Stronger than misconceptions and misogyny: How we can fight back against “Hobby Lobby” – NOW

I have made very clear to my family, friends, and anyone who will listen, where I stand on the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision:  Employers should not have the right to dictate which types of health care their employees’ compensatory health insurance benefits will and will not cover merely because of “sincerely-held” yet scientifically inaccurate beliefs. The Court’s decision is a skewed interpretation of “religious freedom.”

.

In response to the ruling, I have spoken out and encouraged readers to lift their heads and continue fighting (for an issue that should have been long-settled by 2014). Since the ruling was issued, hundreds of thousands of women have actively joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent. Because we made our voices heard, Senators and Representatives introduced the “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act” bill, which would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s decision. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this bill, like most bills introduced these days, did not pass. This is especially predictable when women hold only 17% of seats in Congress.

.

As we approach mid-term elections, I raise my voice because I understand the importance of public opinion when it comes to shaping policy. This is why it is so important to me that the public understands the many layers of this issue and has accurate information with which to form its opinion. Unfortunately, there is still a ton of misinformation (or lack of understanding) out there about the ACA birth control mandate, birth control in general, and the importance of legal precedent. Some of the following misconceptions are sillier than others, but I have heard all of them, multiple times, from supporters of the recent Court ruling. Battling these falsehoods is essential to our fight.

 .

“Obamacare allows the government to control women’s sexual health decisions.” 

Simply – no. The ACA mandates that the employee insurance plans offered by employers (with the exception of non-profit religious institutions) include coverage for all preventative and curative reproductive health care treatments, including contraceptives. As with all other medications however, employees are in no way required to use contraceptives simply because they are covered by their health insurance.

 .

“Obamacare forces employers to pay for birth control.”

First of all, employers do not directly pay for employees’ medications; they pay for their health insurance, which pays for the medication. As I have said before, people forget that this employer-provided health insurance is earned. Women work for their employment benefits; these benefits are not “handouts” from their employers. A woman’s boss isn’t “paying for her birth control” by providing her with the health insurance benefits that she has earned any more than he is paying for her groceries by providing her with the paycheck that she has earned. We never hear, “You need cholesterol medication? Pay for it yourself!” We know that health insurance is an earned benefit in this context, and the only reason some people draw a distinction for birth control coverage is because it relates to women’s sexuality.

.

“Birth control is not a necessary part of health care.”

It’s easy for the judgmental and self-righteous to claim that medication related to women’s sexuality is not necessary or important. But birth control coverage matters for everyone. It’s important for the 99% of sexually active women in America who use it, and their partners. It’s important for Americans who wish to see drops in teen pregnancy rates, and the prevention of abortion. It’s important for Americans who want to see an end to child poverty, neglect, and death. It’s important for Americans who dislike their tax dollars supporting the impoverished population that results from unintended pregnancies. Birth control is an important part of health care for all Americans, not just sexually promiscuous girls who want lots of “consequence free sex.”

.

“The Supreme Court only created an exception for employers who don’t believe in the types of birth control that cause abortion.”

Wrong again. None of the four types of birth control considered in Hobby Lobby actually cause abortion. If the Court gives more weight to a “sincerely held” yet scientifically-inaccurate belief than to earned employee benefits and federal employment laws, what types of beliefs can courts hold do NOT outweigh employee rights and federal laws? Can a Jewish or Muslim employer refuse to allow their employees’ health benefits to extend to medications which contain pig co-products? At least it is scientifically correct that many pills are coated with this substance which they believe should not be consumed by humans. The Court cannot attribute credibility to only the beliefs held by Christians or by substantial chunks of the population without being in direct violation of the First Amendment, so there is [now] no legal limit as to what “beliefs” employers may use as a guise for refusing employee benefits.

.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling was very narrow.”

As an individual well-versed in Supreme Court case law, this statement particularly troubles me. Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains better than I could how this decision is one of “startling breadth,” and for anyone with some level of legal education this is hard to deny. While, yes, the holding of this case applies to just one company and four types of birth control, the case’s legal importance comes from the precedent it sets – the legal “rule.” As of June 30, 2014, all 108 Federal Courts across the U.S. must now abide by the principle that closely-held corporations (which employ about 52% of America’s workforce) have religious beliefs, and if those religious beliefs conflict with federal labor laws, the benefits earned by its employees can be revoked. The popular belief that this case only allows employers to constitutionally deny certain types of benefits could not be further from truth (see above). Even my conservative colleagues well-versed in the law don’t pretend this Supreme Court decision will have small effects.

.

Though I find the amount of ignorance surrounding the ruling disheartening, I am revitalized by the public’s disapproval of the Judicial Opinion in large part. In 40 days we can make that disapproval mean something. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong before, and it only takes time for their incorrect decisions to be overturned. But for the sake of the millions of women potentially affected, I implore you to vote this November to create a Congress with the capacity to #FixHobbyLobby sooner rather than later.

We need to talk about street harassment.

It was not until recently that I heard the phrase “street harassment,” but when I did, I knew immediately what it was. I had previously known it as “cat calling,” but this just didn’t seem to accurately depict the degrading verbal and occasionally physical assault that I’ve experienced on a regular basis ever since I developed breasts and hips. It truly is “harassment,” and it is shockingly common.

Even in broad daylight, I can rarely make it even a couple blocks without having multiple men whistle or grunt at me, tell me I’m hot, make obscene comments about my body, or call me baby and urge me to come over to them. The moment that follows is always an awful combination of sickening emotions.  I feel uncomfortable, angry, disgusted, disrespected on the most basic human level, and utterly powerless to stand up for myself. When their eyes look me up and down and they smirk at my vulnerability, I feel naked, violated, filthy.

And yet, what can I do? I fear that if it’s obvious I’m blowing a man off, he will get angry and it will put my safety at risk. I don’t want any trouble, and I know that even as an athletic woman, most men could easily overpower me. So, I usually pretend not to hear their disgusting words and noises. I keep my head down and keep walking, but they’re not easily fooled, and it’s amazing how quickly I go from being called “baby” to being called “bitch,” or worse. I feel relieved when I escape these uncomfortable situations. And I am more fortunate than many women because I can count on only one hand the number of times I have experienced street harassment in the form of physical touching/groping.

Perhaps the most alarming thing about street harassment is that when women speak out in an effort to expose it, we are often accused of exaggerating because of our own vanity – as if we are “bragging” about all the compliments we get from men.  They tell us we actually like the “attention” we get on the street, and that it’s our fault for how we dress. Power in our society is so imbalanced that men get away with treating women with complete disrespect – like sex objects – and the women are accused of being the problem.

Excuse me, but receiving comments from strange men about my appearance and fuck-ability as I walk by minding my own business is NOT a compliment. It’s harassment, plain and simple, and it’s not acceptable.

We need to talk about street harassment, because no woman should not have to fear walking down the street in the middle of the day, and no man should be permitted to harass without even the slightest repercussion. Oddly enough, I have never experienced harassment if I am accompanied by another man. As a result, I fear that men often aren’t aware of how different life is for women on a daily basis to do something as simple as walk down the street. Raising awareness of everyday sexism helps us move toward a society in which it is no longer accepted.

If you ever witness street harassment and feel safe to do so, I encourage you to stand up to the harasser. Or, simply ask the victim if she is okay. In the that horrible moment of feeling violated and disrespected, receiving even a little bit of support and comfort can inspire a world of hope.

Despair, dissent, and a glimmer of hope in the wake of “Hobby Lobby.”

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision has left me feeling angry, sick, disheartened. Wanting to throw up all day. It’s rare that I am so upset by something in the news that initially I don’t even want to write about it, but I think I have finally found my voice and a reason to hope.

I am appalled (though not surprised) by yesterday’s “Hobby Lobby” ruling.  I must say that I expected to witness challenges and setbacks to the hot-button issue of abortion rights in my lifetime, but birth control?  It is sad for our society when a corporation is held to have religious beliefs, and that even when said beliefs are factually and scientifically inaccurate (i.e. birth control = abortion) they trump actual human beings’ (women’s) earned health insurance benefits, as well as the fiscally responsible policy of preventing unwanted pregnancy (think “welfare babies”). This is a horribly warped concept of what “religious freedom” is. By the same logic, a corporation could claim to be Jehovah’s witness and refuse to offer employees a health plan which includes coverage for blood transfusions. Or a Christian Scientist corporation could choose to not provide health insurance at all. The list of absurdities could go on. Because of the frightening precedent set by this case, a corporation could potentially opt out of any United States law simply by claiming that the law doesn’t conform to its religious beliefs, even at the expense of its employees.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that so many people just see anything associated with “Obamacare” and automatically think, “BAD.” It’s also clear that many conservative Christians mistakenly believe their beliefs are being infringed upon unless society’s norms and laws conform to those beliefs. Hobby Lobby probably gained a ton of supporters early on who knew nothing more than that the corporation was suing the Obama Administration for the protection of their “religious freedom.” Many of these people seem to have not bothered to research what the birth control provision of ACA actually says or what different types of birth control actually do. Contrary to one popular rumor, IUDs and Morning After pills do NOT in fact terminate an existing pregnancy. Additionally, the “Obamacare” birth control mandate does not require insurance plans to cover abortions. Nor does it force taxpayers to subsidize birth control, force employers to pay for birth control, or even require non-profit religious organizations to provide employees with health insurance plans which include birth control. All this provision does – did – is require employer-provided health insurance plans granted by corporations to finally cover preventive contraception along with other necessary and preventive prescription drugs.

People forget that employer-provided health insurance is earned. Women work for their employment benefits; these benefits are not “handouts.” A woman’s boss isn’t “paying for her birth control” by providing her with the health insurance benefits that she has earned any more than he is paying for her groceries by providing her with the paycheck that she has earned. If it’s wrong for a boss to tell his employee that she can’t spend her earned paycheck on something that is against his religious beliefs, it’s wrong for him to tell her that she can’t use her earned health insurance for something that is against his religious beliefs. This isn’t women with an “entitlement complex” wanting free birth control. It is women asserting that we are entitled to the compensatory health benefits we have earned, regardless of our bosses’ personal beliefs about our specific health care needs. Especially when said beliefs are medically inaccurate.

The fact is that birth control is a necessary part of health care for almost 2/3 of American women, and like most prescription drugs, it is very expensive to purchase without insurance. That earned employer-provided health insurance plans should cover almost all prescription drugs with the exception of birth control – one of the only drugs which only women use – is inherently sexist and discriminatory.  Why is it that of all prescriptions, only birth control is considered an unearned “handout” when employer-provided health insurance is required to cover it?  I don’t ever hear anyone say, “Need blood pressure meds? Pay for them yourself you moocher!” Some argue that birth control is different from other drugs because it’s not a “necessary” health care treatment – yet many other non life-saving treatments are covered by health insurance without controversy (Viagra, for example). Some may attempt to distinguish birth control by suggesting that it is only for sexually promiscuous women who want to avoid the consequences of their actions. But the reality is, the vast majority of women are not using birth control so they can sleep around. Many of us are married or in long-term, monogamous relationships and are simply not financially or emotionally or professionally in a position to care for a child. In fact, more than 3/4 of married American women use birth control. Contraception must be viewed as a “necessary” part of health care by anyone who realizes that about 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and doesn’t want to see more neglected, starving children who will be supported by taxpayer money.

Last week I explained what this ruling would mean for me and millions of women like me who cannot afford prescription medications without the help of health insurance. Now this is our reality. In short, many of the corporations through which we are insured will likely jump at the chance to save money by, under the guise of “religious freedom,” offering a sub-par health plan that discriminates against women by not covering essential aspects of women’s health care needs like birth control. We’ve been told that it’s responsible to prevent pregnancy when we can’t afford children, but now what will we do? Many of the women who lose their birth control coverage will probably go back to using less-effective methods of pregnancy prevention (e.g. “pulling out”). Some of us will get pregnant with children who will become dependent on the state. Some of us will seek new jobs, or a non-employer source of financial help so that we can continue protecting ourselves from unwanted pregnancy without insurance coverage. These latter routes however, are often not feasible. I have already begun searching for state programs which might help me bear the costs of contraceptives and have been unsuccessful. Regardless of what action we as women choose to take, the impact of this decision is likely to leave most of us feeling lost and helpless.

From the moment I learned of this ruling, there have been so many angry things I’ve wanted to write about the 5 conservative (male!) Supreme Court Justices, men who think they own women’s bodies, the owners of Hobby Lobby, Christians who believe the First Amendment allows them to run other people’s lives (and that if they can’t, someone’s waging a “war on Christianity”), and the institution of religion in general. Now at the end of a mentally exhausting 24 hours, I instead find myself more comforted to think of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This awe-inspiring woman has devoted her whole life to gaining ground for women in the fight for equality, and wrote a scathing dissent to yesterday’s majority opinion.  Though they were outnumbered, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were there to represent women yesterday. Their presence in the legal profession has paved the way for women like me to join the legal community and make my voice heard as well, and I am grateful. I am grateful for women like Margaret Sanger and Estelle Griswold, who pioneered a woman’s legal right to use contraceptives. I am grateful for Cecile Richards and everyone at Planned Parenthood who works tirelessly to ensure that women like me have access to affordable birth control and reproductive health information so that we can make responsible choices. I know these women (and men!) will continue to help those in need until the day birth control coverage is considered a non-controversial part of health care.

Thinking of the extraordinary women in America’s past and present, one thought above all gives me hope – the truth that, no matter how slow or difficult it may seem – no matter how many times a Supreme Court ruling sets us back – progress is as inevitable as the passage of time. So pick your heads up, ladies. We have a long road ahead.

What the Supreme Court’s upcoming “Hobby Lobby” decision means for me – and maybe you, too.

Next week, the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the case in which owners of a for-profit craft store argue that the provision of the Affordable Care Act which require employers to provide contraceptive health insurance coverage for their female employees violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The statutory claims and legal issues at stake are well-outlined here:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/waiting-for-the-supreme-court-on-the-hobby-lobby-decision.html

Unfortunately for the many women who will be affected by this decision, the Hobby Lobby case is engulfed in highly-politicized issues such as the validity of “Obamacare,” the notion of “separation of church and state,” and reproductive healthcare. It is unlikely that the owners of Hobby Lobby would have much chance of success in this case, had they been Jehovah’s Witnesses who wanted to restrict their employees’ access to blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists who wanted to restrict their employees’ access to any medical treatment. Instead, they fall into the majority religious group – Christianity – and are opposed to a healthcare law initiated by President Obama which is connected to the hot button issue of sexuality. Thus, even though the three female Justices on the Court have indicated their intent to rule in favor of women’s health, I fear that certain Justices’ desires to make a point on connected political issues will prevent them from doing the same.

I will be anxiously awaiting the Hobby Lobby ruling because it will have an impact on my own life, in addition to the lives of many other women. At the risk of being slut-shamed, I feel that empathy for those affected by a Supreme Court decision makes it easier to grasp the importance and potential impact of the decision, politics aside. So here’s my personal story.

Yes, I use contraceptives – along with 62% of American women. Before the ACA (or as it’s more commonly known, “Obamacare”) went into effect, the cost of my birth control was about $80 a month – almost $1,000 a year – because my insurance company did not cover the particular type I use. Some might have suggested I simply “find a different type,” but as most woman who have used birth control know, it’s not that simple for many reasons which I will save for another day.

As I quickly learned, $1,000 per year for birth control simply isn’t feasible for a full-time student with no income. Fortunately, when I lived in Pennsylvania I qualified for a state program called SelectPlan to help me afford it. This secondary insurance program allowed me to not only obtain birth control at a reasonable cost, but also to have regular check-ups to ensure that my blood pressure and reproductive cycle remained stable and healthy.

I was quite distressed upon moving to Las Vegas for law school when I discovered that a similar program does not exist in Nevada. For over a year, I was left with no choice but to sacrifice either my preventative reproductive health care or my already shaky fiscal stability. It was a huge relief when ACA went into effect this past winter, and I was finally able to get birth control through my insurance company. Now I can make sure I’m being safe without having to worry about breaking the bank. All American women should be able to do the same.

My insurance company’s original denial to cover for my birth control may or may not have been for religious reasons, but the upcoming Supreme Court decision has the potential to again restrict my access to birth control. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would strike down the provision of the ACA which requires employee health plans to include contraceptive coverage, opening the door for employers to deny coverage to their employees for any reason, be it religiously or economically motivated.

It is imperative that the United States government protect the rights of employees and their families to necessary and preventative healthcare, especially in consideration of the national economic and social importance of preventative and reproductive healthcare. It should be obvious that one boss’s Constitutional right to religious freedom and his own personal religious beliefs cannot be reasonably interpreted by the Court to allow him to dictate the healthcare to which other Americans may have access. All one has to do to recognize this faulty logic is imagine the same scenario, but with a different religious group trying to restrict a different type of right. A ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers to cite religious reasons to refuse to follow other federal laws intended to protect the rights and interests of employees.

At least two of the male Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court must realize this. But then again, four of them recently attempted to rule that people should be allowed to lie about their identity on federal forms when purchasing a gun, so I can’t help but worry.

 

HGTV’s cancellation of show with anti-gay hosts is not about opinions.

There was a time in American history when white people could go on TV and say the most racist, hateful things imaginable with little to no consequence – how interracial marriage would destroy America. Similarly, men could talk about women as being inferior – how women in the workforce would destroy America. Race and gender problems still exist, but mindsets have changed so that, for the most part, such sentiments in the media are simply no longer tolerated (except perhaps on Fox News).

Presently, it seems our society is reaching another tipping point – the one in which we no longer sit quietly when public figures advocate against LGBT rights. More and more people are facing consequences for their words and actions which serve to oppress this community, most recently the Benham brothers, whose HGTV show was cancelled after the surfacing of their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, and anti-public school activist work.

Growing acceptance of the LGBT community has empowered more people to stand up to anti-gay bigotry and encouraged the responsiveness of media outlets to bad PR from it. Still, the public as a whole has certainly not reached the point of accepting that there will be inevitable consequences for such words and actions. In response to HGTV’s decision to cancel the Benham brothers show due to disapproval from its audience, conservatives have written about how political correctness, the left agenda, or the gay agenda is destroying America. Some people protest that everyone is entitled to their opinions, or that the gay community is hypocritical for being “intolerant of Christian values.” Well, here is my response:

It’s not about “everyone has the right to their own opinion.” It’s about human dignity, and more importantly, human rights. The “gay agenda” is to be treated as a human being – the same goal every oppressed group has ever had. There are many people in the U.S. whose “opinions” still – in 2014 – lead them to oppose interracial marriage or females as breadwinners. But those who speak out about these views face backlash, not because of political correctness or intolerance for differing opinions, but because in America, our idea of what is “right” and “wrong” is constantly evolving from traditional notions of the past. We have decided that racism and sexism are wrong. Likewise, the American majority is starting to decide that speaking hatefully and using religious views to deny rights to homosexuals is wrong. The Benham brothers do not simply harbor anti-gay feelings or believe in Christian values. They have actively taken extreme measures to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, reproductive rights for women, and have demonized Muslims and public schools. The public pressure HGTV faced to cancel its show did not stem from intolerance of Christians or differing opinions, but for intolerance of archaically-rooted hate.

The Benham brothers, and all anti-gay activists, are entitled to their extreme, bigoted, and homophobic views. But our society is changing. Just as with every social movement of the past, there will come a time when acceptance of LGBT individuals and their rights is the norm, and hate will not be tolerated.

Time to abandon the term “feminism”?

Since my last post was published, many people have given me the feedback that while they agree with its message of gender equality, using the word “feminism” turned them off. Though most people would support “women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men,” the term “feminism” is much more controversial due to modern negative connotations. This led me to wonder if it is time to change our terminology.

The way that I intended to use the term (by its definition) was not to advocate the goal of feminizing society, but rather the goal of advancing the way women are viewed in order to achieve equality in this sense, so that people are not shamed for their failure to conform to gender stereotypes. While yes, men and women will never be equal in every sense, and men don’t want to be called women (and vice versa) because they are something biologically different, my concern is the way that our culture likens men to women as an insult in moments when they are perceived as weak, afraid, selfish, etc. It exposes underlying negativity in the way we caricature the what it is to be a woman, and the goal of feminism is to battle such views so that a person’s character can speak for itself.

People have asked, if feminism is truly about equality, why not call it “masculinism,” “humanism,” etc.? To many (including myself), the word “feminism” makes sense because while feminism by definition is about political, economic, and social equality, empowering women is a necessary part of achieving such equality. Still, if the original meaning of “feminism” has been replaced by something which turns people off, and defining the term becomes a battle of its own which distracts from the importance of the message, perhaps it is worth abandoning what has sadly become a dirty word. Though I feel very uncomfortable and dissatisfied suggesting we alter logical language in response to public misconceptions, ironically, abandoning the term “feminism” might help advance the ideals feminism.

Just one reason all men should be feminists.

Most unfortunately, it seems that “feminism” has become a dirty word to some, caused by an inaccurate depiction of feminists as some silly band of radical bra-burners who believe women are superior to men.  Although bra-burning may be a popular empowering pastime, feminism by definition is the movement for equality for women. But, modern feminists must just be a bunch of man-haters, since in today’s society, women and men are viewed equally, right? WRONG. While the Western world has progressed tremendously in its treatment of women, it is not difficult to find evidence of society’s view of women as inferior to men – a problem which is harmful to both women and men alike.

Such evidence is found in an excellent video I recently came across which illustrates an unfair double standard that boys and men face. While girls/women do not get scrutinized (in fact they are often praised) for liking sports, drinking beer, or other stereotypical “masculine” things, men whose interests/behavior aligns with which society says is supposed to be “feminine” are shamed. Society is quick to criticize a boy for what is stereotypically “feminine” behavior (having emotions?) and tell him to “be a man” or to “stop being a pussy.” Why do we make fun of men for ordering a fruit-flavored drink, enjoying musicals, or crying when something sad happens? 

The despicable reality is that the shame men face for not being “masculine” enough exists for the same reason women are criticized for striving to break traditional gender roles: Because of our culture’s view of women as the inferior sex. Many have responded to the above video by defensively claiming that telling someone (man or woman) to “man up” or “be a man” simply intends to say, “be strong,” “be respectable,” etc. My question is, why do we equate being strong, respectable, etc. with being a man, and what does that imply about our culture’s view of what it is to be a woman? Think of the way people often show their discontent with something by saying “that’s gay.” Even if the person speaks about something completely unrelated to sexuality, s/he makes an underlying statement that being “gay” is inherently something bad. Similarly, encouraging someone to “be a man” (usually when perceiving a weakness) makes an underlying statement that being a woman is inherently bad, or at least not good enough.

Because of society’s conscious and subconscious view of women as the inferior sex, women face numerous double standards and challenges, as illustrated by this brilliant commercial. However, it is less often that we recognize the negative effects of such gender inequality felt by men. The view of women as inferior creates both unfairness for girls AND an unrealistic expectation of “masculinity” for boys. Despite negative connotations some associate with the word, “feminism” is not about female superiority – it’s about gender equality, which benefits everyone. In a culture in which a person’s character is judged without the pretense of what his/her gender says he/she is “supposed” to be, a man could order a salad at a restaurant, listen to Alanis Morissette, express himself, etc., and we wouldn’t shame him and tell him to “be a man,” because being a man wouldn’t mean being better than a woman.

Why A&E is both right AND wrong to suspend Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.

It’s almost impossible not to notice the recent eruption of national debate surrounding the graphic comments made by Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson likening homosexuality to bestiality in GQ magazine. Much of the controversy comes from the response of the television show’s network (A&E), which released a statement distancing itself and the show from Robertson’s comments, and indefinitely suspended Robertson from the show. As in the controversies surrounding Paula Deen and Riley Cooper earlier this year, the discussion focuses on freedom of speech, bigotry, political correctness, the accountability of celebrities for their words and actions, and the rights of their sponsors to fire/suspend them. To make sense of the present controversy, it must be analyzed from three main perspectives: legal, political, and business.

From a purely legal view, whether one thinks Mr. Robertson deserved to be suspended by A&E is irrelevant. Gaining celebrity status for starring in Duck Dynasty, Mr. Robertson represents the show and the entire network. An organization has the right to fire/suspend a person who represents it in a negative way, as is typically boilerplate language in such entertainment contracts. We all have freedom of speech, but this does not protect one from repercussions when comments made could potentially hurt the public image of the organization represented. Mr. Robertson has the constitutional right to express his beliefs, no matter how bigoted they may seem, but A&E is also legally within its rights to cut affiliations with him as a result. It is no secret that when one is in the public eye representing a network or company, he must be conscious in interviews that his words do not solely reflect on himself. Though the bible-thumping family’s views on homosexuality shouldn’t be surprising to viewers of the show, Robertson should have known better than to publicly insult a large segment of the population at the network’s expense.

Despite A&E’s legal right to express apologies to the LGBTQ community and suspend Mr. Robertson from the show, it has received immense criticism for doing so. Perhaps the loudest voices come from conservative politicians such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who offered support to Mr. Robertson, embracing the opportunity to point his finger at the evils of “political correctness” and the “liberal media.” Many Americans also place blame on the marginalized group itself (and its supporters) for being too easily offended, over-sensitive, or even oppressive of others with differing beliefs. When Americans see their favorite TV personalities face the repercussions of their controversial words, it is easy to become angry with the minority group the comments were directed toward, even if the network was in no way pressured by this group. This public backlash is the exact reason why politically, A&E’s choice to suspend Mr. Robertson was wrong choice for the LGBTQ community, which has become the scapegoat here. A&E has indirectly harmed the LGBTQ community and its supporters in its response to Robertson’s bigoted comments, because many members of the public now confuse A&E’s business decision with a political agenda of punishing anyone for saying something that could be construed as offensive towards homosexuals, or “political correctness.” In reality, the majority of the LGBTQ community merely wants equality, not to harm anyone for expressing their beliefs, however offensive or cruel they may be. 

For A&E itself, however, any political harm inflicted upon the LGBTQ community and its supporters does not make its decision wrong, because the main concern of A&E is not political, but financial. The latest season premiere of Duck Dynasty was one of the most-watched hours of television in American history, and the series is currently the second most-watched program on cable television. A&E’s recent expressions of support for the LGBTQ community and disdain for Robertson’s comments may be the genuine feelings of some of the network’s leaders, but it is a mistake to believe that the network’s purpose was to make a political statement. As with all media outlets, A&E’s main purpose is always to to retain viewers and protect the show’s “most-watched” status. Despite stereotypes suggesting the show is only enjoyed by the politically conservative, the producers of Duck Dynasty must know that to make it the most-watched show, a wide variety of people must tune in – including members and supporters of the LGBTQ community (which now make up the majority of the U.S. population). For A&E, protecting its image means protecting its profits; the political damage to the image of the LGBTQ community is not the network’s concern. And in a few months when public attention turns to a new controversy, Phil Robertson will be back on the air bringing in millions for A&E.

Doing what’s “right” for your personal life.

Recently I have seen a TON of viral blog posts shared on Facebook outlining what type of man/woman you should be in a relationship with, how you should make relationship/marriage work, how you should parent your children, and even in what order you should value the people in your family. At first the posts just felt like little tidbits of helpful advice, but as I read certain points that differed from my personal experience, I became turned off by their authors’ sense of self-righteousness…the idea that their way was the “right” way & anyone who didn’t follow the “rules” was doomed for unhappiness, and the fact that many of my Facebook friends seemed to be perpetuating this idea.

The most prominent time I felt this way was when I read this advice: “God comes first, then your husband, then your kids.” It was followed by a sentence explaining that this concept is unpopular, but it’s right. Well, I’m here to tell you that it’s not. There is no “right” way. Despite the fact that everyone has different religious dynamics in their families (and this does not make some families “better” than others!), whether you decide that your spouse or children come first is a personal choice, and whether you choose one or the other does not determine whether your family will be successful & happy or not. The main argument for putting your spouse before your kids was that your marriage has to be stable in order to raise strong and happy kids. As a child of a non-traditional family, this left me unsettled. Because my parents are not married to each other, they always put my sister and I first (and certainly before each other). The author of the viral blog post may be surprised that I am pretty successful for a young twenty-something, in a happy relationship of my own and going to law school. I’m not arguing that kids must come first, or that having kids means it’s okay to neglect your other relationships – both your kids and your significant other need to be a priority. But to have someone insinuate that if you aren’t in a stable marriage then you can’t successfully raise kids, is insulting and frankly incorrect.

Family in tall grass (Photo credit: Jackal of all trades)

These viral articles/blog posts have tried my patience without a response for the last time. NO ONE has the answers or expertise to tell you how to live YOUR personal life – because it’s just that – personal! Every relationship is different. Some couples are more affectionate, some are more independent, some don’t want kids, some have kids before they are married. Every family is different. Some have only one parent, some have two parents of the same gender, some have several kids who are not all biologically related. And every single individual significant other/child’s needs, wants, and personalities are different. Different expressions of love and family dynamics work for different families. And MANY different things can be good for the same people. There is never only one right way. Whether your husband tells you you’re beautiful every day or changes the baby’s diaper when he knows you need the sleep; whether your girlfriend is there to give you a hug after a long day or makes you dinner every night; whether you read your child a book every night or put him in day care because you work 2 jobs and want him to be able to go to college- there is no “right” way to love! There are certainly wrong ways to show love (i.e. through abuse), but that it is not truly love. And of course, different people respond to expressions of love in different ways. The key is to communicate what is working for you and what isn’t. It doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong if your family members aren’t understanding your feelings; it’s something your family can work on together.

A blog post on the internet listing 10 ways to (blank) is not the answer. You may appreciate the views that some of these authors have, but it is important to remember to take them as what they are, the perspectives of people who have very different lives than you do.

No matter how much or little you have, be appreciative.

Recently, I have noticed an emerging trend of Americans engaging in passive-aggressive competitions of “who has it worst?”  We now hear people frequently saying to one another: “You think YOU have it bad? You should hear what’s happened to ME!” The need to “one-up” others when sharing personal woes is an ironic contradiction to the more logical assumption that people would choose to show off their successes.  Lately, I think I’d prefer to hear people bragging.

Feeling sorry for oneself is ugly, but it is even more repulsive when you vastly underestimate your fortunes, as this makes you appear ungrateful for what you have. I recently heard a man complain that he “doesn’t make a lot of money.” As he said this, he was finishing up his normal 3-hour work day and preparing to drive his BMW back to his four-bedroom house (where he lives alone) secured within a gated community where guards check the I.D.’s of everyone seeking entrance. In another instance, a couple joked in front of me about their being “low-class” because they were drinking Merlot instead of Cabernet at their second property, a lakefront home.  The irony of the statements made in these two cases is blatantly obvious, but the game of down-playing good fortune can be played by those at all income levels. You don’t have to earn a six-digit salary or be a millionaire to be fortunate or underestimate how good you have it. Even members of many lower-middle class families, who fare considerably well in comparison to many others, still choose to downplay their good luck or success, and only compare themselves to the super-rich. For example, I have come in contact with several young women who do not work, but live in multiple-bedroom houses paid for by their husbands who earn a humble paycheck. However, these women refuse to acknowledge how fortunate they are to be able to live in nice houses and care for their babies without the distraction of a part- or full-time job; instead they choose to complain not having a lot of spending money due to their husbands being underpaid. They fail to realize that the majority of unmarried 18-24 year olds have no choice but to work (sometimes multiple jobs) so that they can afford to pay rent on much smaller living spaces- if they aren’t still trying to move out of their parents’ basements. Life gets tough at times for everyone, but it certainly does not make you appear sympathetic when you complain to people who are making a considerably greater effort than you are to improve their situations, yet are still not doing as well as you.  Yes, there is always someone who is doing better than you- but chances are, someone is listening to you complain who is living under far worse circumstances and is insulted by your apparent lack of gratitude and humility.

Why do people compete to have the worst story?  Maybe a small group of people just have a lack of empathy and are unable to recognize the struggles of others that may be worse than their own. But it also seems that our society sees something more admirable about a humble lifestyle and individuals who have had to face greater obstacles in life.  After all, the heroes of movies and books are always the characters who must face significant challenges. Colleges want to hear personal statements about struggles that prospective students have overcome. Wealthy politicians dress in casual clothes and downplay their success in order to seem more “relatable” and win votes. It appears that for whatever reason, people feel that they become more credible, likable, or sympathetic under poorer circumstances. Perhaps some feel guilty for their luck in life and feel the need to reassure others (and themselves) that they have had their fair share of obstacles.  But, there is no need for people who have been fortunate to feel ashamed of their wealth or happiness. If your family can manage to live off of one income so you can be a stay-at-home mom, I’m happy for you. If you can buy a second home or a BMW, I’m happy for you. All I’m asking is that you be happy for yourselves, and stop trying to convince others of your supposed misfortune and thus insulting the many people who have less than you do. People who are not doing as well as you are will not hate you for your success so long as you embody humility and compassion for others. On the other hand, pretending your good fortunes do not exist or appearing unappreciative of them only makes you seem like you have a stuck-up attitude and are completely out of touch with reality. There is ALWAYS someone who is facing more difficult challenges than you are. So, let’s stop feeling sorry for ourselves and competing for who deserves the most sympathy, because the people who are truly the most likeable are those who are happy and grateful for what they have- no matter how much or little that may be.