizations require a minimum GPA for membership. Athletics should be the same way. If an athlete cannot perform well in school, they should not be permitted to play. End of story.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [Hector Alejandro via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

The post Athlete Favoritism 101: A+ For Everyone! appeared first on Law Street.

Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract?

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:32:03 +0000

The grunge-pop diva we all know and love (or love to hate), Kesha, filed a lawsuit this week against her long-time producer claiming that he sexually and emotionally abused her for years. The producer, Lukasz Gottwald — “Dr. Luke” — was the one who discovered her at age 17 and convinced her to drop out of high school to pursue a career in music.

According to Kesha, the abuse started early and for the last ten years has kept her from moving to a different label, having control over her own music, and caused her to develop an eating disorder and subsequently enter rehab. She cites at least one count of rape following the consumption of a date rape drug, and alleges that Gottwald sexually assaulted her multiple times while forcing her to drink alcohol and take drugs. Gottwald has since filed an opposing suit, claiming defamation and breach of contract.

This is not the first time Kesha and Gottwald have been the subject of controversy. In 2013, around the time Kesha’s documentary “My Crazy Beautiful Life” came out, fans started a petition to release Kesha from Gottwald’s control. The petition claims that “Dr. Luke is controlling Ke$ha like a puppet, feeding her what she doesn’t want, and her creativity is dwindling and affected negativity (sic)” and that Kesha had little to no creative control over her most recent album.

In the short time since the lawsuits became public, skeptics have asked why Kesha waited so long to complain, or if she is just doing this to get out of her contract, and even saying she is lying because how can a sex symbol accuse someone of sexual assault?

These negative allegations aside, the majority of Kesha fans have shouted their support for the singer’s case, using the Twitter hashtag #StayStrongKesha.

An argument could be made for the idea that Kesha is making it all up to get out of her contract, but I just don’t think this is the case here. Her complaint has pages and pages filled with detailed and disturbing accounts of assault that span years. Accusing someone of sexual assault and rape are serious allegations that are not taken lightly, and if the victim is found to be lying the consequences are severe. Kesha is a smart woman, and by many accounts a near genius who was bound for lofty academic achievement before joining the music industry. Her intelligence does not protect her from being taken advantage of, since even the smartest men and women can be overwhelmed when in unfamiliar territory. It seems Kesha’s “mentor” knew this.

Saying that Kesha is lying because of her style, her sex symbol status, or her music is an argument that has no basis in logic. It stems from the idea that because someone dresses a certain way, or shares their sexuality more than others, they can’t cry “rape” when sexual predators target them.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but Kesha and Gottwald obviously have some sort of toxic relationship that needs to end. Regardless of whether her claims are true or not, they need to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how famous a person is, or how long they waited to speak up; sexual assault is never okay and victims of it should be supported. Reacting negatively to cases like this discourages people in similar situations from coming forward, and encourages a society in which rape is covered up. Unfortunately, due to her fame and Gottwald’s counter case, Kesha’s fight has just begun.

Both Kesha’s lawsuit and Gottwald’s counter suit can be found here.

—

Featured image courtesy of [rocor via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

The post Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract? appeared first on Law Street.

Rape Culture Can (And Must) Be Changed

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:31:33 +0000

Image courtesy of [Chase Carter via Flickr]

A few weeks ago the White House began what it calls the It’s On Us campaign to end campus sexual assault. This campaign is a direct result of last April’s Title IX developments to try and change the way we look at consent and rape. As Vice President Joe Biden so sagely put it: “Violence against women is not a women’s issue alone, it’s a men’s issue.”

Last week the It’s On Us campaign continued its onslaught on campus sexual violence by releasing guidance to draft sexual assault guidelines, handle reports of assault, promote prevention, and outline exactly what “consent” means.

It is a little early to tell whether or not these guidelines and the new focus on changing college rape culture will have a noticeable effect, but since every education institution in the U.S. is legally obligated to follow Title IX policies, I’d say change is in the air.

This is only the beginning, though. While sexual assault on college campuses is more common and also more ignored than elsewhere in society, it is by no means the only place rape culture runs rampant.

But what exactly is rape culture? It’s where rape is widely recognized and accepted as a normal part of society. Where, instead of trying to prevent rape, victims are blamed. Rape, unfortunately, has become normalized in American society. The word “rape” can be heard to describe anything but the act itself, and there has been more than one occurrence of assault recorded and uploaded to the internet. As if showing themselves raping someone will give the uploader fame.

No, college is definitely not the only place rape culture needs to disappear. It is also not the only place that things like the Title IX developments may not be taken seriously.

By the time kids get to college, they have had at least seventeen years of rape culture exposure. They grew up in gender roles that encouraged male dominance and female submissiveness. They grew up being told that a girl who dresses in a short dress is “slutty” or “asking for it.” They watched movies like The Hangover where being roofied was turned into a comedy. When they finally set foot on a college campus for the first time, they had years of societal expectations ingrained into their heads.

Now, while many college students are eager to have their minds opened and changed by their chosen institution, not all are willing to let go of the beliefs they got from their parents and relatives. “It’s On Us” will no doubt have some positive effects on the number of sexual assault cases on campuses, and it is a sure sign that rape culture can be changed, but it is just one of the steps that needs to be taken.

It should also be noted that, along with rape culture existing outside the college campus, women are by no means the only ones who suffer sexual assaults. It is a truth that is not widely acknowledged that men get raped too. But, as I said before, men are brought up to be dominant and therefore are too afraid to admit a woman assaulted them. When we, in the words of Emma Watson, “see gender as a spectrum, rather than two sets of opposing ideals,” assault initiated by both genders, and the rape culture in which those assaults are normalized, will end.

If you would like more information on Title IX and its guidelines, go here.

Morgan McMurray

The post Rape Culture Can (And Must) Be Changed appeared first on Law Street.

Always In Fashion, Chanel Stages Feminist Rally

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:31:12 +0000

Feminism has been getting a lot of attention in the press lately, first with Beyonce’s VMA display, then Emma Watson’s viral UN speech, and now with a fashion show!

For those not inclined to stare longingly at clothes you can’t afford, this week was Paris Fashion Week — the last in the string of “Big Four” fashion weeks that began in New York on September 4. At home in Paris is one of the most renowned labels ever to be declared couture: Chanel. What began in 1909 when a young woman nicknamed “Coco” opened a small shop in Paris, has since grown into a multimillion dollar brand headed by the infamous Karl Lagerfeld. The native German director of Chanel has long had a reputation for highly staged and over-the-top runway shows, and this year was no exception.

Karl Lagerfeld. Courtesy of marcokalmann via Flickr.

While the 2015 Chanel line looked relatively familiar: 1970s-inspired sweaters, pant suits, and even sunglasses all featuring the signature Chanel logo, its runway show closed not with the usual parade of models, but with a full-on rally complete with signs and blow horns. Suddenly, those 1970s styles took on a whole new connotation: emulations of second-wave feminist icons like Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, and Kate Millet.

While the display was an impressive one, with famous supermodels like Gisele Bundchen and Cara Delevingne leading the charge, many responded with confusion and skepticism:

did chanel even bother looking up the definition for feminism before using signs saying “boys should get pregnant too” and “be different”

— anna (@aaselfie) October 1, 2014

I think Chanel / Karl Lagerfeld’s feminism walk wasn’t genuine. They should’ve done more research rather than using it as a marketing tool — Sam Fazz (@SamFazz) October 1, 2014

I cannot take Chanel portraying feminism as a statement seriously. Lagerfeld is notorious for degrading women based on their appearance.

— n. didonátti (@bonvivantx) September 30, 2014

I know it’s really early, but seriously Karl. Faux Feminism? #chanel #pfw

— kiwi mohamed (@kiwispeaks) September 30, 2014

I couldn’t help but be skeptical myself. Some of the signs the models held had little to do with modern feminism: “Ladies First,” “Boys Should Get Pregnant Too,” and “Divorce Pour Tous” (which translates to “Divorce For All”) rang distinctly of the misandry that feminists try so hard to separate themselves from. They also contradicted signs like “Match the Machos” and “Free Freedom,” which are true feminist mottos. No wonder people were confused!

In addition, Karl Lagerfeld has made headlines before by commenting harshly on women’s looks. The most referenced incidents are his fat-shaming the singer Adele and saying that Pippa Middleton “should only show her back.”

Saying things like that is definitely not okay, but does he do it because he hates women or because he makes a living by selling the fashion world’s concept of beauty? It’s hard to tell.

I think it’s safe to say that, whatever Lagerfeld’s personal motivations are, the feminist rally was little more than a publicity stunt. Even so, Chanel is a brand that started out by breaking rules. Coco Chanel may have never called herself a feminist, but she freed women from what was acceptable or “feminine” for women to wear during her time. It’s thanks in part to Chanel that we aren’t expected to cinch ourselves into corsets!

In the end, the staged rally might not have had the purest motives, but it keeps feminism in the news and continues the conversation. Plus, those references to feminist icons have been noted and shared, and models like Cara Delevingne — a self-declared feminist — will continue spreading true feminist values through her fan base. Could it have been done better? Oh yes. Will it end up helping feminism? Only time will tell.

—

Featured image courtesy of [arpad ikuma via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

The post Always In Fashion, Chanel Stages Feminist Rally appeared first on Law Street.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:32:29 +0000

Image courtesy of [EyesOnFire89 via Flickr]

On Sunday September 21, a recently appointed UN ambassador gave a speech on gender equality that received a standing ovation. That ambassador was Emma Watson, the 24-year-old woman most know for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films. Her topic was feminism and a campaign the UN is launching called “HeForShe,” which Watson will spearhead. You can watch the entire speech below.

Since Sunday, Watson’s speech has gone viral, garnering support both for her cause and for feminism itself. I was especially pleased to see one of my own Facebook friends share the video with the caption: “Worth the watch, for both men and women! Gave me a whole new perspective on the word ‘feminist’.”

Good! That was the point. Watson shares not only the true definition of feminism, but says that thinking of feminists as “man haters” needs to stop. She said that becoming a feminist should be “uncomplicated” and did not narrow her audience to just women. It was a brilliant speech, and completely deserved the standing ovation.

As is to be expected, what with the internet being the internet, she has also received negative feedback. Some users of 4Chan have created a website threatening to reveal sexually explicit pictures of Watson, claiming that they will somehow demean or demolish her feminist views. Rush Limbaugh (who I think should be taken off air immediately) said in his September 23 broadcast: “I know exactly what she’s talking about here, and it’s youth speaking, it’s youthful idealism speaking. I mean, the truth is every man knows that women run things…That’s been the problem with feminism all along. Feminism has sought to change basic human nature, and you can’t do that no matter what you do.”

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rush!

Other anonymous critics on sites like Reddit, tumblr, and Imgur agree with Watson’s views on feminism but take issue with the name “HeForShe,” arguing that the preposition “for” implies that men will do all the work and women will sit idly by as males react to her call for action. Still others complain that Watson’s celebrity is giving her an unfair advantage on issues like gender equality; that someone less famous or less attractive should have been able to stand up there and give the speech to the same effect.

Each of these arguments stems, I think, from a place of fear. People don’t like change, and with Watson’s speech taking on the momentum it already has, gender equality has made an enormous leap forward. This is threatening to those who are so entrenched in their male-dominated world that they wouldn’t see it change for anything. To those people I say: too damn bad! Society has changed a thousand times over, and it certainly isn’t done.

Let’s address each of these critiques briefly, so I can point out where they have veered off from logic.

Just a few weeks ago, users of 4chan hacked the phones of female celebrities and leaked their nude photographs online. These same people are at it again, thinking that showing feminist, female celebrities as sexual creatures will somehow undermine their feminist message. The short answer is: it won’t. Just because a woman enjoys sex or flaunts her sexuality does not mean she can’t be a feminist. In fact, if a woman is so comfortable in her own skin that nude photos being leaked doesn’t even phase her, that’s a feminist I would hope people idolize.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a prime example of a man who sees his male-dominance being threatened and lashes out in any way possible. His claim that “Feminism has sought to change basic human nature” is bullshit. Human nature may be to blame for many of our baser instincts, like seeking out a mate or wanting to procreate, but one gender dominating the other actually comes — most often — from various religions. Ancient, pagan religions favor women above men, and religions like Christianity favor men. Over the years, society took those religious doctrines and accepted them as fact. Oh and losing the “man-hating” connotation that comes from the word “feminism” being “youthful idealism”? Wrong again, Rush. Feminism isn’t just for 24 year olds, and some of gender equality’s most prevalent spokespeople are decades older than Watson.

Next up, the problem with the name “HeForShe,” If you listen to Watson’s entire speech, you’ll hear her call on men AND women multiple times. She wants women to stop being afraid of calling themselves feminists, and for men to accept the title just as willingly. The name, to me, means that, since men are currently the dominant gender, men need to be a driving force behind changing that. It does not mean that women will sit idly by, it means that both genders will work together to achieve equality. As they should.

Finally, Watson’s celebrity makes me thankful she was the one to make that speech. In a perfect world, any man or woman could have made that speech and gotten the same response, but this is not a perfect world. I have said before that celebrities using their fame to support important causes should be admired, not shamed. Waton’s expansive fan base of both men and women made her the perfect person to make that speech, because those fans that truly respect her will hear it, believe it, and share it.

So, as a fan of Emma Watson and of gender equality, I intend to answer her call to action and continue supporting feminism. After you hear it, what will you do?

Morgan McMurray

The post Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

It’s All About Respect: We Need More Women In Politics

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:31:45 +0000

Monday night I was watching Late Night with Seth Meyers with the hilarious Bill Hader and Representative Nancy Pelosi as his guests. The House Minority Leader is no stranger to late night television, especially in recent months as she has been interviewed not just by Meyers but also by Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher.

One of the agendas Rep. Pelosi talks about in most interviews is her economic plan for women under the slogan, “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds”. I love this for several reasons, but most of all because we have the most powerful woman in American politics promoting equal rights for all genders. She shows that it is not only possible for women to succeed, but also that once they do, they have the platform to promote women’s rights on a larger scale.

My favorite quote of hers from the night was:

“Whether it’s about respect for women, a woman’s right to choose…equal pay for equal work… whether it’s protecting women from domestic violence, violence in the military, violence on the campus; all of it is about one word, and that is respect. The opposite is disrespect, and that’s what we have to fight.”

Nailed it!

Rep. Pelosi is not the only woman in congress promoting women’s rights, but as the first female Speaker of the House and current leader of Democrats in the House, she certainly has a larger following. According to the Center for American Women and Politics however, in 2014 women hold only 18.5 percent of the seats in Congress.

While 18.5 percent is leagues ahead of where women were 50 years ago, it is not very reflective of the American population. Women make up 51 percent of American citizens, yet we hold less than a fourth of the seats in the national government? No wonder women’s rights continue to simmer on the back burner!

The list of excuses for this imbalance is long and varied. Growing up in a conservative small town, I heard numerous insults thrown at women who dared to go for higher political office. They ranged from “Well, women just aren’t interested in politics” (FALSE) to, “If Hillary Clinton wins, I’ll see you all in Canada!” to “Think about what would happen when Aunt Flow comes to town!”

Yes, because every woman would be so emotionally unbalanced during her period days that she would no doubt get mad at some country for a minor slight and end up starting a war.

As silly as some of these sound, they reflect a long-running and deep-set opinion that women are somehow unfit to hold public office. We still see the disconnect between male leaders being “powerful” or “strict” to female leaders being “bitchy” or “emotional.” As Rep. Pelosi so sagely put: “All of it is about one word, and that is respect.“

Look at it this way. On the Forbes list of most powerful women, American politics are hardly represented. Rep. Pelosi shows up, as she should, along with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Courtesy of Shawn via Flickr.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection/Simone D. McCourtie via Flickr.

First Lady Michelle Obama, Courtesy of Barack Obama/Christopher Dilts for Obama for America via Flickr.

Whether you agree with them or not, all three of these women have been fundamental in promoting women’s health and equality. It should also be noted that all three are part of the Democratic Party. There are definitely women who hold office as conservatives, but in a party notorious for blocking women’s rights, they cannot hope to rise very far.

Many other American women on the list are part of the entertainment, technology, or business industries, and foreign women in politics, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel who ranked number one, outrank American women across the board. Does this show that other countries, especially those in Europe, have a higher respect for women? Absolutely.

Disrespect for female leaders runs deep in American politics, but as those like Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama show, it is possible and necessary for women to keep fighting that disrespect. Our goal should be equality, because without it we will always be considered the lesser sex.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Nancy Pelosi via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

The post It’s All About Respect: We Need More Women In Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Debunking Common Myths About American Healthcare Costs

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:54:52 +0000

Image courtesy of [United Workers via Flickr]

I’m going to take a break from feminist issues today and discuss something that is, literally, life or death: America’s horrible healthcare costs.

Recently, just as I had my first run-in with military dress codes, I also got to experience a military doctor’s office. I went in for a physical exam, waited maybe ten minutes all around, and ended up leaving without having to pay a cent for the appointment or prescriptions. The only thought on my mind was: why can’t everyone’s health care be this great?

Outside of the United States, healthcare is that great in several countries. Just last summer while studying abroad in London, my friend rushed herself to the hospital thinking her appendix was bursting. Turned out to be just a pulled muscle, but an ER visit didn’t cost her a pence — and she wasn’t even a citizen!

So what’s wrong with American health care? For a country whose citizens claim it to be number one, we are way behind on things that really matter. According to the World Health Organization, America ranks thirty-fifth in life expectancy and thirty-seventh in healthcare systems.

Yikes.

Why are we so low in the rankings? The answer is not simple.

American healthcare costs are alarmingly higher than in other developed countries. An MRI in the U.S. averages $1,121, while in the Netherlands it’s only $319. Need an angiogram? That’ll be $914, but you could have gotten it for $35 in Canada! Are you on the drug Lipitor? Then you know it’s around $124 a month — it costs $6 a month in New Zealand. Some may argue that we are wealthier than these countries, so it makes sense that we would spend a bit more. Sure, but the amount the United States spends on health care is way above what it should be.

Then there is the argument that countries with free health care pay more in taxes. False. The average U.S. citizen pays more in taxes toward public health care than the United Kingdom, Canada, and a whole list of other countries with free health care.

Some blame insurance. American citizens not having health insurance was a factor in rising healthcare costs, yes. Those who didn’t have it still needed care, then went bankrupt from trying to pay for it, so our tax money ended up paying for it. The Affordable Care Act has alleviated some of the problem, but it is still being fought over in congress.

Still others point to over-utilization and malpractice spending, saying that Americans simply go to the doctor more and therefore spend more, but there is no data to support that either. Plus, who would want to go to the doctor more than they need to, especially when a doctor’s visit will soon cost more than a car?

None of these issues is the one thing that has skyrocketed our health care spending. In fact, all of them are to blame. Therefore, there will be no simple solution. Reaching a fix is made harder by the fact that the topic of health care is gridlocked in our government. Republicans block Democrats because they’re not Republican, and vice versa.

A lot of people like to gripe about Obamacare.

Half of Congress even decided to throw a hissy fit over not getting their way on the subject, and shut down the government. Sure, the Affordable Care Act might not be perfect, but at least it’s something. Those people most vehemently opposing it aren’t offering up any better solutions. Until both parties can get over their pride, sit down and say “what is going to be best, and cost less, for the American people?” healthcare costs will continue to be higher than they need to be.

My opinion? Healthcare should be free and easily accessible for everyone. Period.

Data and statistics for this post came from the WHO website and this article from The New York Times.

Morgan McMurray

The post Debunking Common Myths About American Healthcare Costs appeared first on Law Street.

Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes

Morgan McMurray — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:31:43 +0000

I was recently married, and my husband is in the armed services. While military life isn’t quite what Army Wives would have you believe, there are definitely some aspects I have had to get used to. One of these is the dress code. Recently I went to the PX (think a T.J. Maxx with Wal-Mart prices) on our new base, and encountered a woman being turned away from the door because her midriff was showing. When I say “showing” I mean her tank top had ridden up about two inches. She did not look inappropriately dressed at all — clearly she had just thrown on her tank and jean shorts to do some shopping — yet she was being told she was in violation of the rules.

This was not the first time I had come into contact with strict military clothing restrictions. While my then-fiance was still stationed in Hawaii, I flew there so we could get married and honeymoon on the islands. While there, I ended up — apparently — being in violation of the dress code not once, but twice.

The first time happened shortly after the wedding, when my husband, some friends, and I went to a bar on the Naval base. It was country-themed, with a huge floor for line dancing, so I dressed accordingly: high-waisted skater skirt, polka-dotted crop top, Keds, and bandana headband. When showing our IDs to the bouncer, he stopped me and said, “Ma’am, you’re going to have to pull your shirt down or your skirt up.”

Now, this was the first time I had had any exposure to the dress code. My husband, not being known to wear crop tops himself, had not yet told me about it. I was understandably confused; barely an inch of my lower rib cage was showing, and my skirt was not short by any standard. Not wanting to cause a scene, I pulled down my shirt and was let in.

My second violation was pointed out when we went to the on-base golf course. I had on pastel shorts from the Gap and a white tank top. Not a spaghetti-strap tank, mind you (which would not have been a violation anyway), but a thick-strapped, loose fitting, high-neckline shirt. The man checking people in took my husband’s ID, wrote us down to tee off, then looked at me and said: “Ma’am, that type of shirt is not allowed here.”

I believe my jaw might have involuntarily dropped open. I looked down at my shirt and back up at him, saying “Tank tops? Or white shirts?”

Not amused by my sarcasm, he informed me that tank tops were not allowed and that to be let on the course I would have to buy a shirt in their shop or go home and change. Excuse me, sir, if I don’t want to buy a $50 Puma polo just to play golf. Needless to say, we did not play golf that day.

My point with sharing these examples is not to say that the military needs to take away its dress code. I understand that there is a necessity for uniformity: it makes things easier to regulate, tampers jealousy, and creates a global standard for all active military and their families. Women are not the only ones who have regulations. Men most certainly cannot be found in cropped off short-shorts. My point is that uniformity is not, truly, the only reason women have their clothing choices regulated.

Personally, I have no problem with the way other people dress. They’re expressing their individual style, wearing what they find comfortable, or dressing up for a special occasion (like going to a country bar). I would never call a woman “trashy” for wearing a tight-fitting dress or 6-inch heels, and I certainly wouldn’t say that lewd behavior toward a woman dressed that way is justified. Believe it or not, women DO NOT dress the way they do for the benefit of men or other women.

When an organization’s dress code seeks to put a stop to those “trashy” fashion trends, they are encouraging uniformity, yes, but they are also saying that a woman showing her midriff, or her shoulders, is inviting inappropriate attention. That somehow the way she dresses makes it her fault men sexually harass her.

Let me explain. The US military continues to have a terrifyingly high number of sexual assault cases each year, yet thousands more go unreported. They are not, by any means, the only organization that has the same problem. This is a huge issue, and one that will not be solved easily because victims are encouraged to keep their assaults quiet. Dress codes like the one the military has in place are there not just for uniformity, but to discourage sexual assault.

If this doesn’t seem ridiculous to you, let me put it another way. In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, Marshall seduces Lily by showing her his calves. Take a look at this quick clip from the episode:

The scene is hilarious because a woman put into a sexual frenzy by the sight of a man’s legs seems ludicrous. Yet, when a woman goes to report a rape, one of the questions she is asked is “What were you wearing?” As if the sight of her bare shoulders caused a man to force himself on her. Telling women what they can and cannot wear to discourage sexual assault is telling them that, somehow, it is their fault when it happens.

Let’s be clear: WHAT SOMEONE IS WEARING DOES NOT JUSTIFY NOR CAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

So, do I think the military and other organizations with similar dress regulations need to take those regulations away? No. Like I said before, I get why they’re there. What I am saying is the reasons behind those dress codes need to change. Instead of encouraging women to cover up to prevent rape, let’s encourage men to be respectful. Instead of saying “cover your midriff” let’s say “don’t catcall someone on the street.” Only when we acknowledge the problem can we change the perspective.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Florian Ramel via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

The post Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes appeared first on Law Street.

Beyonce’s Feminist Message Receives Praise…And Ridicule?

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:33:50 +0000

Image courtesy of [nonu | photography via Flickr]

In case you hadn’t heard from the overwhelming amount of posts dedicated to them, the MTV Video Music Awards happened on Sunday. I, along with millions of other pop-culture followers, tuned in to watch the usual shenanigans of the music industry’s most famous and most notorious. As predicted, there was twerking, flashy costumes, lip-syncing, wardrobe malfunctions, laughter, tears, tripping, and Moonmen. Basically: all the things that forever have me questioning why I watch this nonsense in the first place.

But then, two things of note happened. The first, out of all the unlikely sources, came from the Artist Formerly Known as Hannah Montana.

Yes!

When her name was announced as the winner of Video of the Year (for “Wrecking Ball”, naturally), Miley Cyrus sent up a man named Jesse in her stead. Jesse took out some cards and began speaking. What followed was surprising and heart-wrenching:

“My name is Jesse and I’m accepting this award on behalf of the 1.6 million runaways and homeless youth who are starving, lost, and scared right now. I know this because I am one of these people.”

Visibly nervous, Jesse went on to explain, through constant cheers from the audience, how you could go to Miley’s Facebook page and donate money to help homeless youth in America. I was extremely impressed with this gesture from Miley, as she is now utilizing her substantial fan base to raise awareness and funds for an important cause.

Well done, Miley!

The VMAs were far from done, though. Before the night was through, another celebrity chose to use her VMA performance as a loudspeaker for one of my favorite subjects: feminism. Enter Beyonce.

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

Like every Beyonce performance ever, she had intense dance moves, sparkly costumes, and so-so vocals. But her music is not why we are here. No, THIS is why we are here:

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

In a world where feminism is still (somehow) misunderstood, one of the most popular musicians of our generation declared herself a feminist. That’s not all. Before lighting up “FEMINIST” in big letters, we heard the words of Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:

“We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

If you haven’t already, listen to the rest of this woman’s wise words. The entire speech can be watched here. Go ahead, watch. I’ll wait.

Done? Good.

So Beyonce not only declared herself a feminist, she defined what feminism truly is and did it in front of millions of viewers. I gave her a standing ovation right in my living room. Yet, in spite of all the truth she used her performance to convey, she is still getting negative feedback:

If Beyoncé is a feminist then I think it’s a very cheap and easy sort of feminism she’s flogging. Not really my thing.

— Billy Lunn (@billysubway) August 25, 2014

If Beyoncé has taught us anything, it’s that strip clubs need 10′ tall “FEMINIST” signs

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 26, 2014

Beyoncé, you’re not a feminist. You sing the lyrics “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it”. That’s the opposite of feminism — Ryan Travers (@ryantravers) August 25, 2014

I couldn’t hear Beyonce’s #feminist statement @ #VMAs over the thong & glittered ass dance ensemble behind her. #ILikeBigButtsAnICannotLie

— Su Castillo (@snarkyzebra) August 27, 2014

Thanks to @Beyonce I learned tonight that requiring female back-up dancers to dry hump everything in sight is #Feminism. Empowering! #VMA

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) August 25, 2014

why can’t Beyoncé make her mind between feminism and female objectification though — Matt Gehring (@mattygehrbear) August 25, 2014

See anything wrong with these? You should. All of them perpetuate a view that someone can somehow demonstrate “incorrect” feminism or that they aren’t “feminist enough.” Really? When feminism’s definition was literally spelled out in front of you?

Just because someone dresses sexy, dances provocatively, or strips on a stripper pole does not mean they can’t be a feminist. Just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom, a Christian, or happily married, does not mean she can’t be a feminist. Feminism does not just encompass all women, it encompasses all people from all walks of life.

If you believe women should be given equal salaries to men in the same field: that’s a feminist ideal. If you believe a woman can be whatever she wants to be, like the President of the United States, or an exotic dancer, or a soccer mom: that’s a feminist ideal. If you think women are objectified in media and entertainment, so do feminists.

“Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

How much clearer can you get? Beyonce performing sexually suggestive routines and songs does not mean she cannot call herself a feminist. Anyone who says otherwise is drawing attention away from the fact that she used her considerable influence to get across a feminist message. For that, we should applaud her. Luckily, most everywhere you look, praise for her VMA performance far outweighs the ridicule and misunderstanding. There is hope for humanity yet!

If nothing else, what should come out of both Beyonce’s and Miley’s demonstrations at this year’s VMAs are more celebrities supporting good causes. When they have such large followings, why wouldn’t they? So Beyonce, Miley: you two keep doing you.

Morgan McMurray

The post Beyonce’s Feminist Message Receives Praise…And Ridicule? appeared first on Law Street.

Discussing Abortion Distracts From Root Issue: Sex Ed

Morgan McMurray — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:33:25 +0000

Image courtesy of [Zhu via Flickr]

Hello! Welcome to my blog. I thought I’d start things off with a rather tame subject, so let’s talk about abortion!

Well not really, but sort of. Let me explain.

I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed the other day when I came upon a friend’s status, which read: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” I wanted to “Like” this bit of wisdom a thousand times over, but on my way to click the little thumbs-up sign I noticed the status had 57 comments.

Fifty-seven.

After expanding the comment section (which was rapidly growing to 60…61…62…) and reading through them, it became immediately apparent that I had stumbled onto a heated political debate comprised completely of supposed “friends” text-yelling (ALL CAPS) at each other through their comments. It is a social custom I have tried hard to avoid, as it is known to feed on the ignorance and close-mindedness of its debaters, and really who has ever had their opinion changed by a Facebook argument?

This one looked to be no different, but I began reading through the paragraphs of hardly-thought-out arguments anyway, simultaneously amused and saddened by the lack of true information being shared. The friend who had originally posted the status had stopped commenting around number 20 when one of the more opinionated Conservatives in the thread had said: “Of COURSE the man hating feminist is against having babies.”

Whoa.

First of all: this person clearly did not know the difference between feminism and misandry (but that’s a topic for another post). Second: they demonstrate the problem with posting political arguments on your profile.

Now, I am all for sharing your political opinions on social media. Unfortunately, you rarely see people posting statuses that are level-headed and based on fact. Rather, you’ll find opinions rooted in anger and ignorance that employ such devices as name-calling (as seen above) or references to religion that have no relevance to the argument. Also, more often than not, these hot-button topics like abortion, or gay rights, or feminism, spur debates that don’t go anywhere or change anything. Those topics are just small facets of larger issues that need to be addressed: sexual education, women’s health, women’s rights, the definition of marriage, etc.

Let’s look at the short and sweet status that started all this: “Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.” The reason I liked it so much is because it’s really not about abortion at all. What this status is saying in as few words as possible is that Pro-Choice is about a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. Pro-Choice says that we, as free American citizens, do not have the right to make decisions for thousands of women we have never met. It does not mean that, if given the choice, we would choose abortion. It doesn’t matter. Every woman is different and every single one should be able to decide what happens to her body. And yes, until that baby comes out of her vagina, it is part of her body.

But the topic of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is at the tail end of a problem that begins with sex ed. Yes, those awkward hours of listening to your school’s P.E. teacher telling you how to put on condoms and explaining STIs. Did you know that not every school kid had to have that class? And of those who did, only a fraction got medically accurate information?

We all laugh at that scene from Mean Girls when Coach Carr is talking about how pregnancy will kill you. You know the one.

The not-so-funny part is that some kids actually receive that type of education from their teachers. According to this map put together by the Huffington Post, in the year 2014 several states don’t even require their schools to share information on contraception.

Courtesy of the The Huffington Post.

If there’s one thing that’s true about teenagers it’s that if they want to have sex, they will. Especially if you tell them not to. How can we expect them to have safe sex, and prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancies, if they don’t have all the information they need to know? It is only logical that if the number of people using contraception goes up, the number of unwanted pregnancies — and therefore abortions — will go down.

Sex ed restrictions aren’t merely for schools, though. Organizations like Planned Parenthood exist to give women and men information about contraceptives, STIs, abortions, adoptions, and healthcare. Yet, people continue to fight these organizations because they perform abortions. The focus, for some reason, is on just one of the many helpful services offered. But, like drugs and firearms, if you make something illegal people will still get their hands on it — and illegal abortions are definitely not safe.

So, for the safety and sanity of all the sexually active people out there: stop arguing about abortion and instead provide some alternatives to the dismal state of sex ed in America. And remember, when arguing about political issues on social media, keep it calm, accurate, and open-minded.

Morgan McMurray

The post Discussing Abortion Distracts From Root Issue: Sex Ed appeared first on Law Street.