how to wear a suit.

june cleaver, via takefive

Today, I wore a suit.

This wasn’t my first time. But—as usual—I was struck by how uncomfortable I looked and how awkwardly the collar of my dress shirt laid upon the lapel of my blazer.

Remember Ralphie’s little brother, Randy, in A Christmas Story? Remember his snow suit? It felt a lot like that.

Now, perhaps it’s just an ill-fitting suit, but I doubt it: everything was tailored just fine. No, this wasn’t so easy to explain away. When I looked in the mirror, I just felt sort of shapeless and boxy. More significantly, I felt like I was playing dress-up in an outfit—and an image—that doesn’t belong to me.

—————

Suzanne Venker would like to exploit validate this insecurity. In her Fox News op-ed entitled “The War on Men,” women are harangued for seeking out higher education and full-time careers because “women aren’t women anymore.” As a result, “the men have nowhere to go.”

Luckily, Venker breaks down her argument in easy-to-digest pieces so even my feeble female brain can understand. Her argument is simple: “Men want to love women, not compete with them.” The solution? Even more simple: As a woman, all I have to do is “surrender to [my] nature—-[my] femininity—and let men surrender to theirs.”

While this is exceptionally good news for me (like I said, I look awkward in a suit; strollers and aprons are much more flattering), what I worry most about is what our daughters’ futures will look like with such bleak and repressive attitudes towards them.

—————

It’s not enough to slut-shame. It’s not enough to rape-shame (…and rape-shame…and rape-shame). Now, we must ensure that our girls understand that this overwhelming world of education and self-sufficiency is—really—no place for a lady.

Instead, all too often, powerful women are accused of being overbearing, masculine, unladylike, and—worst of all—unattractive. Thus the “feminine” Kardashian archetype becomes the new role model because even if they’re not the smartest or nicest women, at least they’re pretty.

—————

I cannot tell you how many times this has come up in my interactions with middle-school girls: pretty lips, pretty eyes, flat stomach, curvy hips, cleavage, “good hair.” It broke my heart every time that grace or intellect or humor were afterthoughts—if they were even thought of at all. This is our value system, and it becomes all the more apparent when reflected within the autonomy-shaming vitriol espoused by Venker and her anti-feminist cohorts.

In reviewing what sort of external attitudes we would like ourselves to be subject to and what sort of lives we want for our daughters, we must first determine what sort of role models we will choose to be. Blaming women and shaming young girls away from academic achievement and self-reliance only serves to defend the disparities and further feed into self-esteem issues, thereby weakening our society as a whole.

The real solution to this social schism has nothing to do with surrendering; in fact, it’s just the opposite. If we hope to provide a “balanced life” for our girls, we must first demonstrate the value of their minds and demand their self-image be derived from a place of internal power, rather than external perception.

Essentially, we must first teach them how to wear a suit.

worth the fight.

via YWLP

Last year during mentoring, one of my seventh graders confided that she spent every evening—from the time she got home from school until she went to bed—taking care of her four younger siblings. She explained how this meant that she often didn’t have time to even look at her homework, and she was usually too tired during the day to stay awake during class. Her mom worked two jobs and didn’t get home until after midnight, so it was up to my seventh grader to babysit, make dinner, do the chores, bathe her siblings, and get everyone into bed.

When I asked her about school, she shrugged. “I don’t know. I’m too tired… But I don’t really care—it’s not like I even like any of my teachers anyways.”

———–
The statistics clearly show that my seventh grader is just one of many students not properly served by our current system. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 4.1% of all high school students dropped out of school between October 2008 and October 2009 (NCES, p. 8). While this number has lowered significantly since the 1970’s and 1980’s, 4.1% per year could easily turn into 16.4% total by the time an incoming freshman class is supposed to graduate.

Furthermore, the distinction between high school completion rates across race and socioeconomic status are staggering. Over 9.3% of black young adults (aged 16-24) have dropped out, and that number skyrockets to 17.6% for Latinos (NCES, p. 9). Additionally, students from low income homes were five times more likely to drop out than students from middle or high income families (NCES, p. 6).

———–

My 7th grader is easily on track to become yet another addition to that statistic. In the particular school I mentored for, Buford Middle School, 56% of the students were eligible for free or reduced lunch (over 48% eligible for free lunch alone). Already—in a school that serves only 7th and 8th graders—the dropout rate was 4.1%.

———–

Having spent the past couple years working with Buford Middle’s at-risk seventh grade girls, I can understand that it’s easy for an educator to begin feeling helpless—especially as one continues to witness greater levels of student potential intermingled with greater levels of adversity. However, it is this potential, above all else, that demonstrates why it is so critical for us to keep fighting.

Whether weighing different types of responses to bullying, seeking out additional homework help, or explaining the subtle intricacies between “going with” and “talking to” someone, my girls have already navigated difficult circumstances, adverse social cues, and responsibility beyond what any 12-year-old should have on her shoulders.

The part of mentoring that impacted me the most was not the bonding and connections formed, nor the joy of facilitating young girls’ development into young women (although both of those were equally powerful experiences). Instead, it was that—each day—I witnessed these students weigh their options between giving up or moving forward. For each day that they chose to move forward, I felt that much more committed to my own promise to be there with them every step of the way. For the more difficult days where they wanted to call it quits, their struggle provided me strength to keep pushing and served as a reminder of why that promise is—and will remain—so important.

————

There are so many different ways to make a positive impact, and—if you can find a few hours per month to spare—I would highly encourage you to get involved. While we may not be able to overcome all of the difficulties our students are facing, the value of having someone to motivate them to stay in school, work through their challenges, and find value in themselves and in others really can make the difference in determining a child’s outcome.

That alone is worth the fight.

via YWLP

“a friend you haven’t made yet.”

With the 2012 election right around the corner, our televisions and websites have been inundated with lofty promises, public endorsements, and snarky sound bites. Furthermore, everyone (admittedly, myself included) appears to have something to say about each of the candidates, their platforms, and the “correct” vision for our nation’s future.

It’s easy to get swept up in the rhetoric, especially as many of these issues are highly polarized (and thus highly emotional). From social issues like gay marriage and abortion rights and rape to the national deficit and job creation, we are shown candidates that seemingly disagree on all topics—which in turn means that each group of partisan supporters must disagree on all topics.

Add name-calling and bullying to the mix, and the situation quickly becomes volatile.
—————-

 
There’s already been a great deal of discussion surrounding hatemonger “conservative political pundit” Ann Coulter, for her incendiary and classless use of the term “retard” in reference to President Obama. I refuse to fuel the fire by engaging Coulter on this topic: her desperate words do not interest me.

What does matter, however, is the vast outpouring of support for those disparaged by her offensive remarks and the public outcry against this hateful rhetoric. But in our denunciation of her bad behavior, we must be careful: all too often, we elect to “fight fire with fire” and—although it may provide a temporary feeling of vindication—this approach offers nothing conducive to effecting change.

—————

It is in recognition of this fact that John Franklin Stephens’ “Open Letter to Ann Coulter” has made such a positive impact on so many people in the past few days. Where there is bitterness and division, Stephens counters with acceptance and kindness. He reminds us that “being compared to people like [him] should be considered a badge of honor” because “no one overcomes more than [they] do and still loves life so much.”

Stephens’ first op-ed piece, “Using the word ‘retard’ to describe me hurts,” is even more poignant as those of us fortunate enough to “fit in” are reminded of our blessing:

“The hardest thing about having an intellectual disability is the loneliness. We process information slower than everyone else. So even normal conversation is a constant battle for us not to lose touch with what the rest of you are saying. Most of the time the words and thoughts just go too fast for us to keep up, and when we finally say something it seems out of place.

So, what’s wrong with “retard”? I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group. We are something that is not like you and something that none of you would ever want to be. We are something outside the “in” group. We are someone that is not your kind.”

This is the sort of essay that needs to be present in our schools, our offices, and in our homes. The distinction between casually and callously throwing around a disparaging term (simply for the sake of being disparaging) and Stephens’ thoughtful and sensitive response is overwhelming.

As I read his words, I am filled with admiration and pride that there are still people fighting for kindness and promoting tolerance. I am persuaded, I am energized, and I am prepared to support fellowship by eliminating hatred.

the education justice fight.

[via HuffPost]

Although Chicago’s Public Schools have reached a tentative deal to end the Chicago Teachers’ Strike, the cost to parents, taxpayers, and—above all else—students has already been significant. While there will undoubtedly be further debate on what sort of national implications this ordeal will have, the primary question that must be addressed is simple: “How can we avoid this from happening again?”

The Chicago Teachers’ Union president, Karen Lewis, called upon parents during her Sunday evening speech to “join…in [their] education justice fight.” According to CTU, at stake in this battle are teachers’ evaluations, job security, working conditions, and the broader issues surrounding student violence, homelessness, and poverty. According to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the only contested issues left pertain to principals’ ability to choose their staff and how to balance teachers’ evaluation demands with mandated legislation.

What is most curious about Lewis’ rally to protect students from “exposure to violence, homelessness, hunger, and other social issues beyond [teachers’] control” is that this particular method of protest places those students in the very dangers she claims to be fighting against.

While teachers picket, the Chicago community has been forced to pick up the slack. Faith-based organizations have offered “safe havens,” 144 of the public schools have offered morning activities and free meals for impoverished students, and all administrative police personnel have been deployed to Chicago’s streets in order to offer additional student protection. CTU has acknowledged that these “children are exposed to unprecedented levels of neighborhood violence,” yet they cannot—or, rather, will not—find alternative methods of protest in order to promote the safety of their students.

It is the Union’s position that teachers’ “job security is stability for [their] students.” Considering that stability requires students knowing they have a safe place and meals provided for them, CTU’s actions over the past week have demonstrated clearly that this fight for teachers’ security has come at the cost of students’ safety and well-being. Lewis calls for the Chicago community to “evaluate us on what we do, not on the lives of our children that we do not control.” If what they are doing is choosing politics and personal gain above student welfare, how can we offer anything but a failing evaluation for how the Unions are handling an educational policy crisis?

Certainly, the end of the strike is just the beginning of many continuing conversations about education reform and teachers’ collective bargaining rights. However, it is wholly disheartening to realize that the students have become the true victims of the CTU’s “education justice fight.”

much more than a marriage debate.

North Carolina’s Referendum on Amendment One (i.e. “The Marriage Amendment”) was passed this evening. For any of you who may have heard about this initiative, please understand the implications of this amendment span far beyond gay marriage rights.

As it stands, gay marriage is already banned in North Carolina by statute, so the issue at hand for Amendment One was not actually about the definition of marriage itself, but rather about revoking the rights of couples—both same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike—that are in domestic partnerships.

It is already an audacious pursuit to propose a “marriage” amendment to the North Carolina state Constitution, as its self-professed “pro-marriage” aim is essentially to restrict individual liberties by permitting a government body to distinguish between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” family structures. Furthermore, what is equally alarming is the additional threat this amendment will now pose for womenchildren, and the elderly, as well as to the notion of “family” as a domestic legal entity deserving of certain rights.

At this junction in the debate, however, an appeal for embracing basic individual dignity or—at least a “live and let live” attitude—towards those seeking a domestic partnership will likely fall upon deaf ears: most people familiar with the issue have already chosen a “side.” Instead, allow me to focus on the pragmatic concerns of implementing such a piece of legislation into our legal and societal framework:

  • In the event of an accident or incapacitation, an unmarried person has no legal rights to make emergency medical or financial decisions for his or her partner, and has no protected rights for hospital visitation.
  • Unmarried victims of domestic violence will no longer be protected under domestic violence statutes as a direct result of the limitation on the legal definition of “family.” Concurrently, abusive partners are able to use this limitation as a defense against criminal charges of domestic violence, thereby resulting in case dismissals.
  • Children of unmarried parents may lose health insurance, depending on the child’s biological relation to the partner with benefits.
  • By prohibiting any other types of legal relationship recognition (e.g. civil unions, domestic partnership, common law, etc), all legal agreements—including custody rights, medical directives, wills, visitation, etc—must be established through “enforceable contracts among private parties,” resulting in either unnecessary financial strain as a result of accruing legal fees or in foregoing civil protection as a result of their inability to afford a lawyer.

While I recognize that this referendum was voted on—and, indeed, passed—through the very democratic process our country was founded upon, my fear is that there are unforeseen implications in the interpretation and enforcement of this amendment that have not been made clear to voters. A review of the Vote for Marriage NC “fact sheet” further illustrates a lack of significant consideration given to the potential legal repercussions to this amendment.

For example, in addressing the “myth” pertaining to this amendment’s profound unforeseen consequences, “Vote For Marriage NC” glosses over this concern with the rationalization that—since the amendment is a mere two sentences long—it could not possibly entail such inadvertently damaging effects. This is, of course, absurd: it is directly because of this oversimplification of phrasing that so many legal uncertainties have surfaced.

Additionally, the self-proclaimed “pro-marriage” organization offers a very different picture of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling pertaining to a similar ban on domestic partnership, stating simply that the “[Ohio] Supreme Court made clear that their marriage protection amendment would not impact the application of the state domestic violence laws.” What “Vote for Marriage NC” fails to mention is the three-year debacle that precipitated that Court ruling, as well as the 30+ domestic violence cases that were either dismissed or overturned on appeal as a direct result of the Ohio ban on domestic partnership.

Putting the “Vote For Marriage NC” campaign’s bigoted ideologies aside, without a full picture of the implications Amendment One will have on North Carolina’s legal system or social climate, we cannot reasonably expect voters to make an informed decision to vote for this measure. Without such critical information, can we reasonably expect to successfully promote and uphold our own nation’s democratic ideals?

It is ironic to consider that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects each citizen’s right to exercise his or her own freedom of religion, and yet it appears that religious dogmatism has allowed North Carolina to justify infringing upon our citizens’ basic civil rights. Regardless of your individual religious convictions, please consider what it means to be an American citizen by signing the Petition to repeal Amendment One.

Sign the Petition.