On Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden launched their new charitable foundation, the Biden Foundation. This will be a continuation of the couple’s work on equal rights, which they focused on during their years in office. The new organization will prioritize fighting cancer, ending violence against women and children, supporting military families, and achieving equal rights for all.

The fight against cancer became particularly important to the Biden family after Joe’s oldest son Beau passed away from the disease in May 2015. The foundation will continue to support the Cancer Moonshot Initiative–the White House anti-cancer effort that Biden headed–which aims to find the cure. Jill Biden is a college professor and will keep working on her longtime goal to increase people’s access to affordable, high-quality education. In a video promoting the new foundation, the former vice president said, “As long as we have a breath in us, we’re going to be working on it.”

Joe and Jill Biden announce The Biden Foundation in new vid, plan to focus on cancer research, violence against women, foreign policy issues pic.twitter.com/z6296Cp8wi

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2017

The foundation’s executive director will be Louisa Terrell, who used to work for Facebook, Yahoo, and for Joe Biden when he was a senator. The board will also consist of several former Biden aides and advisers. It will accept donations from private foundations, donor-advised funds, and corporate foundations, but not from foreign citizens, entities, or any other foreign sources. In a statement the Bidens said:

We look forward to this new chapter where we will continue our work to ensure that everyone—no matter their income level, race, gender, age, or sexuality—is treated with dignity and gets a fair shot at achieving the American Dream.

In the promotional video, Biden also said he has high hopes for the millennial generation, calling it the most open, most tolerant, and most generous generation in American History. He said that we now have the power to change the culture, “Just as we did when we spoke up and said that the only criteria for who you marry should be who you love.”

From fighting cancer to changing the culture on domestic violence — we’re just getting started. Join us: https://t.co/QHaFokMnrZ

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 1, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Joe and Jill Biden Launch Foundation for Equal Rights and Cancer Research appeared first on Law Street.

One of the richest people on earth, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdelaziz Alsaud, published a note on Wednesday urging Saudi Arabia to lift its driving ban on women. “It is high time that Saudi women started driving their cars,” he wrote on his personal website, citing economic, social, religious, and political reasons as to why Saudi Arabia should do away with the highly controversial ban.

Though he is not a member of the government, Alwaleed is highly influential, due in large part to his vast estate. Alwaleed, a billionaire, is the chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company, which invests in Citigroup, Disney, Apple, Twitter, and a handful of other prominent U.S. and European companies. His sentiment is unlikely to directly result in a change in government policy, but in a kingdom where money is power, Alwaleed’s opinion could have an effect.

“Preventing a women from driving a car is today an issue of rights similar to the one that forbade her from receiving an education or having an independent identity,” he wrote in the four-page note. “They are all unjust acts by a traditional society, far more restrictive than what is lawfully allowed by the precepts of religion.”

كفى نقاش:

حان وقت قيادة المرأة للسيارةhttps://t.co/BBgyF8i1Gs

Stop the debate:

Time for women to drivehttps://t.co/6KAniFa4BT

— الوليد بن طلال (@Alwaleed_Talal) November 29, 2016

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world with a driving ban, which is enforced by religious police. Though it’s not technically illegal for women to drive, they cannot be issued driver’s licenses, which in effect does make driving an illegal activity for women. While women throughout the country have protested the ban, and have been jailed for doing so, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in April that he is “not convinced” women should drive.

With some of the harshest restrictions on women in the world, Saudi Arabia recently reached a milestone many countries reached decades ago: as of last December, women in the kingdom can vote and run in local elections.

Another reason to lift the driving ban, Alwaleed contends, is that it would allow the country to “dispense with the services” of the estimated one million foreigners who work in the country as drivers, shuttling women to where they need to be. The average Saudi family spends 3,800 riyal (about $1,000) each month on a driver, he said. Lifting the ban and removing these drivers from the streets, he said, would “lower traffic accidents and decrease the congestion at airports, banks, hospitals, etc., thereby affording better access to a number of services to the Saudi citizenry.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saudi Prince: It’s “High Time” Women Should be Allowed to Drive appeared first on Law Street.

The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

TIME magazine is running an online poll asking which words need to be banned. As TIME explains its own criteria for the “word to ban”:

If you hear that word one more time, you will definitely cringe. You may exhale pointedly. And you might even seek out the nearest pair of chopsticks and thrust them through your own eardrums like straws through plastic lids. What word is this? You tell us.

The words on the list range from industry buzzwords like “influencer” to attacks on pop culture with words like “bae,” “basic,” and “turnt,” to overly misused words like “literally.”

But there’s one that really sticks out to me–“feminist.” TIME thinks feminist is a word so noxious that it’s worth being banned. But it’s not just TIME, but its voters too, because “feminist” is winning with 50 percent of the votes. There is speculation, though, that “feminist” is dominating the poll so heartedly because of the efforts of notable equality-lovers over on 4chan.

There is a multitude of ways in which this upsets me, the point where I literally just can’t even. (One of the other phrases to make the list.)

Feminism has a controversial history, fine, that’s not a secret. Law Street’s feminist blog, by the inimitable Hannah Winsten, is called “The F Word” in a not so subtle nod to the controversy that surrounds the word. And sure, the word feminism has been bastardized and maligned, and yes, there are “feminists” who have taken it too far. It’s a word that has a history just as rich and controversial and storied as the fight for equal rights itself. Just because some people don’t get it, don’t use it correctly, or find it annoying does not strip it of its meaning. The reason that TIME put for including it on the list was:

You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.

Hey TIME: just because you’re tired of how often the word is used doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used. And what’s this utter BS about “sticking to the issues” instead. The fact that in this day and age the word “feminist” still invokes so much ridicule and hate is an issue unto itself. If you need to be convinced of this, watch this video of feminists reading threatening tweets about themselves.

The fact that feminism is still so controversial a topic in 2014 that women regularly get rape and death threats tweeted at them is proof that we need the word. Pretending that it doesn’t exist or saying that we need a less controversial word isn’t suddenly going to make these kinds of assholes decide: “Oh, never mind, I guess I’ll stop threatening to rape women because they call what they’re fighting for a different word now. Carry on.”

And why does TIME have such a serious problem with celebrities being asked if they are feminists or not? I’d much rather hear that answer from the people whose faces adorn the news way more than they should than an answer to the “boxers vs. briefs” question for the seven millionth time.

No matter how others try to co-opt the meaning, feminism is a pretty simple concept to understand–according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it means “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” While being a “feminist” means something a little different to each of us who identify that way, to see it on the same page as words like “obvi” and “yaaassss”–which aren’t even words–is insulting. No one has ever been asked if they’re a man-hater or a lesbian (no, those are not the same thing but yes some people think they are) for typing “yaaassss.” No one has ever, to my knowledge, gotten death threats for using the word “obvi.” There’s history there, and for TIME to pretend that there isn’t is offensive.

For the record, even if TIME bans the word, I’m going to keep identifying as a feminist. It’s part of my story, my history, and my worldview. I’m a feminist and damn proud of it. Too bad a magazine with the twelfth highest circulation in the country is too ashamed to say the same thing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No TIME, We Shouldn’t Ban the Word Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I try not to spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the local news in Houston because it’s usually about someone getting killed or the meteorologist getting the weather wrong yet again. But I noticed a tweet from my local outlet about Houston’s mayor Annise Parker doing something crazy. That something crazy is subpoenaing pastors over their sermons.

I will be 100 percent honest and let you know that I am not fond of Mayor Parker. She drives me insane. Not because she is a Democrat or a lesbian but because her ideals of how to run this city are just bananas! (Sidenote: I do really hate how every news outlet constantly identifies Mayor Parker as the “first openly lesbian mayor of a major city.” I mean this with all do respect, but who gives a crap at this point!? She’s been mayor of Houston for four years — time to let that go. This is why we can never be seen as more than our gender and sexuality. Stop identifying people by these two labels — she is MAYOR ANNISE PARKER! What does her sexual preference have to do with running this city? Absolutely nothing! Off my soap box.)

The city’s Equal Rights Ordinance was voted on back in May and is now being challenged for various reasons. The ordinance included a “bathroom” clause that was eventually dropped, which regulated which bathrooms a transgender person could use. Over the summer, opponents of the ordinance delivered 50,000 signatures for repeal— nearly triple the minimum necessary number of 17,269. In this case, good ol’ Mayor Parker — champion of the ordinance — has decided to take away the First Amendment rights of pastors in Houston by subpoenaing the sermons and other communications of pastors who opposed the ordinance and collected signatures in church.

The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. So why does Mayor Parker and her cronies think it was okay to subpoena their sermons? Let’s just start to chip away at the constitution a little bit at a time until we have no more rights. Who needs rights or to be protected by the law anyway?

I certainly do love how Mayor Parker and City Attorney Dave Feldman have started to back track on everything since the subpoenas were issued on Monday; they are now claiming that they have realized that the subpoenas were too broad. Too broad? You basically want to see everything that is being said about you and stripping away the rights of fellow Houstonians. It’s like the popular girl in high school finding out someone doesn’t agree with her and then demanding to find out everything that is being said behind her back. Grow up! Not even two days after the subpoenas were issued Mr. Feldman received criticism from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stating that the subpoenas needed to be withdrawn immediately. Hmmm. City attorney versus Attorney General of the State of Texas. Who do you think has more clout?

Mayor Parker needs to set aside her own personal agenda and do what’s right for the whole city and maybe take into account the reason why she is in the position she is in. Wouldn’t it make sense to know about the laws and the Constitution before trying to get your way? You just made yourself look like a fool, Annise.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Houston Mayor Annise Parker Violating First Amendment Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

A men’s rights movement has gained momentum within the last several years with the goals of reclaiming rights for men in society. One offshoot of the movement, the Red Pill, is accused of being inspired by a largely misogynistic attitude. This accusation is based on the attacks on women for using and abusing men, and essentially being the “evil” of the sexes. In addition to its major presence on social media, Men’s Rights activists have attempted to gain awareness through conferences and rallies. The Men’s Rights Movement, still controversial in nature, has legitimate goals in that it is working to gain equal rights by advocating for the equal treatment of boys and men in professional, educational, and legal situations. Some feel that this is a hidden effort to disguise prejudice against women, yet men continue to protest their desire to be “equal” citizens in a society where they believe that women currently have all the power. Read on for more information about the Men’s Rights movement and its Social Media counterpart, the Red Pill Movement.

What is the Red Pill Movement?

The Red Pill Movement is comprised of a group of men who hold a certain animosity toward women, believing them to be manipulative, unfaithful, and narcissistic. They band together primarily through social media and rant about their hatred of the opposite sex. Men who “take” the red pill are choosing to live a life free of emotional attachment to any a woman for fear that she will use him for his status, money, or emotional stability. The term red pill has its roots in the 1999 movie “The Matrix.” The red pill symbolizes the consumption of the truth, whereas taking the blue pill results in pure ignorance. Advocates for the Red Pill Movement believe that by taking the red pill, or consuming this eye-opening knowledge, they are becoming aware of women and their antics.

Social Media

Reddit, a social media site where individuals can share information such as texts, photographs, and personal opinions, is the main platform of the Red Pill Movement. Here men rant about their misunderstanding of and hatred for the opposite sex. The theme of most threads is how women are cheating, lying, manipulative, and narcissistic. Members often communicate in a verbally violent and insulting manner toward females and share their negative experiences of being taken advantage of, used, and insulted by women.

The Men’s Rights Movement

While the Red Pill Movement is based on the belief that women are wicked in nature, the Men’s Rights Movement actually does have some concrete goals that members would like to accomplish. According to the Huffington Post, goals of  the pro-men’s rights group Canadian Association for Equality, are mainly to bring awareness about “shared custody of children, unhealthy perceptions of masculinity, declining rates of university enrollment, spousal abuse, and suicide.” Since the Men’s Rights Movement is fairly new, there hasn’t been any policy or legislation enacted yet. The main goal of the group is to draw attention to the issues that men face in a society that tend to focus more on gaining women’s rights and recognition.

Rape

The Men’s Rights Movement emphasizes how often they believe men to be wrongfully accused of rape. Members argue that society has created a stigma that victimizes women and paints a picture of men as violently sexual predators. Many posters and arguments of the movement highlight the idea that women are partially responsible for any sexual acts that occur, in that they consume alcohol and choose to have sex with a man who they then turn around and accuse of rape.

Child Custody

The movement argues that women often receive custody in divorce, and men are unfairly assigned the monetary responsibilities.

#Feminist single motherhood in a nutshell #feminismisawful #NoMRA #MRA @Typhonblue @JudgyBitch1 @AlyssMajere @icmi14 pic.twitter.com/uFyOcaWrIL — Chloé J.F. Berg (@ChloeShell18) July 17, 2014

Domestic Violence

The Men’s Rights Movement accuses society of labeling domestic violence as one sided, in that men commit of all of the abuse. Advocates for men’s rights argue that women are just as responsible for violence in the home, yet it goes unrecognized because of the negative stigma attached to men.

Suicide 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79 percent of all U.S. suicides.” The Men’s Rights Movement aims to prevent this alarming epidemic in men. By providing support and encouragement to young men, members believe that this could eliminate some of the suicides that occur in response to emotional and mental disturbances and abuse.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men is a website that compiles information on the Men’s Rights Movement. The organization’s argument revolves around the theory of gynocentrism, the belief that males have bent to the demands of women for centuries. In addition to the organization’s website, the group has a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter dedicated to the Men’s Rights Movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxcXldIFsbQ

The International Men’s Rights Conference 

The Men’s rights movement is increasingly gaining popularity on the grounds that women are the more powerful sex. According to activists, men face the adverse effects of a certain stigma that society has ingrained into them throughout history. At the first International Men’s Rights Conference held in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, both men and women gathered to discuss the issue. Men’s rights activists believe that men face difficulty in society, which has forced them to live out life as “second-class-citizens,” and that men are continuously blamed for rape. According to conference attendee Barbara Kay,

“The vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides…It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”

Men also blamed their feelings toward women on their early childhood experiences. According to Stefan Molyneux, “If we could just get [women] to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.” Molyneux continued to say that women are responsible for choosing the abuser-types, or in his word “a-holes.” “Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil,” he adds later. “And then know what they say? ‘We’re victims!”

Watch a spoof video below satirizing how women react to men at bars. All jokes aside, this comedic video is indicative of many of the views expressed by members of the Red Pill Movement.

This movement is not just in the United States but many other countries, as well, particularly in the East. Where feminism empowers women, the Red Pill or Men’s Rights  movement cripples them. In a disturbing piece written by Kim Tong-hyung, a professor of medicine at Seoul National University in Korea, Lee Yoon-seong blames women for the rape epidemic. Yoon-seong says:

“If there is money on the street, somebody will pick it up. If there is a woman walking around with sexy clothing, there will be somebody who rapes her …”

The Men’s Human Rights Rally

A men’s rights rally was organized in Toronto, Canada on September 28, 2013. Participants claimed that men are just as likely to face domestic abuse, have a higher rate of suicide, die earlier, and drop out of school as women. They argued that men make up “90 percent” of the prison population and are less likely to get a job after graduation. Thirty people fought for the movement to gain acceptance and recognition. This was a controversial rally, in that some people felt that it was simply a blow to women and masking an underlying current of misogyny.

Case Study: Elliot Rodger and the Santa Barbara shootings

In May 2014 a 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in Isla Vist, California that was fueled by his resentment of the women who rejected him and the men who received their affections instead. Rodger left behind a video in which he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.”

Watch the chilling video of Elliot Rodger before his killing spree.

Rodger was reportedly driven to murder because of the rejection he felt from most women. He complains of being a “22-year-old virgin,” and blames his lack of sexual success on the opposite sex. Clearly, there are other mental health issues that contribute to his feelings of rage, yet his outlet is to target what he believed was the source of his depression and anger for a good portion of his life. Rodger was not the only one who had these hostile feelings toward women; Men’s Rights advocates band together to speak of their negative experiences with women and rant about how they have caused them to live a life of misery and deceit. Some of the arguments are extreme, unreasonably blaming an entire sex for the source of a man’s unhappiness in life.

Rape as a Tool

Case Study: Rape Internationally

According to CNN, “rape has too often become the weapon of choice for frustrated young men who blame women, increasingly visible in the workplace, for their unemployment, and who hope to regain jobs by frightening women back home through sexual violence.” Men are being fueled by their anger toward women; they may feel threatened or humiliated by them and are using the most powerful tool that they have to attack in the most sexually aggressive and destructive way possible. Between 2006 and 2011, rape cases in India rose by twenty-five percent. Even more disturbing, only one quarter of the rapists were convicted. Rape is an increasing normality in India and indicative of the lack of support that women receive in the predominantly patriarchal society. Similarly, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, in the United States, 97 percent of violent rapists will not be convicted and 54 percent of cases are not even reported.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence works to alleviate some of the gender violence conducted against women internationally, specifically in times of war and conflict. Its main goals are to increase services offered to individuals who have been victims of violence and rape, gain justice for victims, and ultimately stop the aggression toward women.

Battling the Red Pill

Social Media to Combat the Red Pill Movement

In response to a society that seems to breed rape culture, the Twitter movement #YesAllWomen has emerged on Twitter. According to Time, the #YesAllWomen hashtag was created “to criticize the way society teaches men to feel entitled to women at the expense of their health, safety and, in [the Santa Barbara shooter] Rodger’s case, lives.” The online campaign was created to empower women, and expand on the belief that women are worth more than their physical appearance. It also brings awareness to how women are constantly placed in sexually offensive and uncomfortable situations. A recent post links to a list of (in)appropriate responses to cat-callers on the street. Tweets such as this one:

Because tweets like this should not exist #YesAllWomen pic.twitter.com/Ng84ItSXjD — Izabella (@izabellaanna_) July 14, 2014

Organizations Against Rape Culture

Organizations such as People Against Rape Culture, are fighting back by attempting to educate, collaborate, and advocate so that people will become more aware of rape culture. There are also organizations that include man’s involvement. Men Can Stop Rape has compiled a list of Men’s Anti-Violence Organizations. The group has also used collaborative methods, such as the Strength Campaign, to educate boys in middle schools, high schools, and universities and assist them in working on relationships with peers, teachers, family members, and members of their community.

Conclusion

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, therefore whether or not the Men’s Rights Movement results in any legislation is irrelevant to its existence as a legitimate movement. This holds true for the Red Pill Movement, as well; however, that it is breeding an extreme sense of animosity toward an entire gender. Governments must continue to educate and prosecute those people who violently and sexually violate women, no matter where the source of that anger comes from.

Resources

Business Insider: Inside Red Pill, the Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women

WorldNews Network: Deadly California rampage: Chilling video, but no match for reality

Washington Post: Men’s Rights Activists, Gathering to Discuss All the Ways Society Has Done Them Wrong

Times of India: Low Conviction Rate Spurring Sexual Assault Cases in India

TIME: The Most Powerful #YesAllWomen Tweets

RAINN: 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive no Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

TIME: What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s-Rights Conference

Southern Poverty Law Center: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women

Ms. Foundation: Stopping the Violence Against Women 

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Pill and the Men’s Rights Movement appeared first on Law Street.