If it happened there…

I recently read a blog post on Slate, the first in a series called “If It Happened There,” that reported on the government shutdown in the tone usually reserved for articles about events that occur abroad. It was sadly amusing and highlighted the irony of the concept of American exceptionalism in light of of our government’s recent antics. It also caused me to reflect on the reasons I’m lately much more interested in reading articles about what happened “here” than those about what happened “there.”

Throughout high school and college I studied international politics and had little interest in learning about my own government. My coworkers are often surprised to learn that I never watched a Democratic or Republican National Convention before last year, and I knew little about the structure and function of my own government while in school (my current line of work has an exclusively domestic focus and often intersects with politics). The reasoning behind my reluctance to learn about my own government was pretty simple: I thought it was corrupt and dysfunctional, and didn’t want to be a part of it. Not that governments in other states weren’t dysfunctional, but for some reason I was more interested (fascinated, even) to learn about dysfunctional governments abroad than the one at home.

Not much has changed since high school and college—I still think my government is corrupt and dysfunctional (the events of late make that eminently clear). However, it is because of this dysfunction that I am now focused on domestic policy rather than international policy. I know from living abroad that the best solutions to any problem have to come from those who are personally affected by it, and who have a vested interest in ensuring its successful resolution. This does not, for the most part, describe the members of the U.S. congress—if it did, the shutdown never would have happened.

A friend of mine, a journalist from Spain, recently returned home when his visa ran out. He quickly acquired a new visa to come back to the U.S. and arrived just as the government shutdown was beginning. Many people joke that they can’t understand why he would want to come back to the U.S. in its current state. However, I imagine that he is intrigued, perhaps even amused, by recent events. As an outsider, you have the luxury of observing phenomena such as the U.S. government shutdown much like you would observe a play. Compared to events happening at home, you can analyze and comprehend them with a greater degree of clarity because they don’t generally affect you as directly. Just as it’s easier to recognize another person’s character flaws than it is to confront your own shortcomings, it can be tempting to focus on a crisis occurring “over there” rather than a the events unfolding right in your own backyard.

Obstructionists in congress know that their actions are hurting people, but only on an abstract level. Moreover, it is much more appealing for them to ignore the facts—like the polls showing that 70% of Americans disapprove of the GOP’s actions, or the news that millions of Americans visited the “Obamacare” health exchange websites despite the shutdown—than it would be to admit guilt and change course. It sure doesn’t look like they plan to face reality any time soon.


An open letter to my peers

OK friends. It’s time for some real talk here. I’m broke, too. I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s own health and actions, too. That’s why I support the Affordable Care Act.

So, you don’t want to pay for “someone else’s health care?” Neither do I. The problem is, I already do—whether I like it or not. Because when someone who is uninsured or underinsured goes to the emergency room, they have to be treated, whether or not they can pay for that treatment. Hospitals provided $62.1 billion worth of care in 2009 that was never paid for. And when hospitals are faced with those kinds of losses, they have to raise prices for those who can pay. That means higher sticker prices for those who pay out of pocket, and higher premiums for those who have insurance. Families USA estimated that in 2008, the cost of higher insurance premiums due to uncompensated care was $1,017 per family and $368 per individual. So what about all those claims from the red side of the aisle that premiums would skyrocket under the law? Turns out those “rate shock” claims were false—apparently when insurance companies are forced to compete for people’s business in a transparent manner, consumers win.

Friends, the question isn’t whether you want to pay for someone else’s health care, but rather how you would like to pay, and how much you would like those costs to increase in the future. In 2010 the Urban Institute projected that without reform the cost of uncompensated care in the U.S. would rise to up to $141 billion in 2019, whereas it would “dramatically reduce” with the passage of the health reform bill. Yet, the main economic burden of uninsurance comes not from uncompensated care, but rather from the loss of productivity caused by poorer health outcomes among the uninsured—who often don’t get the care they need early enough, if at all. According to the Institute of Medicine, the economic cost of uninsurance to society is between $65 billion and $130 billion annually.

If health reform is so great, you may ask, why do you keep hearing such horrible things about it? Well, perhaps you should consider the source of that information. Because when the same people who bash the individual mandate when it’s connected to a Democratic president claim that it’s “clearly consistent with conservative values” when it’s connected to a Republican governor, you might start to think that their opposition to the law has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with who came up with it. When their best alternative to the law they claim is such a bad deal for the American people is shutting down the government entirely, and when their desire to accomplish this goal is strong enough that they have no problem lying to the American people to do so, you might start to question whether they really have your best interests at heart.

Look, I don’t think the law is perfect either. But I do think that something had to be done to at least begin to fix our broken system. The U.S. is almost entirely alone among industrialized countries in its failure to provide universal healthcare to its citizens, yet we still pay more than twice as much per person on healthcare than countries that have “socialized” medicine. And people like you and I—the “young invincibles,” as some would call us, have worse health outcomes than young people in any other developed country. If you have objections to the law, please speak up! But you’re gonna have to go beyond saying how much you hate it an give me some constructive solutions that would work in the real world.

How the ubiquitous “have it all” and “lean in” debates hurt women

Now that I am a member of the “professional” workforce in a career-obsessed town, I suppose it’s natural that I have taken an interest in discussions—whether in person, in print or online—on how to achieve long-term success. As a feminist who has feminist friends and reads feminist publications, I am well-versed in myriad of ways that professional advancement can be complicated by gender. Still, even I have noticed that gendered dialogue about the workplace is increasingly saturating the mainstream media market—complete with trendy catchphrases such as “have it all” and “lean in”.

On one hand, the penetration of topics such as the leadership gap and pay inequity into popular debate is good for women—simply being conscious of these issues might motivate them to start taking action. On a personal level, understanding some of the societal factors that influence the pay gap encouraged me to approach my salary negotiations with more confidence when I landed my first full-time job. Similarly, my knowledge of the statistics on how few women hold leadership positions—in government institutions, nonprofits and businesses across the board—has given my career path a stronger sense of purpose. I don’t just want to have a fulfilling career anymore—I want to be a leader in my field. As cheesy as it may sound, I feel like I owe it to successive generations to make a dent in the leadership gap.

But as great as it is that more people are talking about these issues, I see plenty of problems with their coverage in a media landscape that is so often characterized by soundbites and oversimplifications.

Whitewashing the debate

The fact mainstream media coverage of the workplace equality debate are mostly relevant to upper-middle class (mostly) white women is an obvious concern that has been brought up by numerous feminists. Melissa Gira Grant highlighted the way Sandberg’s “lean in” narrative alienates working class women in a Washington Post opinion piece, noting that that the book’s prescriptions are “isolated to actions individual women can take to support their own ambitions and desires, rather than wondering about the ambitions and desires of, say, the women who keep house for the women spending their time ‘leaning in.’” Kezia Willingham echoed this sentiment in her post on xojane. “From the very beginning, the choice to stay home for a poor, single mother or father is non-existent,” she writes.  “Welfare recipients are mandated to accept the first job offer they receive.”

In some ways, the elitist tone characterizing popular writings of the “lean in” variety reflects the readership of major publications that tend to attract mainly upper-middle class audiences. Take the Atlantic, which published Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All,” in 2012. The median household incomes of the publications’ print and online audiences ($105,618 and $76,800, respectively) are far above the median household income of our country overall ($52,762).

But even taking the class issue into account, articles highlighting the leadership and wage gaps between genders generally gloss over the equally glaring race gap. I have pretty much memorized statistics such as those cited in Judith Warner’s recent New York Times article, “The Opt-Out Generation Wants Back In”—women comprise about 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, 17 percent of corporate board members, 19 percent of members Congress, etc. These numbers are pretty embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the numbers for women of color—and for people of color overall. Let’s take the lack of diversity among Fortune 500 CEOs as an example. 22 CEOs, or 4.4 percent, are women. Only six are black (1.2 percent), and of those only one is a woman (0.2 percent). There are eight Asian CEOs (1.6 percent), one of whom is a woman. There are eight Latino CEOs, and exactly zero Latina CEOs. Lumping women of color into the statistics pertaining to women overall—or simply accompanying these statistics with an obligatory “women of color have it especially hard” comment unsubstantiated by similar figures (e.g. Leslie Bennetts’ piece in The Daily Beast)—essentially sweeps the unique challenges faced by women of color under the rug.

More harm than good   

The internet is brimming with mainstream articles offering advice on how women can “get ahead” in the workplace. The problem is, these articles are often contradictory, and potentially harmful to the very women they aim to help. Kelsey Meaney sums up the debate pretty accurately on The Daily Beast: “As it turns out, when it comes to leadership and a woman in the office, the whole world—from scientists to computer technicians—has absolutely no idea.” From how women should act to how they should dress, it seems like women simply can’t win. In a 2009 Forbes article, Laura Sinberg attributes lackluster professional advancement among women to a slew of fashion faux pas, from dressing “too sexy,” to wearing clothes that are too large or not tailored, to not displaying enough “individuality and personal style.” The jury is also out on the relative merits of stereotypically “male” traits or stereotypically “female” traits—should women “act like men” or should men “act like women?”

I do think these conversations are important to have. There is certainly some truth in the assertion by Herminia Ibarra, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb’s in the Harvard Business Review that “when women recognize the subtle and pervasive effects of second-generation bias, they feel empowered, not victimized, because they can take action to counter those effects.” Still, this constant barrage of contradictory information might also cause women to second-guess themselves at every turn, wondering whether their natural inclinations are appropriate, or if they are acting too “masculine,” “feminine,” assertive, passive, friendly, independent, etc.

The problem with the prevailing conversation on how women should act in the workplace is that it’s focused on how women should act, not on how the workplace can evolve to a place where women’s choices, wardrobes, personalities and management styles are no longer picked apart ad nauseam. In the end, these conversations miss the most important point. The problem isn’t that women aren’t “leaning in”—they are. The problem is that the workplace they “lean in” to is stacked against them, no matter what choices they make.

Thought experiment

What if, instead of talking about how women should act or how men should act in the workplace, we focused more on how people should act? What if we used words like “assertive,” “strategic,” “collaborative” or “motivational” to describe successful employees and leaders, without the need for gender modifiers? What if we could give a women advice on how to have a successful career, without adapting that advice to fit the additional obstacles she will face in executing that advice, simply because she is a woman? For example, what if we could tell her that it’s important to negotiate her salary, without cautioning her that she will need to negotiate differently than if she were a man? New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “[L]et’s encourage young women to “lean in,” but let’s also change the workplace so that when they do lean in and assert themselves, we’re directly behind them shouting: ‘Right!’”

You do You

Shortly after I started my current job, I was talking with a friend about how the “lean in” debates were starting to make me second-guess myself at work. “They literally tell you to do opposite things!” I complained. “How do I know what advice to follow?”

My friend looked at me with a puzzled expression. “You do you,” she said. I marveled at how such a simple statement could put an end to such a complicated argument.

Women, especially women of color, will continue to navigate a landmine of glass ceilings, double-standards and hypocrisy for years—if not generations—to come. I know that navigating this dynamic will get frustrating, confusing and downright maddening. And in a world where I can’t win no matter how I act or what I choose, the best defense I have is to stay true to myself. Because if I lose sight of who I am, the patriarchy wins.


I was raised in a sheltered, conservative and mostly white town, which made it difficult for me to understand how white, upper-class privilege affected my perceptions growing up. My parents are both agnostic and encouraged my siblings and I to think critically, which helped me avoid some of the crazytown antics of many of my peers (such as denouncing drinking and sex at Young life meetings—a.k.a. cult gatherings—before heading out for a night of drinking and sex), but I still internalized plenty of notions that were straight-up wrong. When I was younger, I believed that panhandlers were homeless because they refused to get jobs. I believed that Planned Parenthood clinics only existed to provide abortions. I believed that losing my virginity would make me “dirty” and that as a female I was responsible for fending off the advances of evil boys who were incapable of controlling their private parts (the fact that I might have felt sexual impulses myself was internalized as unnatural and suppressed).

Needless to say, I have changed my mind about a lot of things since high school, and none of these realizations came easily. They involved taking a deep look inward and actively challenging ingrained beliefs—and in the process, my very sense of self. For example, it was pretty challenging to realize that my interest in international development, which began when I was very young, was a product of my white, middle-class privilege. As much as it pained me to admit it, my background cultivated a subconscious belief that my country provided equal opportunities for everyone to succeed, that poor people across the globe deserved help more than people across town, and that all developing countries needed to end poverty was more resources and manpower from the West. It took living in developing countries—as well as working with, studying with and befriending people from different backgrounds from my own—to confront this uncomfortable truth head-on. It wasn’t pretty. In fact, sometimes it looked like this:*

white privilege

I know what you must be thinking—white chicks love making everything about themselves, amiright? That’s totally fair. But I have always followed the policy of “write what you know,” because I hate being insincere. I will never be able to understand what it’s like to be a woman of color, so it doesn’t make sense for me to pay lip service to the very real concerns that #solidarityisforwhitewomen brought up. All I can contribute is my own reaction to learning about the gravity of this tension that I have only ever understood on an abstract and topical level. I spent hours combing through that twitter feed, reading black feminist blogs and watching Mikki Kendall and Tara Conley’s interview on HuffPost Live (several times)—and concluded that this issue goes way deeper than I will ever understand. Still, that won’t stop me from trying.

The most difficult part of this process for me was seeing how little confidence the women of color guiding this conversation seemed to have in the ability of mainstream feminists to change their perspective on issues of intersectionality. In the Huffington Post interview, when asked if women of color ultimately wanted solidarity with white women, Tara Conley responded, “I want solidarity with people who care about what I care about.” After some uncomfortable laughter, Mikki Kendall said, “I want solidarity with people who want solidarity with me.” The tone of these comments implied that neither woman expected those people to be white women. And after researching the backstory of how this hashtag came about, I honestly can’t blame them.

Here’s the thing: I get that the argument that masking diversity in the name of “solidarity” in feminism does not benefit women of color. Women who claim to be “colorblind” are just as ignorant as women who don’t identify as feminists but believe in gender equality, and they should recognize their hypocrisy as such. But disassociating from the feminist movement entirely is like saying, “the government doesn’t represent me, and therefore I’m not voting.” In the words of Sojourner Truth, “If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!” The feminist movement has a lot of clout, but as blogger Flavia Dzodan points out, if it isn’t intersectional then it’s rendered bullshit.  And in order for the feminist movement to be truly intersectional, women of color need to keep showing up. They need to keep getting in feminism’s face and forcing it to check its privilege. But they need to do this in a way that invites and challenges mainstream feminists to join them in sincere solidarity—not in a way that pre-emptively dismisses them for being insincere.

It’s been a few days since #solidarityisforwhitewomen really took off, and everyone (myself included) seems to have benefitted from taking time to really process what went down. In an interview with Bustle**, Kendall voiced this sentiment pretty perfectly. “I saw someone tweet to me today that it feels like an abscess that has been run, that this was a poison that had been built up, and finally it’s out, and now we can heal. I think that is absolutely the case,” she said. She also seemed to have changed tone about her take on “solidarity.” “I’m not saying that white women in the West just need to take a moment to step aside and get off the mic,” she said. “I’m saying that we need to take turns at the mic.” Amen, Mikki. Let’s get started.

*This pic came from Twitter, but I couldn’t track down the original source. If you deserve credit for it, please claim it!

**Yes, I do appreciate the irony that the brainchild of mansplainer Bryan Goldberg covered #solidarityisforwhitewomen more thoroughly than many mainstream feminist publications. More evidence that feminism needs to get its act together.


This is something I wrote a while ago because I was so frustrated by a few rogue comments that crept into my Facebook news feed (sidenote—do you ever notice the comments of someone you knew in college that just catch you off guard—like, this person really thinks that?? I would never have guessed from my interactions with her/him back when we went to school together—how can I not lose pretty much all respect for this person?). I kept it on my desktop for a while, but figured it needed a home.

Anyway, here it is…

I am writing in response to the handful of people I know, however tangentially, who objected to Texas state senator Wendy Davis’ 13-hour fillibuster to shut down its most recent bill restricting abortion access in the state. I will preface this by saying that I actively try to surround myself with people who have viewpoints that are different from my own—they challenge me to think critically and stand behind my opinions, rather than simply preach to the choir. I have plenty of friends who are on “the other side of the fence,” if you will, and they are all good people. However, some of these friends, especially women, simply baffle me when it comes to their views on the slew of attacks that lawmakers are waging on American women’s reproductive organs.

Most women I know who are against reproductive rights are also interested in pursuing successful careers and being economically independent. It seems that they haven’t caught on to the fact that these debates have nothing to do with “babies,” and everything to do with what these (mostly male) lawmakers believe to be a woman’s rightful role in society. I hope that one day they see this clearly and stand up to their right wing peers Megyn Kelly style. In the meantime, I offer this response to a former classmate who posed the following question on Facebook: “ I have never seen people so jubilant about abortion. It’s just creepy to me. I mean, what are they excited about, exactly?”


I completely respect your views on this issue, as well as your right to express them. However, as someone who feels quite strongly about reproductive rights, perhaps I could shed some light on why so many people were “jubilant” about this woman (literally) taking a stand for the rights of all women in her state.

wendy davis

The key issue really isn’t abortion per se, but rather it’s about women having full control over their reproductive organs, and in turn their social and economic futures. While the burden of unintended pregnancies falls primarily on women, the decision about what they can do with their bodies is being debated by a body of legislators that is 80% male. And with the number of restrictions on reproductive health access dramatically increasing of late (including sex education, contraception, STD screenings, etc. in addition to abortion), it follows that putting a stop to yet another one of these laws, even if just temporarily, is pretty exciting for people who are fans of women’s rights.

The thing is, the burden of abortion restrictions fall mainly on the most vulnerable women—young, poor and rural—who often have the least access to things like comprehensive sex education, birth control, and even supportive role models who could encourage them not to have unprotected sex. They also have a limited ability to, for example, take off work to travel for hours to the nearest abortion clinic (because this law would in effect close almost all abortion clinics in Texas and outlaw the use of tele-medicine—which is crucial for people living in rural areas with limited healthcare access—for prescription of abortifacients). It also so happens that the very states that have the worst access to sex education and basic reproductive health services also have the most restrictions on abortion access. This has the effect of increasing the number of women who face this terrible choice, while at the same time limiting their options. So, they either have a child that they can’t afford, with little or no support from the father, or turn to drastic measures to terminate their own pregnancies, such as buying abortifacients from Mexican pharmacies and using them incorrectly.

Worldwide, the legality of abortion does not affect the incidence of abortions. However, it does affect the safety of abortions. In the United States, having a legal abortion is less dangerous than giving birth. On the other hand, the procedure is over 34 times more dangerous in countries that outlaw abortion.

Again, I understand why on a personal and/or religious level you would object to abortions. However, making abortion illegal endangers women, and essentially sends the message that the fate of a clump of cells holds more value than the fate of a full-grown human being. Personally, I would rather not see my friends die at the hands of back-alley abortion providers. When I lived in Kenya, practically everyone I met had a friend or family member who died this way. If you talk to American women who were old enough before Roe v. Wade, they will tell you the same thing about their own experiences.

In closing, I would like to turn your attention to a celebratory gif party and some Amazon reviews of Wendy’s shoes.

Hope this helps,