Fast food strike expands!

According to Ned Resnikoff, the American fast food strike is going global. On May15th, fast food workers in 150 American cities will again go on strike. They are demanding that these large-low-wage employers pay a base price of $15 per hour and allow the workers to unionize. In addition to workers in the US, fast food employees on six other continents will rally in solidarity.

Word came on Wednesday, and the formal announcement was made at a McDonalds in Manhattan where Naquashia LeGrand and a crowd with a variety of international flags made the announcement. The American fast food workers voted on the date of the May 15 strike via a conference call on Monday. This followed the first day of the international fast food workers’ conference in New York. It was announced to the conference on Tuesday. Resnikoff’s article continues to describe the labor conditions in fast food employment overseas. Also, McDonald’s has released statements referring to the December 5^th strike as being staged by outside forces.

I don’t have a lot to contribute here, except support these workers. I’m curious to see how this plays out on an international scale as well.

Hey, guys, a white dude is countering bell hook’s theory “feminism is for everybody” so it is well researched, and he must be right

False. Of course, our favorite website that doesn’t pay writers, Huffington Post, published this piece. Also, let’s back up a second to point out this guy is probably a kid, and I don’t mean to figuratively eviscerate him for cheap laughs, though there will be laughs. Secondly, let me say that theory is theory and thus always changing, and there is nothing wrong with being wrong and changing your mind, in fact it may be indicative of a person of strong mind and character or even moving theory forward.

Gregor Smith, a student and blogger, wrote a piece entitled, “Feminism isn’t for men too—In fact, it’s not for women either” as an attempt to counter Jack Fletcher’s post entitled, “Feminism is for men too.” I skimmed Fletcher’s post, and it is fairly innocuous, specifically addressing some of the problems the UK with women as a whole and the feminist attempts to improve the quality of life for everyone i.e. “lad cultures” detrimental effects on society at large and the real immediate dangers to women.

Smith took his time to explain how not agreeing with feminism does not make you a misogynist. To the dictionary (note the restraint of not using the Urban Online Dictionary):

Feminism as defined by Merriam-Webster: “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities; organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests.”

Misogyny as defined by Merriam-Webster: “a hatred of women.” Fun fact according to their site, misogyny is in the top1% if all lookups on the Merriam-Webster site.

I like to make sure we all know the meaning of the words we’re using. Now, there are colloquial means for both of these words. Also, feminism because the “personal is political” theory out of the second wave resulted in a lot of people deciding that their beliefs were feminism, when their beliefs might be inspired by feminist actions, but not actually feminism. For example, a heterosexual couple coming to the conclusion the man should stay at home with their children based on what works for their family isn’t feminism. It is a feminist response, but there is not right or opportunity being questioned. However, if we lived in a society where women were forced to be the primary caregivers within the family then this action might be feminism. See the difference? Also before when women were actively paid less and often let go when they became mothers because husbands were supposed to be breadwinners, there is a feminist action there. A political act vs. a personal act influenced by the political.

So armed with these definitions let’s look at Smith’s post, and question what he knows about feminism. Smith begins, “Sadly, he [Fletcher] seems to have bought into the main one [misconceptions about feminism]” ‘feminism is about gender equality.’ Anyone who has ever talked to a feminism for any length of time will know that this is not true. Feminism consistently sees the world from the perspective of women, and occasionally adding the phrase ‘and men have problems too’ in order to create a smokescreen of gender equality.”

Smith then goes on to note the definition of feminism and matriarchy. However, his evidence for his assertion that feminism has gone far off the mark is Tumblr. He has some screen shots of what happens when you put “men are” in the “biggest feminist network” (I’m not clear if he’s referring to Tumblr or if a specific site on Tumblr…I’m old, how does Tumblr work?). My assumption is Smith saw the UN Campaign with the google searches about women. I also googled men the same way the UN Campaign did for women and one of the search results is “men are better than women” so there’s that. Smith includes two screen shots from Tumblr when searching for “men are” and “men are” with in the context of appearance. Presumably, to note that men are held to standards of attractiveness. [Aside, this is particularly interesting to me after my Twitter feed blow up this week with the standards of white beauty on people of color, but race isn't mentioned by Smith.]

Here is where things get pretty troubling: “The patriarchy (a mythical hierarchy used by feminists to blame their problems on when they can’t find the actual case) seems to have let that one slip by them.” Well, I’m glad we’re keeping things civil. First, the patriarchy is really a theory, which places men and all things male at the center and all else on the outside. Contemporary theories suggest that the patriarchy shows up over and over again encouraging male dominance and the exclusion of women. This is very interesting when looking at capitalism as a patriarchal model. Read about it here. This theory is kind on par with evolution meaning it is pretty readily accepted by everyone in the social sciences: women’s studies, sociology, psychology, social work, etc. His complete dismissal of it demonstrates his lack of interest and knowledge of the subject.

Next Smith targets male feminists, which makes since in a way, since men seem to be the point of his argument on feminism (?). He even criticizes a woman who put together a list of ways men who consider themselves feminists can be better allies. I’ve read that piece in the past, it isn’t perfect, but it would work in just about any context for an ally changing words like women to gays or people of color, etc. Of course, we’re almost to Smith’s real issue: blame. Smith, I feel for you if you felt personally attacked by someone calling themselves a feminist for something you didn’t do, and I’m sorry you benefit from rape culture, white male privilege, and a host of other privileges. Because perhaps if you didn’t you’d have the ability to empathize with people unlike yourself particularly those with less power.

Smith feels victimized by feminism in some way, which can be seen in his concern with being able to defend himself from accusations he feels feminism makes. These include  (again, all links to individual people’s statements): "thinking a home invite is sexual consent, being rape apologists, setting women as nothing more than vagina, having perfectly fitted shirts, always sending women creepy messages, soap insecurity, cowardice, wanting to hit women, recruiting young vulnerable women, dominance, disregarding boundaries, being glorified, having some internalized poisonous ideas, consistently taking inappropriate photos, being the patriarchy, snatching away things women love and s**tting on them, being rapists, being child molesters, and “backfiring hurf durf buzzwords”."

Here he declares feminism hypocritical. However, after reading and typing all of those, I want to point a few things out. Privilege (a word Smith doesn’t use) means benefiting in situations even when you don’t necessarily realize it. You have to acknowledge it and more on. Use your privilege in a positive way. Also, a lot of these generalizations, aren’t feminism they are what feminism is trying to do away with. For example all men are not rapists. However, every time we (as a society) tell women not to drink or they will be raped, we (as a society) are saying all men are rapists. That is rape culture. It hurts everyone. That can be said for most of these examples, but by this point it should be clear Smith isn’t interested in a discussion about feminism, even the problems in feminism: the exclusion of women of color, trans, poor, etc. We’re getting better, but there is a long road.

Smith continues by showing polling data from YouGov, which is a public polling site. He points out most Brits do not claim they are feminism, but 81% believe men and women should be equal in society. He uses this to draw this conclusion, “This shows that most people are, on the whole, both egalitarian and anti-feminist. Why, then, are feminists given such an overly prominent position in the media?”

Sorry, I laughed out loud at that one…say it again white male student with a post on the Huffington Post, which has not one, but two posts about feminism from white men. Smith is confusing in this section because he seems to equate feminist representation with female representation (aside, trans people please). Then he throws in Femem and No More Page Three. Smith concludes by suggesting feminism is to be left behind and move forward with humanism. That link takes you to a post I wrote on the attempts of people to run away from the word feminism and hide behind humanism, and its shortcomings. Here is Smith’s text before I shut this shit down for good:

“I propose to you: humanism. The idea that we should care for and respect one another equally because we are all human has been around for centuries [when women and people of color weren’t considered human], long before feminism burst onto the scene and chained itself to the scene’s railing while trying to set itself on fire [interesting reference to self immolation]. There’s nothing misleading about this term humanism in the same way that there is about feminism. It doesn’t just try to break down the barrier between the genders [more than a binary there Smith], but more importantly, the barrier between races, sexualities, social classes, and religions, which in their own ways are also some of the reasons total gender equality has not yet been reached [finally mentioned that].

“Will humanism ‘catch on’ with current feminists? I doubt it. Most feminists aren’t feminists because they care about other people in the world; they’re feminists born out of anger and/or hatred, often felt due to a personal experience, but that doesn’t justify taking out that anger and hatred on others. [I bolded this because I believe this is what Smith is doing.] I can hope, though, in my more optimistic moments. At least I have put ideas out there, and let people know that feminism isn’t for men too, and it’s not good for women either.”

I think you only really need to read that conclusion. First, humanism as it is used now means very close to what feminism means, but as I noted in Smith’s text, that wasn’t always the case. In fact it is easy to argue for humanism when most of the population isn’t considered human. Do we have to break out and dust off Social Darwinism here?

The problem people have with feminism, the word and otherwise, is that is suggests women should be in the center too. After all if feminism and humanism mean the same things at their root (which they don’t because humanism has a nasty individualist history that lends itself to capitalism) then why not take back the word feminism? Because feme is the root of the word? Can’t have the menfolk perceive they are excluded, which they aren't? That is what scares people about feminism, women can be in charge of a movement, women can hold representative office, women can be in the public sphere, women can control their healthcare decisions, women can do everything men can do. Note, I’m not saying better, just saying we can. So, riddle me this, if as a man, you do not have issues with women and you believe all the genders and nongenders are equal, then why not call yourself a feminist?

As I said in the beginning, Smith is a kid. He’s going to write stupid stuff, he’ll hopefully grow to reject. I did. I think some of it is still on this blog, about anti-trafficking and equating all prostitution with trafficking, which it isn’t. At the end of the day, Smith, like tons of other people, are afraid of having their power challenged, and he targets his rage on feminism, while others join racist groups. All his “research” [feel the air quotes] could be replicated with far more damn results on Redditt looking for women and women’s issues, and you will find hate like most people have never seen. That said, Huffington Post should be taken to task for giving publishing this.

Primer on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

So this is a thing, and the first thing I want to point out is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being fast tracked through Congress…A governing body that shut down a few months ago because it couldn’t come to a budget resolution. Unemployment insurance and SNAP aren’t getting fast-tracked. This post is brought to you in three parts.

What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

It is a multilateral trade agreement between the US and eleven other counties (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and is open to 21 other countries in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) region) that could have long reaching consequences for everyone. However, there isn’t a lot of information about exactly what this trade deal will have in it, thus legislatures from around the world, don’t really know what they will be voting on. The TPP will benefit a lot of corporations and given them some power that they haven’t had access to in the past. The TPP will provide corporations with leverage through regulatory ceilings and dispute resolution tribunals. These tribunals will be used to enforce the regulatory ceilings this is something that came out of NAFTA and CAFTA already, and it isn’t exactly a good thing for workers. One of the most telling aspect of TPP is that even Congress is being kept in the dark about the specifics.

Sam Knight for Truthout said this, “The result is the creation of new institutions fueling the race to the bottom wrought by an interpretation of global economic integration that affords capital outsized privilege. The chilling effect on regulations is greater in poorer countries that can be cowed by the panels.” This leads into a discussion on “non-discrimination.” If a country’s investigators and companies are given preferential treatment then is the deal worth anything? No. Of course, the TTP creators are saying the tribunals wouldn’t have a direct effect on the regulation in the specific counties, instead they would levy fines. If (when) Congress approves TPP, they would be pulling back federal rules and regulations even before the tribunals are established. The tribunals may lack any real power, but they will have to ensure that federal law adheres to international treaties. Questions have been raised about intellectual property law, which I’m sure will protect poor people, but those are pretty detailed, and I’m aiming for simplicity here. Personally, I’m looking forward to the complications from corporations and state-owned businesses. Because how will the TPP settle that one? I have no idea. Unions have come out and said there is a high probability that TPP will repeat the mistakes of NAFTA because we as a species are incapable of learning.

What is the problem with fast tracking TPP?

Well, it means that Sen. Max Baucus and Rep. Dave Camp want the TTP authorization bill passes as soon as possible. This led the Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen to say, “Fast track is the wrong track when it comes to a trade deal like the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will affect our laws, our jobs, our food and our environment. Fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, forces Congress to give up its Constitutional right to amend and improve this trade deal, which is not reportedly more than 1,000 pages long. “

Cohen continues to point out a variety of reasons fast tracking is a bad idea:

• The US Trade Representation and TPP negotiators have been restricting information available to Congress and the public.
• Fast tracking ignores the issues raised by the TPP, and prevents Congress from correcting them.
• Corporations and their representatives had access in shaping the TPP, but everyone else was excluded, which leaves people wondering what things like worker protections are going to look like. More jobs could travel overseas in pursuit of paying the lowest wages.
• Congress has a responsibility to its constituents who were completely left out of negotiations.
• He concludes with a call for transparency.

What are the biggest problems with TPP?

Well, some of them have already been listed, but according to the Sierra Club there are three main problems. The Sierra Club is opposed to the new free trade agreement:

• Secrecy. As mentioned above, no one really knows much about what is in the agreement. More than 600 corporate advisers have worked on it, but even members of Congress have been shut out. This should be alarming to everyone.
• Granting more rights to corporations. It looks like corporations will have the right to sue the government for unlimited cash compensations through the tribunals over any law/regulation that the corporations believes is hurting profits. Chilling.
• The last reason given is fracking, but this is kind of specific to the Sierra Club, and while I’m not in favor of fracking, and under TPP this could and will have awful consequences. My lens is much more marginalized groups and workers.

Regardless, TPP is a bad idea, but fast tracking it will prevent even the most basic of revisions and improvements.

A quarter of men admitted to committing rape in the largest international study on rape

Yep, that’s a real figure. Not kidding, not exaggerating. Tara Culp-Ressler had a piece summarizing the report on ThinkProgress, and I’m using her article more than the others I’ve read where the articles were brief, also the actually report is pretty lengthy.

The United Nations published a pretty hefty study on the roots of sexual violence across six countries (Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka) and lasted two years that included 10,000 men. Take minute and think about how involved that had to be. I really like research just a reminder methods matter. The study was the largest scientific project on the subject so far, and the specific aim was to investigate the “under-research” area of male-perpetrated rape. The study found that on average one in ten men living in the areas covered by the study admitted to raping someone in their lives, this excludes partners because the figure gets hella scarier when partners are included. Of course, the regional attitudes within Southeastern Asia about sexuality are going to influence the results. However there are some striking things that come out of the study with some generalizable results.

First many people don’t actually know what rape is. The researchers intentionally opted not to use the word “rape” in their questionnaires about Asian men’s sexual histories. Instead the questions asked specific questions about the situations sex occurred such as have they ever “forced a woman who was not your wife or girlfriend at the time to have sex” and have they ever “had sex with a woman who was too drunk or drugged to indicate whether she wanted it.” This most likely helped the researchers get accurate information from the men being interviewed. Culp-Ressler notes that lines of consent aren’t often learned and as a result people don’t know when they are violating someone and they might not believe they committed rape. Michele Decker, a public health professor who co-wrote the commentary on the new study said, “Rape doesn’t just involve someone with a gun to a woman’s head. People tend to think of rape as something someone else would do.”

Second, rape can occur in marriages. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone reading this blog. I talk about sexual violence between partners often. The UN study found rape between married partners was more common than rape between people not involved with one another. Obviously, a sexual history or even a legally binding contract doesn’t give someone a right to your body, which somehow isn’t getting through to men.

Third, rapists are repeat offenders. This also shouldn’t be a surprise to readers of this blog. It is estimated that among college age men only five to ten percent of the population commits sexual assaults, but those that do, are repeat offenders. Pair that information with the estimates that one in three college aged women have been raped. In the UN study, nearly half of those he admitted to rape, said they had raped at least once, but went on to rape multiple victims. Almost twenty three percent said they had raped two to three people, twelve percent had raped four to ten people, and about four percent admitted to raping more than ten people. Take a long breather. A Harvard University study found this behavior isn’t just limited to college age men. Young men who commit a rape in college are likely to become serial offenders, and of course many do after all they usually evade punishment through campus policies.

Fourth, attitudes about sexuality develop at a young age. More than half of the men who admitted to violating someone without consent said they were teenagers when they first raped someone. The majority of sexual crimes occurred between ages 15 and 19. The authors claims this finding “reinforces the need for early rape prevention.” Preach. In the US, sex education advocated believe this can occur within comprehensive sex ed. If kids are taught respect and confidence with their own bodies, they are less likely to violate someone else’s consent and speak up when someone violates theirs.

Fifth men are taught they have a right to women’s bodies. I know, reader, you’re shocked. This is a staple of rape culture. It manifests in the "men can’t help themselves" trope or the women’s bodies in exchange for positive behavior essentially a man is owed because he is nice to you (Nice Guys). The UN study showed this attitude was prevalent among the rapists surveyed. More than seventy percent of the men who admitted to rape said they did so because of “sexual entitlement.” *shudder* Another forty percent said they were angry or wanted to punish the woman. *double shudder* Half the men said they didn’t feel guilty. *triple shudder* Someone want to tell me again how rape is about sex? Maybe it is a bit more about privilege, entitlement, and power? Maybe someone wants to deny rape culture?

Sixth In Southeast Asia, rape usually goes unpunished. Only twenty three percent of the men who admitted to rape had been imprisoned for their crimes. This trend was found in all six of the countries included in the study. RAINN estimates that about three percent of US rapists serve jail time, this includes the unreported rapes. Which is funny because of course according to the FBI only two percent of rapes are false allegations of course also according to the FBI eight percent are…guess it just depends on who their talking to. It has been standard policy on college campuses that rapists receive light punishments.

There has been some discussion on the articles that emphasis one in ten men rape, when the reality is thirty to thirty seven percent of men rape. Of course, the later stat reflects partners, and by emphasizing the earlier stat the argument can be made that these articles are down playing partner/marital rape, essentially reinforcing that people can’t sexually abuse their own partners. This is a controversial issue because for a long time wives couldn’t accuse their husbands of sexual assault. The Model Penal Code stated, “A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wide is guilty of rape it: (…). It wasn’t until 1993 when all states considered martial rape a crime. Remember Akin (legitimate rape guy) he made references to how men can’t rape their own wives.

The study focused on the male perpetrators rather than the female victims because they hope this will encourage policy change with the focus on men and prevention opposed to women and prevention. I have my doubts. All of these findings aren’t new to anyone even remotely familiar with sexual assault and intimate partner violence. The researchers concluded, “Prevention of rape is essential. Interventions must focus on childhood and adolescences, and address culturally rooted male gender socialization and power relations, abuse in childhood, and poverty.”

Rape culture permeates US society we all, and all of the things listed in the requirements for intervention should be employed here as well. After, we teardown the victims and talk about the wasted potential of the rapists here, because a man’s life is viewed as worth more than a woman’s.