A Love Note to Emma Watson

Emma Watson’s now viral speech to the United Nations is drawing a lot of attention–both positive and negative. Personally, I’d like to thank Ms. Watson for stepping into the highly charged fray that is today’s feminist movement. Ms. Watson is now facing the same kind of shaming that other young women who advocate on behalf of women’s issues have been facing in recent years. Sandra Fluke’s testifying before the democrats in congress  over whether contraceptives should be covered under the Affordable Care Act comes to mind (republicans on the committee refused to hear her testimony in the official committee meetings, so democrats invited her to speak to them outside of the committee). Rush Limbaugh and other radical commentators took the airwaves, blogs, and opinion pages to “slut shame” Ms. Fluke for daring to speak to members of congress to advocate on behalf of women wishing to have contraceptives covered by their health insurance. Limbaugh’s extreme personal attacks on Fluke led to an unprecedented backlash, some even labeling his diatribe as hate speech. His behavior also prompted an advertiser exodus from his program and talk radio in general. Now Ms. Watson is being faced with the same kind of hate–the dubious 4chan hacker has threatened to hack into Ms. Watson’s accounts and upload her personal (possibly nude) photos. So the slut shaming begins. All because Ms. Watson has the audacity to say something as provocative as:

“We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled. Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.”

Bravo, Ms. Watson! Bravo!!

Set Adrift by Traditional Allies, Teachers Move to Reclaim Their Profession

I have seen multiple postings recently pertaining to seeing teachers as separate from their unions. I witness this unfortunate truth daily. I hear people say all the time that they love the teachers, but hate their unions. I heard it proclaimed at school board meetings during times of cuts. I now hear it from teachers who have long been so apathetic about their union membership that they no longer understand how citizenship in the organization has shaped their day-to-day teaching lives.

Eventually teachers will have to own that teachers are the union–teachers make up the elected representative councils, board of directors, and officers at the local, state,and national levels. NEA President-Elect, Lily Eskelson Garcia, is an elementary school teacher and former Teacher of the Year from Utah, NEA VP-Elect, Becky Pringle, is a middle school science teacher, California Teachers Association President Dean Vogel is an award winning school counselor, Torrance Teachers Association Secretary Treasurer Don Hendricks is a veteran Government teacher and former softball and basketball coach. The union’s elected leaders are teachers–and many of these teachers, particularly at the local level are in the classroom full-time. So once teachers acknowledge that teachers are the union and not separate from the union, then the policy makers who think they know so much more than the teachers do will have to own that they are indeed attacking each individual teacher when they work to weaken teacher protections. They will have to own that when they attack the unions, they are attacking the very workers that the unions represent. And they will especially have to own their predatory actions like with the Vergara v. California trial in which a judge (no jury) simply decrees that opinions presented as evidence must be truth and California’s teacher protection laws must be unconstitutional.

The National Education Association Representative Assembly fired the first salvos of severance from traditional support of the democratic party leaders at the NEA-RA this past week when the 9,000 delegates supported resolutions calling for the resignation of President Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (both of whom have long been allied with many of the people listed in the following paragraph). Duncan’s response was to again separate teachers from their union leaders by saying, “I always try to stay out of local union politics. I think most teachers do too.” 

The group supporting the Vergara case, Students Matter (very similar in name and concept to former Washington DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s Students First), is funded (and was founded by) in large part by billionaire tech/communications entrepreneur David Welch, as well as the founder of Parent Revolution (a group that organizes parents to revolt against public schools and replace them with charter schools) Ben Austin. In Valerie Strauss’s Washington Post blog “Why Many Democrats Have Turned Against Teachers Unions,” Strauss maintains that this separation of union members from their profession has worked in multiple professions to gut worker protections, but we are seeing it play an role changer in traditional political allies for teachers. Teachers now see the Michelle Rhee’s, the David Welch’s, and the Ben Austin’s joining the Bill Gates’s, Eli Broad’s, and Davis Guggenheim’s of the world as the media and party “experts” on education. Politico’s Stephanie Simon and Caitlin Emma highlight the relationship between Sec’y Duncan’s Department of Education and these self-proclaimed education “Reformers” (many educators differentiate between capital R Reformers–also called Rhee-formers–and lower case reformers to equal corporate Reformers and educational reformers from within the profession) as being at the heart of the growing schism between educators and the Democratic Party. 

These anti-union corporate Reformers have grown increasingly bold in the aftermath of the Vergara v. California case as well. They have begun to purchase full page ads in national papers like USA Today accusing teachers of treating kids like garbage and calling for parents and kids to sue teachers to circumvent the legislative process–break them politically by breaking them financially. 

These groups, like Rick Berman’s so-called (and deceptively named) Center for Union Facts that funded this ad, smell blood in the water. And they are shamefully getting the “atta-boys” and high fives from the current administration in Washington. Instead of the head of the Education Department relying upon educators and educational research, he has surrounded himself with lobbyists, entrepreneurs, and privatizers who want nothing more than to dismantle public education rather than reform it. 

So again, NEA took charge at its RA this last week. They are publicly calling out all “Reformers” who continue the failed testing policies of No Child Left Behind that penalize teachers, schools, and communities for economic inequities that the schools were never adequately funded or supported to address. NEA also adopted a resolution to end “toxic testing” that does not support student growth–and in many cases has been demonstrated to harm the very students it claims to help. Even though NEA is slow to get to this critical point, it is a promising move toward leadership that has long been muffled by political alliances that have proven detrimental to the profession. NEA, and its fifty state affiliates, will now focus on who is with us  or who is against us–and if you are against us, don’t come looking to us to be the instruments of our own demise. Teachers–and unions–are tired of being scapegoated for failed education policies that were designed to fail us all from the start. Teachers–and their unions–“support high standards for all students and being held accountable for high quality instructional practice, something that can’t be measured by students’ standardized test scores. More and more educators are leading the way toward ensuring the highest quality work forces by working collaboratively with school districts to establish residency programs, mentoring programs, and peer assistance and review programs to evaluate instructional practice.”

Teachers are pushing back to take charge of their work environments–our children’s learning environments. And it’s high time.

HuffPo: My Breakup Letter to Hobby Lobby

 

I used to live in Tulsa, OK, the home of Hobby Lobby. I even used to shop there. 20 years ago. I also quit shopping there (and their sister store Mardel’s) 20 years ago–for many of the same reasons we see in the headlines today. While I do find it difficult, if not impossible, to find companies that support all the causes with which we believe. I have elected over the years to not shop at the following places:

1. Hobby Lobby/Mardel’s: While I am a Christian, I had a problem with how they used their money in politics. I also avoid Michael’s when possible and stick with locally owned businesses, especially businesses that use American made products rather than overpriced cheap Chinese products. Heck, even the 99¢ Store has more American made products than one would expect.

2. Wal Mart: Predatory business practices coupled with a poor track record on employee relations (union busters who underpay help while overpaying top management) have kept me from their aisles for nearly two decades. Not to mention that they offshore as much manufacturing as possible and take no responsibility for the horrid conditions in the overseas factories that produce their products (think Rana Plaza).

3. Chick-fil-a: I will eat here from time to time, but I try to go elsewhere because, again, I have a problem with my consumer dollars going to causes in which I sincerely disagree. I firmly believe in equality under the law and the separation of church and state, and I don’t think buying a chicken sandwich (poster paper and puff pens) should fund discriminatory policy and laws.

And while I do not boycott seafood restaurants yet, I’ve become much more cognizant asking if their supplies of fish are sustainable–especially in species I know to be endangered. For example, I recently went to a really nice local restaurant (not a chain) that had Chilean Sea Bass on the menu. I love Sea Bass, but I know it is endangered, so I choose to not eat it. But I asked the waitress if any of the seafood was sustainable. None of it was. Nor was any of their gourmet food locally grown. So I now avoid this restaurant except for happy hour.

As a consumer who consumes quite a lot of “stuff”, I have grown more and more aware of the products I purchase. It is my responsibility to spend my dollars wisely. And it is my responsibility to ensure that the companies whose products I buy are responsible businesses friendly to the environment and the communities in which they operate. Being a responsible consumer is time-sucking and difficult to do. But we all have to start somewhere. I started with these three years ago. Now is time to start adding to the list. Just as one voice and one vote matters, one person’s dollars matter too. Because in the end, I am more than one person. I teach my son; I talk to my friends and family; I dialogue with colleagues and in the community. I am more than me.

Sandra Fluke: The Hobby Lobby Case Is an Attack on Women

Sandra Fluke: The Hobby Lobby Case Is an Attack on Women

I’ve been reading with awe all day about the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision (while I was really waiting for the Harris v Quinn decision that was bad, but not as bad as it could have been). My right wing friends whooping and high fiving that their personal religious freedom was protected from those liberal Obama-care loving sluts who want free birth control (ok, I wish I was exaggerating at the nastiness of some of the posts I’ve read today, such as: “Skanky, ugly, flat-chested democrat women can pay for their own abortions.” or ” Wake up and smell the roses and be responsible for your actions and quit expecting the government to take care of you.” or ” Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Screw you obama lovers!” or “What’s sad is the 4 liberal supreme court justices who voted against this. Religious liberty means nothing to them or any other LIBERAL, FOR THAT MATTER.” or “It’s almost time to play cowboys and liberals.” or “Congratulations to Hobby Lobby. Thank you for standing up to Obama and his heathen friends.” or “There’s also a type of birth control called ‘keep your legs closed’… And it’s free.”) And I’ve also lamentably seen some pretty nasty remarks from the liberal side as well denouncing the Republican appointees to the SCOTUS and their step toward theocracy and corporate personhood along with the conservatives who’ve championed HL’s cause de celebre (such as: “Christians like you are what turn people away from God… because Jesus didn’t spew hatred but did everything in love.” or “It never will be a good day for women in this country so long as old male farts are holding the reigns of control.”). But overall, I have seen much respectful, even if misguided, discussion on this Pandora’s Box of a ruling.

Of all the pieces I read today on this issue, Sandra Fluke’s stood out as the most informative, even-headed explanation of what this ruling is and what it means. Sandra is not new to this issue, as she was unwillingly thrust in the spotlight two years ago when she was denied the ability to speak before a house committee hearing about the contraceptive coverage issue on the ACA and then slut-shamed by Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits. Limbaugh’s attacks were so vicious that advertisers fled his show and talk radio all together. Sandra has long been an advocate on women’s issues, and that is one reason I’m supporting her in her bid for Califoria’s 26th State Senate seat. The other piece that I think most effectively describes why this ruling gets it wrong on so many levels is the eloquent and passionate 35 page dissent authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has long been a hero of mine. So now that we are working on being educated about the issue, and while we are clearly already agitated about the issue, the question now remains: What are we going to do? How are we going to escalate this issue and move toward change that restores religious freedom for employees and restores health care decisions to women and their doctors and restores the belief that a benefit is earned compensation rather than someone giving you something for free. If everyday is the opportunity to make a difference, then today is the day to take that opportunity. What are you going to do?