Things I Wish Would End #3: Equal Work, Unequal Pay

“It’s not that I don't want to have children, it’s that I’m afraid that I’ll never be able to afford them,” said a friend of mine a few days ago in a conversation in our Women’s and Gender Studies seminar on Mothers and Daughters. This week in class, we’ve been reading a book called The Motherhood Manifesto by Joan Blades- it’s a fabulous read I would highly recommend to any woman in America before you begin the process of family planning. Here are some things I’ve learned:

When this book was published, women…

• Make up 46% of the workforce (that number is certainly larger now, six years later)
• 81% of women between the ages of 25-34 are in the workforce
• 82% of women become mothers by the time they turn 40
• In America, women make 77 cents to every male dollar
• Non-mothers make about 10% less than men on the whole; single mothers make 34% less
• Mothers are 44% LESS likely to be hired than non-mothers
• If a woman spends 3 or more years out of the labor force, she suffers a 37% loss of earnings

It is mere coincidence that our professor assigned this book at the exact moment that the Senate chose to block Obama’s revisions to the Paycheck Fairness Act, ones which would close loopholes and prevent further gender-based discrimination from taking place in the workplace. Despite the opposition, Obama still issued an executive order prohibiting contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other, as well as mandates to the Department of Labor to start collecting data on how much contractors pay employees by sex and race.

My question(s) to the GOP spokespeople who deemed these moves by Obama and the Dems to be just another “desperate political ploy” to rally voter support are thus: Why is it so unfathomable that politicians would see equal pay to women and minorities as an important issue to address, one which can be linked to a boost in the overall economy? Why are we continuing to subsidize inequality in big businesses by allowing a low minimum wage to persist (a problem which affects women more prominently, as they already face a pay deficit)? Why are we crippling our mothers, those who are responsible for the next generation of Americans by refusing to hire them or offer the benefits they need?

By way of addressing these questions, I’m going to outline what I see to be three detriments of persisting pay inequality in America, and in doing this, hopefully clear up any doubt that this blatant discrimination (because that’s what this all boils down to…discrimination and perhaps greed) has got to stop.

First, inequality of pay cripples the workforce by promoting dissatisfaction and higher turnover among workers, increasing training and recruiting costs for companies due to higher turnover, and allows for big businesses to continue to pay their workers low wages at the expense of American taxpayers. I know that’s a mouthful, so bear with me. For most Americans, economic security begins with being able to make enough money to afford basic food, healthcare, housing, education, and other necessities. In this day and age, when the cost of living is ever-inflating, more and more people are falling below the poverty line because minimum wage and what constitutes a living wage are no longer synonymous. People in these jobs are forced to either search for higher paying options or work long, complicated work schedules just to make ends meet, mothers in particular affected by this problem (due to aforementioned hiring and pay disparities).This creates greater expenses for the companies, as higher turnover requires more money to recruit new employees to fill those created gaps, and train them once they are hired.

The Women vs. Wal-Mart Supreme Court case of 2011 is a perfect example of how this pay deficit affects the American taxpayers at large (this case cited in The Motherhood Manifesto). In this case, a single mother working at Wal-Mart to support her family realized that a male coworker was making 10,000 dollars more per year than her. She subsequently filed an employee discrimination lawsuit, which she lost by the way, the courts finding no way to prove gender discrimination across a company as large as this one. My point here is this: by paying this mother significantly less, despite the fact that she has the same responsibilities as her male coworker (children, bills, etc.) Wal-Mart is increasing the possibility of a need for welfare, or other government aid to supplement her low-paying job. In a country where the average CEO salary is millions of dollars, does it not make more sense to level the proverbial playing fields of salaries, demanding a living wage for all employees, rather than subsidizing the greed and discrimination of big businesses with taxpayer dollars?

Second, this persisting wage gap cripples the American family by making it more difficult for even two salaries to meet the basic needs that accompany having children. As already stated, the cost of living in the country is ever-growing. More and more families require two salaries to make ends meet each month, and this fact certainly is a factor in the rise of women in the workforce in past years. However, a new state-by-state analysis by the National Partnership for Women and Families reveals just how much this pay inequality affects the American family. The study is based on US Census data, and it analyzed the gender pay gap and women's spending power in all 50 states. It also looked at race, which made the gender pay gap even greater. They found that large disparities exist across the states for both racial minorities and women.

The report found that, for instance, if a woman working full-time in Ohio were paid as much as a man, she could afford nine more months of mortgage and utility payments, while a woman in Louisiana could afford 21 more months of rent if she earned the average male wages in the state (Louisiana and Ohio being some of the states where the gender discrepancies are the highest, Alabama, Utah, and West Virginia being others). Why not give these resources to the American family, particularly when it has been proven that raising wages will not affect the overall economic security of the company (the lowering cost of training and recruiting supplementing any loss.)

Further, continuing to offer no family-friendly policies for women in the workplace (such as paternity leave or subsidized child care), forces women to pay the price for sick children or family members, and to potentially lose their jobs, should they face the choice between caring for a child or making it to work on time. California is the ONLY state out of 50 that offers paid family leave for women, and this is still offered for only six months (this being low compared to the year minimum found elsewhere). Women in America are largely forced, when it is time to have children, to string together fragments of unpaid leave and sick days, so as to be able to have some time to heal and bond with their child. This leads to numerous American families falling below the poverty line after having a child, unable to make ends meet with just one salary, and no support during this difficult time. The United States is one of the only industrialized nations left in the world that largely offers no form of paid family leave or subsidized child care to its working mothers.

Finally, fair wages for women impacts the next generation. Allowing families to be more financially mobile allows for better childcare, and therefore higher cognitive and emotional development in infancy and youth. Studies show that more family friendly policies like paid parental leave lead to better prenatal and postnatal care, more intense parental bonding in a child’s lifetime, lower accident rates, and 25% fewer postnatal deaths (statistics from The Motherhood Manifesto). Providing benefits for part-time and low-wage workers, and comprehensive healthcare for children, allows women to care for the health of their child effectively. The Affordable Care Act has certainly taken steps in ensuring some of these categories, but it remains to be seen how effective that legislation will be for families.

Returning to the conversation between my friend and me in class, if women are expected to supply the next generation of American children in the current economic climate, changes must be made in policy to support these children better. The reality of our culture today is that women are in the workplace, and no amount of wishing or antiquated gender ideology is going to change that. It’s time to leave behind these 50’s style, Mad Men-eque politics that privilege one family model over another, and ignore the needs of half the current workforce.

To the GOP politicians that blocked Obama’s work on the Paycheck Fairness Act: if you are going to be pro-life, and encourage women to have children, the first step is to let go of your own prejudice, or your profound selfishness, and give the same benefits to others that you enjoy. Stop trying to control the body of the woman having the child, then offering no benefits for the baby once it arrives. This is 2014, you should know better; let’s finally get to a place of equal pay for equal work.  

 

Things I Wish Would End #2: The Approachable Feminist Movement

While perusing my favorite feminist blogs this morning over coffee, I noticed an update concerning the “Ban Bossy” campaign, a movement spearheaded by the female trifecta of Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg, CEO of the Girl Scouts of America Anna Maria Chavez, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As described on the website, banbossy.org, this campaign functions as a call for people to remove words like “bossy” from their vocabularies. Sandberg and others highlight the ways that words like these become derogatory and patronizing in their gender-specific nature, usually applied to strong women in the business world. The campaign argues that the word “bossy” is often used to undermine women of power, differentiating them from men who are simply heralded as “bosses”. The goals of this movement are twofold: creating awareness of the inequality that is facilitated through ascribing certain language to women, and empowering them to assert their authority and pursue leadership roles without facing the resulting negative stereotypes.

Sandberg is quoted as saying, in reference to the campaign, that “what hasn’t changed fast enough [in society] is our acceptance and encouragement of female leadership. That goes for all of us- parents, teachers, managers, society, everyone.” She says elsewhere in her bestselling book, Lean In, that women taking top positions in the business world will benefit the plight of women everywhere, breaking down gendered boundaries in our society and leading the way in the goal for gender equality.

By way of addressing what I see to be a rather pressing issue concerning campaigns like these, I want to begin by saying that I do not disagree with the goals laid out by Sandberg in her literature and political activism. No self-respecting feminist would disagree with the need for greater equality in the workplace, with the abolishment of derogatory, gender-specific language, or with the need for more female leadership in our world…because who runs the world according to Beyoncé? ;)

I do, however, think there could be a problem with women like Sandberg becoming the principal face of the modern feminist movement, as well as with her assertion that her place at the top is somehow bettering someone else’s place at the bottom.

Sandberg represents one kind of woman in the world, and a very specific one at that. A Harvard Business grad from an educated family, it is easy to imagine why, when she “leaned in” to her career, people stopped to listen. Women like Sandberg possess certain social caliber through background, race, and through her obviously heteronormative relationship described in her book. She was born into a place of privilege, and therefore has access to certain rights, and the luxury to be concerned about certain issues; issues like this label assigned to her in elementary school.

However, what about the rest of the world? What about the people to whom the word bossy might only scratch the surface of the derogatory language assigned to their person?

In light of the recent moves to limit reproductive options for women of this country, in light of the incredible violence enacted on individuals of non-normative sexuality around the world (see Russia), and the recent moves towards segregating spaces based on sexual orientation in places like Kansas and Arizona, is “banning bossy” really the issue behind which Sandberg and others should be throwing their highly influential voices?

Or, should we instead be focusing on the larger, more pressing ways that our world today is continuously devaluing certain bodies? Should we not be working to develop concrete ways to decrease prejudice-based violence in any form it comes, rather than constructing another sterile political movement the elite can support without any controversy?

The problem with campaigns like “Ban Bossy” is that they function solely as public cheer leading events that are devoid of real, concrete solutions to make the world a better place. They represent an approachable form of the feminist movement that is a dilution of what the movement should be- an exclusive rather than inclusive conversation about social justice that obscures the plight of individuals outside the privileged center. The Girl Scouts of America will get behind a campaign like this one, but they won’t take a stand against abortion issues, refusing to address a more touchy political issue that is vital to the achievement of equal rights for the empowered women they claim to support. Companies like TEDWomen are similar, as they will lead the cheer leading of the accomplishments of individual women achieving great success, but they won’t touch hot political issues like reproductive justice either.

Empowerment is crucial to the greater success of women in the world. Bossiness (read assertiveness) is directly linked with self-confidence, and empowering women to refuse the devaluation of their bodies and fight to achieve their dreams despite obstacles is definitely something I support. However, empowerment is not enough. There needs to be action and change behind these feelings, and movement towards more inclusive social policies that privilege all women (not just the ones at the top), or the movement is rendered futile. 

I understand that in order to appeal to the masses, there a certain amount of pandering that must be done. However, I think it is a problem to brand the “feminist” movement with campaigns like these hip and trendy ones that refuse to cover any new ground, stating what we already know about the problems of gender in America. I understand that it is uncomfortable to talk about the more difficult issues, to dirty one’s hands by taking a stand in the face of issues that may be politically or ideologically unpopular. I know that it is easier to pretend that people around the world are not fighting for their lives simply for being different. However, we cannot let our discomfort impede our willingness to act.

The problem is not “bossy”, the problem is the systematic devaluing of women through larger social ideologies that confine women to certain spaces. The problem is class and raced based stereotypes that facilitate acts of violence without repercussion.

Let’s stop talking about “bossy”, and start discussing the issues that really matter, providing solutions that will invoke real change in the world today. Let’s expand our vision outside of our own comfort zones and acknowledge the humanity of those different than us, instead of pretending our privileged success has anything to do with their struggles. Let’s reach out a helping hand, instead of another carefully tailored political slogan. Only then will we even begin to make a difference in our shared quest for a better world.

 

My Beef with Academia #1: “Who Is Our Public?”

Not long ago I attended a lecture here at Wake Forest University called, “The Humanities and Their Publics: Four Futures.” I was really excited about attending this talk, because for one, I’m a classic nerdy graduate student who not-so-secretly loves rubbing elbows with the academic elite, and also because I’m coming into a crisis in my perception of this field I’ve chosen. I initially began to pursue a career in academia because I wanted to learn how to make a difference in the world. However, since my arrival at graduate school, I’ve been left wondering: to what part of the world does this field of study grant me access, and is it an effective means of evoking change?

Because of these questions, I was instantly drawn to this talk I understood to be an exploration of the future of the study of the humanities, asking questions about who our “public” should be, and if we are reaching it in the right ways. After all, as the speaker highlighted, the humanities are becoming more and more interdisciplinary: History, English, and the Classics all intersect with a variety of disciplines including the sciences and the social sciences (issues of gender, sexuality, etc.). The humanities have therefore transformed into a voice for human rights issues, and I hoped this would be mentioned in the conversation, helping me to mediate some questions I have about my future in this field.

However, Ian Baucom’s talk was not what I anticipated, and left me with more questions than answers about what I understand to be the future of the study of the humanities. In a presentation entrenched in esoteric language, Baucom presented what he believes to be the four “publics” of humanities discourse: the disciplines of the humanities themselves (and discussions by faculty therein), college and university administrators (Deans, Provosts) and faculty in the sciences and social sciences, the national civic/public sphere, and the university as a transnational institution.

As I was listening to Baucom speak, and observing the question and answer session that directly followed, I became more and more concerned about the tone of this discussion, and the direction it was headed.

First, there was no mention of students, in the classroom or online, when considering the “publics” of humanities discourse. I found this to be extremely troubling, despite the fact that for many professors, teaching functions as a somewhat necessary evil in the greater scheme of producing one’s own academic scholarship. This should not be the case. It should be a privilege to share one’s knowledge with young minds and inspire them to grow and pursue their own interests and passions. This is one of the fundamental reasons I initially thought I would pursue a Ph.D and teach on the university level, for I wanted to fill this inspirational role many professors had filled for me over the years.

Secondly, I was bothered by the way in which online options were addressed in the lecture, however not necessarily surprised, as this section of the presentation functioned as a rather adept image of the way academia functions in relation to the outside world. Baucom highlighted the efforts being made through online options to create international relations between universities, sharing resources and expertise with the goal of reaching as many students as possible. That all sounds great. However, Baucom went on to question whether a student unable to pay the 50,000 dollars it takes to get in the door of a school like Wake Forest should have access to that classroom, and further if the teaching methods would even reach a “public” outside of carefully trained, Liberal Arts majors.

These questions underscore a central problem I have with my discipline in its given moment, and allude to the greater set of reasons I have been rendered disillusioned a year into my Masters. As writers, should not our discourse be open to public eyes? Should it not be phrased in language people can understand? Why do we spend so much time deconstructing essentialist identity if we ourselves are creating another form of caste system that keeps those of "lower" intelligence or means out?

As I said above, I became an English major because I wanted to make a difference in the world, and I thought there was no better way to accomplish this goal than by studying those who, through words, had made such a profound impact on the past. I took on a focus in Victorian Literature, not necessarily because Nineteenth Century British Fiction keeps me up at night (though Wuthering Heights will always be my favorite book). I chose this moment in history because a society with the most rigidly policed rules and norms creates the most possibilities for disruption, and I spent four years of undergraduate experience writing about every representation of expansive gender spectrums, non-normative gender and sexuality, and constructed racial hierarchies evidenced in any Victorian novel I could get my hands on. I believed I was fighting for human rights, and that arguing for greater social justice through a vehicle of education and literature legitimized my words.

I wanted to be a teacher because I wanted to emulate professors like the ones I had in the English department at Furman University, individuals who challenged the small-minded, conservative ideology I toted with me from my hometown, encouraging me instead to think for myself and construct my own worldview.

It is for these reasons I believe that academia is valuable. The study of the humanities provides an incredible mirror for the world in which we live, and if done well, this can be used as a tool to help prevent history from repeating itself, working towards a more expansive, open world.  

However, this is not the picture of academia created by Baucom in his discussion of the University and its “publics”. His talk revealed a world of intellectual work that was anything but open to the public: phrased in language a select few understand, accessible only to the upper class elites who have the social and economic status to reach it, and kept out of the hands of the masses by a refusal to make resources available to lower brackets. Students were forgotten in favor of highlighting one’s own intellectual achievements. At the end of the day, the essential premise that academia is in some sort of transitional state was proven false, as this is the same, self-consumed world that has always existed.

This conclusion is a hard one to swallow, and I fully believe one can love something and still have deep problems with the ways that it’s executed. I love academia, and I think the study of the humanities is deeply valuable to our continuous growth as a society. I’m grateful for the resources it has given me in the pursuit of my passions. However, I cannot imagine myself in six years in stuffy auditorium, discussing a public for my words that will never hear what I have to say. Just as it is not the healthy that need a doctor, I want my words to be read and understood by those for which they matter. I want the things I say to make the world a better place for them, and not just function as another way I assure the world of my own brilliance.

I hope we can one day penetrate the bubble that sections off the elite university from the world outside, uniting the most brilliant minds of today in a quest for a better world. Who knows, maybe I’ll start the revolution.

Sacred Geography

“Gleðileg jól!”

The lyrical Icelandic holiday greeting is repeated once again as another family squeezes into the packed living room, Christmas Eve celebrations well underway in most homes around Reykjavik, Iceland. The new arrivals throw their arms open to embrace the present guests, exchanging light cheek kisses with family, friends, and strangers. They then add their contribution to the bursting Christmas table, already sagging under the weight of countless family recipes. English, Icelandic, and some German swirl throughout the room and compete with the squeals of the young children eyeing the presents stacked beneath the colorful Christmas tree for the goal of achieving the loudest decibel. Old friends embrace, and new acquaintances chatter with only a hint of awkwardness, holiday small talk made more challenging across language divides.

The hostess of the night’s festivities bustles out of the kitchen and calls out to her guests that dinner is finally ready. Her kind eyes light up at the sight of cherished friends and family, and after briefly wrapping her arms around her youngest daughter and kissing friend’s cheeks, she motions for her son to hurry onto the snow-covered porch and retrieve the cooling malt and orange soda, the ingredients for Jólabland, the Icelandic Christmas cocktail.

Icelanders seem to love to tell tales of the past, demonstrating to foreigners how far they’ve come and how strong their Viking blood is in its ability to withstand anything. Over Christmas dinner, the story is often told of how Icelanders have not always been able to afford delicacies such as malt beer and soda. The drink represents the strength and resilience of their tight-knit community, and stands as a reminder to always be grateful.

The guests gather around the table, which is beautifully set with Christmas themed plates and goblets, napkin rings decorated with little stuffed reindeer amusing children and parents alike. A potpourri of delicious smells waft from the table and fill the room, each guest uttering the appropriate gestures of excitement and anticipation. Traditional smoked lamb, sweet potato pie, dressing topped with cornflakes, vegetables of various sorts, and Icelandic fruit salad are crammed in the center of the table, vestiges of both Icelandic and American Christmas traditions now transformed into a unique family menu served at every Christmas Eve feast. Homemade Ice Cream, another family tradition, would be served for dessert. The gathering of friends and family grasp hands as the Christmas prayer is said; first in Icelandic, then in English.

Though the concept of gathering around the table can mean different things to different communities and cultures, in Iceland the tradition has a particular resonance. A culture very concerned with hospitality, it is unheard of to enter a person’s home and not be offered something by way of sustenance. As a country that, at times, has had so little, it is very important to Icelanders to share that which they have to give.

Food thus functions as the primary mechanism over which people gather, however in an effort not to conjure any Norman Rockwell-esque images, where a group of blonde, blue eyed people enjoy a table of plenty while the little match girl weeps softly just outside the door, it is important to note that this openness and hospitality is indicative of a larger cultural tendency in the country as a whole.

Iceland is one of the most open and accessible countries in terms of minority rights in the Western world. The Global Gender Gap Report ranks Iceland first in terms of countries where women have equal access to education and healthcare, and where they can participate most fully in the country's political and economic life. Women are ordained as ministers, elected as politicians, and take part actively in the business world. A pay gap in the labor force is virtually nonexistent.

The country also functions as a modern social democratic state, where wealth is more evenly distributed, education is typically free through the University of Iceland, and the social safety net allows women to comfortably work and raise a family. Scandinavian mothers do not agonize over the concept of balancing work and family, for there are social sanctions in place that allow both parents to take a year or more of paid parental leave. Dads are expected to be equal partners in childrearing, and they seem to enjoy it.

And it’s not just the gender and economic equality those Scandinavians seem to have figured out. In 2009, Iceland was the first country worldwide to elect a lesbian Prime Minister. By 2012, legislation had been passed by the Icelandic government assuring equal rights to gay people throughout the country, and marriages of all kinds are permissible in Churches since 2010. The Reykjavík Gay Pride parade  has become one of the biggest celebrations of the nation, boasting over 100,000 attendees annually from all over the world.  

Many wonder how this small country perched on top of endless stretches of black, volcanic rock has progressed as far as it has. How does a country of 300,000 descents of bloodthirsty Viking raiders lead the free world in terms of civil rights?

It seems the answer to that question can be traced back to the image of the multicultural family gathering around the dinner table to share the abundance they have. Putting aside differences and gathering around a table does not seem so much different than respecting differences of opinion, sexuality, or gender when gathering in the world outside the home; attempting to communicate across a table populated by members of at least four different countries does not seem so different from attempting cross-cultural relations in the public sphere.

Generosity, respect, and love without boundaries are the values that make both a family and a country great, and while no country is perfect, a landscape of progressive politics and economic prosperity laid against a backdrop of snow covered mountain peaks and lagoons of clear, blue water brings Iceland very close.

…If only their national dish were not fermented, putrefied Shark meat.

Trying New Things #3: Valentine's Day Special

I want the preface this post by assuring any and all readers that I am not the least bit bitter about Valentine’s Day. I did not take comfort in wearing black instead of oh-so-festive red, I did not post/reblog/laugh at internet memes boycotting the holidays, and I did not spend my day at home with a bottle of wine and a sappy movie.

My friends and I celebrated Gal-entines day with the best of them, beginning with brunch and ending out on the town in our fanciest party dresses, and I really enjoyed a day of celebrating love between friends. New to this city, Valentine’s Day this year was a wonderful reminder of how lucky I’ve been in the people I’ve met. As we sipped our drinks at Red Lobster, (because what says love better than cheese biscuits), I realized I haven’t felt this content with life in a long time. I’m very glad that we as a culture designate a day to celebrate human relationships.

That said, especially as women, we put much too much pressure on the holiday to confirm things about our lives that we already know. My roommate (who is engaged, by the way) spent the entire day obsessing over a package sent from her fiancé, even though we were snowed in and no mail was being delivered. By the end of the evening, she had been reduced to a puddle of insecurity on the couch, wondering if he’d forgotten her and sent her gift late. Close friends of mine, both here and far away, waited impatiently for their partner to call or text, his/her level of commitment gauged by how early in the morning the message was received. My Facebook news feed became a competition of whose bouquet of flowers was the largest, or sent from the greatest distance. A woman I know actually took a picture of her flowers next to a reference object, so that there could be no possible doubt that hers was actually the biggest possible bouquet of flowers posted on the internet. Her man had done her proud, affirming their love in the most ostentatious way he could.

Why do we do this to ourselves? Why has Valentine’s Day become such a competitive, hetero-normative, and materialistic status symbol of a holiday? Is this really about relationships anymore, or is it about proving how much we’re worth, both to each other and ourselves?  

I want to remind everyone that love is not a competition. At its best, this holiday is about celebrating the happiness that is the realization that we are not alone. It is the blessing that comes from reminding those special to us how much we care about them. It is joy that comes from dressing up and going out to a fancy dinner with your partner, or just snuggling on the couch with friends. There is no need to gauge your place in the grand scheme of life based by how far someone else has gotten; that would only work if we were all the same. Everyone’s story is different, and we all find love in different ways.

In the spirit of trying new things in the New Year, (a resolution made between friends), I’m not going to let perceived inadequacy detract from all the beautiful things in life. I’m not going to acknowledge the imagined standards set by a culture that gauges all things by competition, where true happiness is only possible if I’m on the most expensive date with the most expensive dress and the most gorgeous mate. I’m not going to let expectations detract from the happiness I’ve gained in the past year.

I’m instead going to revel in the beauty that is my life, happy that yesterday I had the chance to remind people how truly special they are to me. Or at least, I'm going to try.

Happy Valentine’s Day, world.

"Mirror, Mirror": Primetime Television, Pop Culture, and the Implications of the Anti-Hero

“We’re gladiators in suits" Olivia Pope said of her hard-hitting team of investigative “fixers” on the new television sensation, Scandal, and suddenly, the world wanted to be one as well. An immediate hit, the show tops off what has been an incredible year for television, a section of pop culture that had been all but written off after what seemed the hundredth version of The Real Housewives. Other contenders for most salacious drama include House of Cards, which competes with Scandal for the prize of most political corruption per episode, and Madmen, the gilded representation of Madison Avenue Ad Men of the 50’s and 60’s. Even over-the-top, Goth teen suspense dramas like Pretty Little Liars or Ravenswood captured the American imagination like never before, developing cult followings of young adults lusting after Ezra Fitz.

The face of television has officially changed, providing the world once again with mesmeric theatrics, shocking plot twists, and some of the best actors in the business, all of which leave viewers dying for more.

There is, however, a more sinister side to this movement. Along with back-corner romance, intrigue and suspense, and gorgeous fashion, these shows offer a rather pointed picture of the world today, each one characterized by overtly public representations of corruption. Pretty Little Liars confirms every parent’s worst fear as teenagers are caught in webs of deception, violence, and sex; Scandal and House of Cards act out the political corruption and subversion of the democratic system that is any voter’s worst fear; Madmen paints a rather bleak picture of women in the business world.

While these shows seem to have little in common other than their massive followings, upon closer inspection they are all characterized by bad people doing bad things. No longer is love between prince charming and the geeky girl the plot that sells, but rather deception, suspense, and corruption work to capture the collective imagination of culture today.

Considering the plots of some of these shows that dramatize deception in the White House, or blatant gender violence and homophobia in the workplace, one cannot help but wonder how these writers can get away with the work they produce on primetime television. Why are viewers so willing to accept the fictional quality of these shows without considering their real-world implications? Why is society not more unnerved by their content? Some might argue that television has become a public manifestation of inner fantasies of danger and intrigue, a representation of the materialist mindset that values outer glamour over inner integrity, or simply stands as proof of a desensitized, cold-hearted world.   

Or, is it something else? Is it possible that America enjoys these shows precisely because they spearhead the cultural problems of today by subverting inequality in a way that the average person cannot?

Through their fictional narratives, each show points directly at a corrupted government system, a racist society, and a gender stratified world in a way that is impossible to ignore. Olivia Pope is a badass not because of her relationship with the President of the United States (though that is inevitably part of the reason viewers tune in each week), but because she has the guts to walk into the White House and take control of a broken system. Peggy Olson of Madmen may be the subject of much gendered prejudice, but she makes it in an all-male world in a way that many women are still trying to accomplish in this day and age. Pretty Little Liars undercuts the belief that youth remain sheltered and innocent throughout childhood, and also exposes younger viewers to unproblematized representations of non-normative sexuality.

These characters become inspirational, breaking down cultural barriers that seem insurmountable, and I believe it is for this reason that we idolize them.

The genius of television today is the same one that has been the defense of popular culture through the ages; it is the one that justified the extravagant melodramas of the 90’s, the sustained obsession with reality TV and The Real Housewives in whatever form they come, and  now the scripted perfection of primetime.  Television creates an aesthetic façade that reveals through its fiction the not-so-subtle truths of the world today. As a genre never taken too seriously, television shows open up a space for writers and actors to say whatever they want without repercussions, and therefore to inspire viewers to push similar boundaries in their own lives. One can only hope that incredible popularity of each of these shows is indicative of a greater awareness of the large social inequalities that still characterize the world today.

So bring on the next seasons of Scandal and House of Cards. I’ll be ready with my critical eye and my oh-so-fabulous, Olivia Pope wine glass.

Trying New Things #2: The Revolutionary Act of Love

“Loving a transgendered person is a revolutionary act", said Laverne Cox at the 2014 National Conference for LGBT Equality: Creating Change, held in Houston, TX this past weekend. At this conference and in other places, Cox has used her recent capitulation into fame as a transgender actress on Orange is the New Black to shed light on the culture of violence that surrounds this community in America. She describes the bullying she experienced from a young age for not neatly filling the biological category into which she was born, the violent racial slurs she has experienced on a daily basis throughout her life, and the inequality of justice that is experienced by the transgender community as a whole. Cox says rather poetically that, “justice is what love looks like in public”, and she concludes by asserting not only the need to completely revise this assumed illegitimacy that characterizes outside perceptions of the transgender community, but the need to open up conversations between various groups, beginning the process of de-vilifying the Other “even if you don’t know what to say.” She highlights the importance of self-love within the trans community through ignoring stereotypes, maintaining a support system of family, friends, and allies, and believing in your own beauty and sharing it with others.

Laverne Cox is a rather incredible stage personality, and the entire time I was listening to her speak, I couldn’t stop asking the question, “How is it possible that a person that strong and beautiful is subject to such violence?”

And further, “What are we so afraid of?”

In America, 53% of LGBT homicides involve transgender women, and 73% of those are people of color, says Cox. These numbers are indicative of a larger cultural problem than simply a lack of understanding of the community, or an emphasis on surgery and change rather than the personal growth of the individual (though these are equally valid concerns highlighted by her speech). What I would add to the issues she eloquently raises for us is the presence of a gender-based essentialism still governing our society today, one that shapes not only the way we interact with each other, but the way we understand ourselves. I would also argue that this essentialist based thinking, one that holds individuals up to a proverbial measuring bar to deem them either human or not, leads to a profoundly individualist society and a lack of empathy in relating to one’s neighbor. It is so easy to enact violence on one another when humanity is discounted, as history has proven to us, and it only to the detriment of future generations that we continue to judge each other so harshly.

Gender essentialism is not a new concept, nor is it one without its fair share of contesters. I recently read an article in Bitch Magazine about the ways gender essentialism devalues female voices in the publishing world (Available Here), and several of my classes in Graduate School are exploring the ways that linking motherhood and domesticity with innate femininity limits female career options, and instills the belief that if a woman does not embrace motherhood at home with her children, she become a mutation of what constitutes true womanhood.

When translating the ramifications of gender essentialism into a conversation about transgender issues, it is clear that our inability to understand people outside of the neat boxes of identity into which we categorize them has violent consequences, an inability to understand sparking fear and prejudice rather than empathy and open-mindedness. In hearing Cox’s speech, it is important to note that she begins her story of oppression with a heartbreaking narrative of being chased home from school by little boys who did not understand her. The socialization of children into neat groupings of gender, race, and class identity is in my opinion where this closed thinking begins, and in order to stop this cycle of violence from repeating in the lives of our youth, we need to completely do away with parenting and education that socializes people into particular, irrevocable roles, where boys play with blue Legos and girls with pink ones (or whatever). We need to stop teaching our boys that measures of value are dependent on “how much of a man you are”, and then directly linking this measure of masculinity with violence. We need to convey to our children that it is not anyone’s place to judge another’s self-worth, and instead create developmental spaces that encourage a variety of skills, talents, and other identifiers, celebrating difference rather than creating it as a means of dividing lines. Let’s break out of our comfortable, homogenized bubbles of race or class stratification, and teach our kids how to relate to people different from them. And most importantly, let’s completely break down this individualist, “get ahead at any cost” culture in which we live that starts from the assumption that I am not my brother’s keeper.

I hope one day to live in a world where love is not a revolution, where in fact the only essential thing that can be assumed about a person’s identity is their capacity to love no matter what. Let’s start those difficult conversations with our kids and with the world, and break the cycle of assault on difference that is such an ugly part of our current cultural moment. Step outside yourself for a moment, and reach out a helping hand rather backing away, and let’s make a better world for the future.

Watch her full speech here: Laverne Cox on the Revolutionary Act of Love