A New View On Feminism

Feminism: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economical, and social equality of the sexes." My entire life, standing by that term has seemed like a no-brainer. I didn't bother to do much research on feminism because I didn't think there was a way to distort this pure quest for equality. I assumed most people in the 1st-world Western nations held the view of feminism as a good thing as well, but I was wrong.

Actress Emma Watson was recently appointed the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. Through this position, she is launching the campaign "He for She." The day this went live, my twitter feed exploded with opinions. I am a writer for The Smart Girls Group, and through this company I have connected with many brilliant and driven (and opinionated) young women who are well versed in political, social, and economic issues. At first, I only saw positivity and applause for Ms. Watson's speech, but then negatively started swelling. I realized that this group of educated and thoughtful women was split down the middle on the issue of gender equality that Watson spoke about. I wondered why and then discovered that's it's not equality that people have an issue with, it's the word "feminism."

After watching Emma Watson's brilliant speech, I decided that there are two types of "feminism." One, that doesn't like the F-word, as it's been coined, and one type that finds identity in it.  It seems as if almost everyone is on board with the ideals of gender equality, but the word feminism gets many on edge and upset. Here's why: there have been some extreme groups that I believe reject what it means to be a woman. They fill a negative stereotype of man-bashing, dressing in clothes that reject a woman's beauty, and angrily forcing opinions. I believe that this not only misrepresents feminism, but goes against what it stands for. This drives women who believe in gender equality to preface their opinions with "I'm not a feminist, but..." In a gender equal world, "both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong," as Emma Watson said. We should not be confined to either acting like a strong man or a weak woman. I think that these extreme "feminist" groups do exactly that.

Cosmpolotin Magazine Attacks Jessa Dugar

For those who don't know, Jessa Dugar is a star on the TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting. The show centers around an unusually large Christian family that holds wholesome and conservative views. As a regular viewer of the show, I find it refreshing to watch something that is appropriate for the whole family and sets an example instead of leading other's astray, even if I don't agree with every one the family's stances. The Duggars love one another and respect all regardless of their beliefs, yet this family constantly faced hatred and accusations. Yes, they live life in a way that doesn't fit the normal mold of today's society, but should they face a media firestorm because of it?

This proved to be especially significant when Jessa Duggar posted a picture from the Holocaust museum. Her caption said: “I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed “less than human.” Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are “more evolved” and others “less evolved.” A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are “not fit to live.” So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor. “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?” (Proverbs 24:10-12) May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #prolife" I believe this very eloquently stated her beliefs. A visit to the Holocaust Museum reminded that we must protect every life. In fact, it would not have been obvious that she was referring to abortion until she used the hash tag "prolife".

Cosmopolitan's Senior Political writer jumped on this opportunity to attack Duggar. Her article slammed Jessa Duggar for comparing abortion to such methodical murder of 6 million Jews. Did this writer who holds a senior position at a nationally recognized magazine do enough research to know that so far 42 million women have chosen to get abortions? That is 1 in every 3 women. The holocaust was an atrocity. Abortion is an atrocity. Both issues are different, complex, and, in my opinion, inhuman. I applauded Jessa Duggar for so beautifully stating her opinion, while this writer accused her of being "tone deaf, insensitive, clueless, and deranged." To me, it sounds as if this woman is actively seeking attack against anyone who makes her feel convicted. Additionally, I'd like to point out that "prolife" isn't just talking about abortion. Prolife defends all life, so it makes sense why Jessa Duggar was so passionate after visiting the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust should be a constant, every reminder that we need to protect all life.

 Live Action News Adreanna Ekdawy

Emma Sulkowicz

Emma Sulkowicz is a senior at Columbia University that is making a big impact be bearing a heavy weight. An art major, Sulkowicz's senior thesis is one of the most bold, symbolic, personal, yet simple projects the university has ever seen. She is one month into her ongoing project of carrying a 50 pound dorm mattress with her wherever she goes on campus. This project affects her and an overwhelming amount of young woman in a very personal way. Not only is this an artistic showcase, but a stand for justice and equality.


On the first day of her sophomore year at Columbia University, Sulkowicz says she was raped by a fellow Columbia student whom she has previously had consensual sex with. There was alcohol involved, the lines of friendship and romance were blurred, and when she finally reported it to the university, it was dismissed.


When I began my research, I had a starkly different viewpoint than I do now. With a light amount of investigation, I perceived her as entitled and taking a serious matter and turning it into a publicity stunt. She very well might be both these things, but that is the beauty of her project. Emma Sulkowicz is embracing the same mindset as Hester Prynne of The Scarlett Letter. Instead of wearing the letter "A", Sulkowicz proudly boasts her mattress. She is not ashamed of being a victim, in fact she is using her bad situation to bring unprecedented amounts of attention to this important subject.


Coinciding with her bold stand, the White House has launched a campus rape prevention program called "It's On Us." This program positively brings rape to the attention to whole communities, not just the victim and rapist.


NY Times The White House

Posner's Stance On Gay Marriage

Recently Judge Richard Posner was among a panel of three judges to rule that the bans on same sex marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin were unconstitutional. He presented oral and written arguments that were blunt, brutally honest, and non wishy-washy, which was refreshing regardless of what side of the issue you fall on. Judge Posner can be considered a prolific genius by any standard. He  graduated as valedictorian of his class from Harvard Law School in 1962 and has knowledge on an unimaginably wide breadth of civics minded topics. It's virtually impossible to find an article that disagrees with his most recent ruling on gay marriage, and perhaps because it's because his opinions are pieced together brilliantly. As much as I agree with his "big picture" ruling of Wisconsin and Indiana's ban on same sex marriage being unconstitutional, when it gets down the his reasoning behind this ruling, I couldn't disagree more. 

Posner forcibly asserted his opinions in a way that made one ashamed to believe anything contrary. He, along with two other judges, were perplexed when the states of Indiana and Wisconsin banned same sex marriage. Although I will definitely admit there are holes in the arguments of both states, I am swayed to believe that Posner (or perhaps that author of this article) purposely selected information and twisted it to fit what he was trying to say. For example, the article said "Both states admit that children benefit psychologically and economically from having married parents. These facts would seem to suggest a compelling interest in support of gay marriage, since banning it actively, demonstrably harms children." Wow. Can we talk about words getting twisted? What state isn't going to agree that a married home is more beneficial to a child than that of an unmarried or single parent home? In no way were those statements originally meant to correlate to gay marriage. Additionally, one of Judge Richard Posner's key points in his ruling was, "Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be dinned the right to marry. Go figure." As someone who has the intention to marry a man and have children, I find great offense in this. Posner is implying that gay couples would be more responsible and better suited parents than straight couples. I interpret this as degrading and demeaning. While trying to defend homosexuals, Posner began discriminating towards heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that there are straight people who will be bad parents and gay people who will be bad parents. Just as there are gay people that are great parents and straight people that are great parents. Instead of discriminating towards and judging a whole group, one should take a look at the individual. Posner's argument, although well spoken and strongly worded, was fundamentally twisted. 

On a governmental front, I agree with Posner that same sex marriage should be legal. In order to for our government to be constitutionally sound, our nation must support equality on all fronts. Just as we have freedom of religion, freedom or speech, freedom of press, and so on, Americans should have the freedom to make a choice of who they marry and to be recognized as legitimate. Whether it is due race, gender, social standing, or sexual preference, the US cannot support the exclusion and discrimination against a particular group. On a moral front, I believe that being gay is wrong. The Bible teaches that being gay is a sin and that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred covenant created by God. Quite honestly however, I don't think that making gay marriage legal will corrupt what has already been corrupted by the millions of straight couples that have lied, cheated, and dishonored God through their marriages. As sad as it is, today most marriages aren't what God intended when He created them. Instead of hyper-focussing on fighting something that will undoubtedly be legalized across the nation within the next few years, shouldn't we as Christians be working to further the kingdom of God by loving others and showing them what marriage as He truly intended is? 


Sources: U Chicago // Slate

What We Watch

I'd like to start this week's post with a story. My dear father had some dental work done this week that left his mouth extremely numb. When it was time to eat dinner that night, he unknowingly gnawed on his numb lip until it was beat up and bloody. Now, days later, my dad has a purple shiner on his lip that makes others wonder if he lost a fist fight.


Similarly to how my dad injured his own lip without even noticing, by letting increasingly inappropriate TV shows creep into our homes, we unknowingly can cause permanent damage to our hearts and minds. In the early days of television, tastefulness took president over sheer entertainment. Now it's reversed, and the morality of what we watch without a doubt takes a back seat to shock value. In 1952, "I Love Lucy" made history by controversially featuring the first pregnant openly woman on television. Additionally, one of the most well known family friendly sitcoms, "The Brady Bunch", shocked audiences when it featured a husband and wife in bed together for the first time. They weren't showing an ounce affection for each other, just simply reading before bed, but still this scene pushed the boundaries of what could be shown on TV.

Now, those same boundaries have been pushed farther than ever before. In the last decade, television shows have become increasingly more vulgar. A "sweet spot" between family friendly and completely obscene is encouraged because it attracts the largest demographic and therefore the most  revenue. Although these of shows are the most beneficial for the TV industry as a whole, they can be extremely damaging to family ideals.


For instance, one morning I was watching the "Today Show" on NBC as I was getting ready for school. Later that evening, I was baby-sitting my 6 year old cousin and we wanted to watch a movie. I turned on my TV (which was automatically tuned into NBC) and before I could turn the channel a sex scene from "Parenthood" was being streamed into my living room. With such a powerful medium as television shows, the entertainment industry must accept the responsibility of influencing millions of people. While some have the mind set of "Let them be exposed to the real world, let them ask questions", it should be the parents judgement not a TV producer's about when the right time is appropriate for children to watch things.

I believe that we shouldn't be forced to be desensitized to immorality. If someone really wants to seek out entertainment with a more adult theme, they definitely should have the freedom to do that, but it shouldn't be as easily accessed as it is today. Now, the main channels like ABC, NBC, and FOX stream shows that contain excess amounts of violence, language, and sex during the hours of the day with the most viewership (7-9pm). It is hard to find shows that are appropriate for all members of the family. During TV's peak hours, shows that respect family ideals should be played. Once it's later in the evening or even on other more obscure channels, less tasteful shows can be played. I think that TV should use its great influence for the betterment of society, not its corruption.


Sources: Albert Mohler//Albert Mohler

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

I’m sure you’ve heard of it. In fact, there’s a good chance that you’ve even participated in it. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is the fastest growing fundraiser to ever sweep social media, and in just one month it has raised over $100 million dollars. ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease, affects the nerve cells surrounding the spinal cord and brain causing a person to loose muscle control and eventually become trapped inside his or her own body. With a life expectancy of only 2-5 years, the prognosis is grim, which is why the ALS Association is in desperate need for funding to research its origins, treatments, and hopefully a cure. The Ice Bucket Challenge has done just that by getting people around the entire globe involved with raising awareness and funds. The rules are simple: once you’re nominated, you have 24 hours to post a video of you dumping a bucket of ice water on your head, donate, and nominate three other people. It hasn’t been all positivity surrounding the Ice Bucket Challenge though. Issues regarding the morality and ethics of ALS research has been circulating the web, and like anything else in life, one must research and personally discover what they feel is right and wrong.

             Along with the overload of Ice Bucket Challenge videos on your Facebook feed, you might have noticed an article arguing against The Challenge. The article brings up some valid questions about ALS research, specifically research done with stem cells. Over the course of its history, the ALS Association has been involved in one stem cell research project. It is not specified whether embryonic stem cells or stem cells collected via cord blood had been used. Embryonic stem cells use fertilized embryos that are artificially created and then destroyed for the purpose of research. If your definition of the beginning of life is when the egg is fertilized, then this is considered murder. Cord blood, however, is extracted from a newborn’s umbilical cord soon after birth and stored until use. The stem cells from cord blood do not destroy any form of life, have the same potency as embryonic stem cells, and are therefore ethical for pro-lifers.

            Often without supplementary research, Christians and other pro-lifers declared the Ice Bucket Challenge as wrong and sinful simply after reading this one-sided article, boycotting any form of support. I believe that this action painted Christians as negative and judgmental people who disapprove of anything “not of this world”. The fact is that as a people, we had a wonderful opportunity to come together for a cause in need of support. It’s not very often that a positive movement sweeps our culture like this and we should be thanking God for the outpour of love and support that virtually the entire globe has shown for ALS patients. 

As with anything in life, the most important thing is to not make assumptions before doing personal research. Don’t just read one article and form an opinion, but truly research, pray, and form individual thoughts to discern what is right and wrong. When you donate, you can specify where you’d like your money to go. You can still support a great cause without condoning the possible use of embryonic stem cell research.

Here's my Ice Bucket Challenge, I've donated (without sacrificing my beliefs) and I now challenge all of you to help raise awareness for ALS! 

Sources: NY Daily News//Forbes//ABC News 7

At What Cost: Bowe Bergdahl

     Patriot or traitor? On May 31^st, 2014, the US exchanged five captured terrorists for the release of Bowe Bergdahl after he had been captured by the Taliban nearly five years earlier. This decision to rescue a captured United States military solider would usually seem like a no-brainer, but at a time when the stakes are so high for the safety of the world, it requires one to dive in and investigate all sides of the issue.
      Prior to his capture, Bergdahl would not by any means be considered a patriot. Before enlisting in the armed forces, he was known to be anti-war and even go as far as saying multiple statements such as, “The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at.” Some would even argue that he had ulterior motives for becoming a private in the Army. After his capture, emails between Bowe and his father that were exchanged during his service in Afghanistan surfaced that were implicitly against America, the military, and war.  When Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban, it is documented that he had deserted his post. In normal circumstances, a soldier that had abandoned his post could be court-martialed and face a lengthy sentence in a military prison.
     No one should ever be subject to the torture and imprisonment that Bowe Bergdahl faced. I do believe that it is America’s duty to protect its citizens, especially those such as soldiers who are putting their lives on the line every day for the safety of our country. But when does the safety of one man outweigh the safety and security of possibly a whole nation? In order to get Bowe Bergdahl back, the US had to negotiate the release of "The Taliban Five", which included a Taliban army chief of staff, a Taliban deputy minister of intelligence, a former Taliban interior minister, and two other senior Taliban members. 
     In order for this risky trade to be worth it, I think that Bowe Bergdahl should have been made to be more of an aid to the government once he was physically an psychologically deemed fit. After all, who would know more than he about  the inner workings and beliefs of the Taliban? How many lives around the world could be saved by Bergdahl's knowledge? But that is not what happened at all. Bergdahl’s family claimed that he couldn’t remember the English language and therefore refused to partake in any interviews outside of the required military investigation. I find issue with this because there are language and communication experts virtually everywhere. If Bowe Bergdahl had truly forgotten English, a teacher or translator could have been with him within a matter of hours. Secondly, Bergdahl could have been a useful resource in the fight against terrorism, but instead he has faded into the background. Bowe Bergdahl is still under investigation, but once it's over, he plans to get out of the Army and pursue a college degree. 
    It's no doubt that it was not only the right decision, but the moral obligation of this country, to bring Bergdahl home. The level of dedication Bowe had to his country definitely made the lines more blurred however. Due to the allegations of Bergdahl abandoning his post, one of his former squad leaders started the Facebook page "Bowe Bergdahl Is Not A Hero", which already has thousands of members. Another concerning aspect of this issue is that it sends a message terrorist groups that there is more value in a hostage situation than there was before. At least six American soldiers were killed in the effort to find and rescue Bergdahl, so I think for the sake of those lost lives Bowe Bergdahl should become an aid in the fight against terrorism and make his release worth it.