The year is 2019, and glass ceilings are constantly being shattered into millions of little shards in these last few years. A woman ran in the 2016 election, entire movements such as, #MeToo and #TimesUp were generated, and women are running hugely successful companies. While those are just a few examples, the list goes on and rightfully so. What is less documented, however, is the pressure women, particularly active feminist, put on women to move up in the ranks of this once male dominated world. So much pressure that there is contempt for women who choose to stay at home and raise a family, or women who step down from demanding positions for their families.

How The Older Generations Feel

           In an essay written by the first female director of the State department, Anne-Marie Slaughter, titled Why Women Can’t Have It All, Slaughter explains her choice to step down from her demanding position to spend time with her family. She particularly goes into detail about the backlash she received from the older female community. Not long ago at all, say 60 years ago, women had little choices when it came to employment opportunity. Nurse, secretary, school teacher, or stay at home mom were about the only options. And God knows they weren’t paid fairly. Those women confined to those career choices had an itch to do more, to be more, and to be respected. Hence the feminist movements that made huge strides over the next 60 years. Thanks to those women who had to be restrained and fight, women today now have opportunity. The opportunity to be in executive positions or run for office or work full time jobs. But what about those women who regress and do choose family over work? A sense of contempt arises from that generations 60 years ago, as Slaughter states, “But I routinely got reactions from other women my age or older that ranged from disappointment…to condescending.” It makes sense, in all honesty, for the older generation of women to be upset. They must feel as though they had been gypped of a life they dreamed of, and it would be hard to see the younger generation of women giving up what they could never have. Yet shouldn’t they be excited that women have the choice of whether they want to stay home with their families or strive for the top at all?

The Choice To Be A Stay-at-Home Mom

A common argument among feminist is the belief that stay-at-home moms are detrimental to the advancement of women’s rights. A common question asked is this: If a women is well understanding that there is more out there for her, but she chooses to nurture her children while supporting those ambitious women, why should she be to blame for any plateau in the movement? In a powerful opinion piece done by feminist comedian Nikita Redkar called 5 Sexist Assumptions About Stay-at-Home Moms All Feminists Need to Shut Down, the power of choice among women is addressed as inherently the most important aspect of feminism, yet that often gets misconstrued by feminist themselves. Even if that choice is to be a stay at home mom. Although there are huge pressures placed on women to shoot for the stars, most women- feminist or not- agree that as long as the opportunity for equality is there, women are free to choose whatever path they want in this life.

A huge issue that Redkar brings to light is the belief that stay-at-home moms cannot be feminists. She beautifully puts feminism and stay-at-home moms like this, “Taking away feminism from woman who opt to nurture their family is like saying people who choose to be vegan…are not receiving the full culinary experience they could have.” Redkar is stating that choosing to care for your children while supporting the women who are changing the world is not regressive at all. Redkar also has a very simple yet powerful line in which goes like such, “Feminism, at it’s core, advocates the freedom of choice.” The definition often gets blurred in today’s society. Little girls feel as though they need to grow up to become CEO’s or the President, when some simply might want to raise a family. Nikita Redkar addresses the faults of a group she identifies with, and successfully expresses that while the world should always teach the young women of today that they can be anything, they should also be taught that their lifestyle decisions will be supported by women across the board.

Arrest Stay-at-Home Moms?

Yes, there are people advocating that being a Stay-at-Home mom should be illegal. There are statistics showing the economic disadvantages to women of age not working and many believe that by placing women in the workforce, there will be a decrease in welfare needs and the fear of the taxes placed on single income households. As for the feminist viewpoint, an Australian columnist named Sarrah Le Marquand wrote a piece for the Daily Telegraph named, It Should Be Illegal to be a Stay-at-Home Mum, supporting a law that enforces women to work. Although an opinion piece, the article gained huge backlash, but also support. Le Marquand says, “Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.” Many agree that there could be truth to that statement, yet many more question the reality of that ever happening. Of course a world where mothers could contribute to the family income while feeling they are giving their children all the attention they need would be ideal for all. Perhaps the issue is deeper rooted in unpaid maternity leaves or companies not willing to give mothers time off.

What About Fathers?

Ah, yes. We get to the question old as time in the world of Stay-at-Home mom controversy. A very, very valid question it is. In today’s world, it is not uncommon for there to be stay-at-home dads. Of course they’re stuck with the degrading title of “Mr. Mom” but it happens nonetheless. Many people argue that fathers are just as deserving of time off with their children, and if women have the choice to stay at home to raise their kids because of guilt, then do the fathers just have to bare the brunt and ignore their own guilt? It’s a headache producing topic that provides many true arguments from both ends of the spectrum, because fathers really shouldn’t have to be the ones who suck it up and sacrifice family time. Going from a biological point of view, Suzanne Venker in her article for Fox News titled, Should it be illegal to be a stay-at-home mom? Why feminists are so frustrated, states, “Men have a visceral need to provide for and protect their families, whereas women are more invested in the home.” Motherhood is a biological response. Mothers change into a nurturing “Mama Bear” and fathers become the provider. Everyone has always heard it that way, and there is science dating to caveman times backing it up. Yet, someone can also argue that as needs and times adapt, so do humans and their nature.

Venker then explains that feminists are so frustrated BECAUSE of this biological response. Feminists are attacking stay-at-homes moms because after they have children, their priorities change. Their lives become less centered around their career, and more around their children. Venker believes that feminists want the fathers to take on more nurturing roles and that women should not have to give everything up. However, if you ask most mothers, they don’t believe they’re giving anything up. Their kids are their priority. It is a truly tiresome debate that may have no right answer.

The Understanding

There may be no right answer or no solution to make everyone happy, but that is okay. As long as no women feels subjected to a certain role, there should be freedom and respect in a choice that is solely a women’s.

Works Cited

Redkar, Nikita. “5 Sexist Assumptions About Stay-at-Home Moms All Feminist Need To Shut Down.” Everyday Feminism, 18 Mar. 2016, everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/myths-stay-at-home-moms/.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why Women Can’t Have It All.” “They Say / I Say”: the Moves That Matter in Academic Writing with Readings, by Gerald Graff et al., W. W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp. 534–554.

Le Marquand, Sarrah. “It Should Be Illegal To Be A Stay-at-Home Mom.” The Daily Telegraph, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Feb. 2019, http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Daily-Telegraph.

Venker, Suzanne. “Should It Be Illegal to Be a Stay-at-Home Mom? Why Feminists Are So Frustrated.” Fox News, 24 May 2017, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/should-it-be-illegal-to-be-a-stay-at-home-mom-why-feminists-are-so-frustrated.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s moving “I Have a Dream” speech aided in the turn of a new era for civil rights. Even with our positive movement toward racial equality, are there still problems that our society faces with modern segregation? Danah Boyd, Michelle Alexander and Ioana Popescu describe the challenges of modern day segregation and highlight the problematic unawareness that American society faces today. By depicting the differences for Black Americans and White Americans in military, college, socioeconomic status, and criminations, these authors bring light to the civil issue that is still in movement. Through Boyd, Alexander and Popescu’s articles, the strengths as well as the weaknesses of their claims, illustrating the persuasion of each individual’s argument on modern segregation. 

The Race For Equality In Troops and Students

            Boyd’s article, “Why America Is Self-Segregating” highlights the topics of racial segregation in military and on college campuses. The article starts with the polarization of society through the use of social media. “The American public is self-segregating and this is tearing at the social fabric of the country.” Boyd discusses the “filter bubble” that is caused by the use of social media. The content personalization on Facebook determines what people are exposed to for them, causing polarization from real news and world events. Boyd’s claim on this issue not only does not provide a solution to the problem of social media’s contribution to this polarization, but does not address the benefits that social media does have in its ability to connect people everywhere, thus rendering her argument as one sided, and weakening the claim that she is trying to formulate. 

 “Privatizing the military” in Boyd’s article analyzes the differences in the treatment of Black soldiers and White soldiers. “…while serving in active duty, they spend a much higher amount of time on the front lines and in high-risk battle, increasing the likelihood that they will be physically or psychologically harmed.” By providing this information, Boyd strengthens her argument regarding the harmful difference in treatment between White and Black soldiers. The issue of modern day segregation is highlighted by presenting the physical and mental effects on the soldiers. 

        Boyd discusses the effects of self-segregation on college campuses and the impact that choosing roommates online has on the modern civil issue. “learning how to negotiate conflict and diversity in close quarters can be tremendously effective in sewing the social fabric.” The social fabric is deteriorating due to incoming college students being able to choose their own roommates. While this appears as a benefit to the new students, allowing them to connect with their roommate before the school year begins, it causes self-segregation because of the availability to roommate switch, further damaging the diversification in student living. Boyd’s arguments incorporate a logos viewpoint of modern day segregation by providing facts on the issues of segregation within our military and college campuses. Provided in the text are solutions that can be upheld in society, such as becoming aware and educated about the benefit of diversity, as well as the problems that people of color face in our nation today. Along with these solutions, there are no references at the end of the text, weakening the reliability of the facts provided. Boyd outlays the issue, but only reaches the surface of this nationally separating topic, causing society to have the question, “what now?”

What is the “New Jim Crow”?

            Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” discusses the enlightenment of Alexander in the discovery of modern day segregation. Her ethos approach on the matter provides an emotional story that brings awareness to the problems facing the criminal justice system in America, described as the “era of colorblindness”, by Alexander. “We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.”

Describing segregation as being redesigned in modern society brings an emotional awareness to issues such as the War on Drugs and the prison system. She analyzes the difficulties that convicts face while incarcerated as well as those outside of the prison system. “Once they are released, they are often denied the right to vote, excluded from juries, and regulated to a racially segregated and subordinated existence” states Alexander. This strongly supports the theory on of modern segregation by highlighting how convicts are treated as unequals in our society. The segregation worsens when Alexander shows the difference in the crimination of black men compared to white men. “In some states, black men have been admitted to prison on drug charges at rates twenty to fifty times greater than those of white men.” In addition to this, Alexander observes the future consequences of modern day segregation. “One in three African American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue.” By providing information about the future consequences of our nation’s actions, Alexander provides an incredibly strong argument to her claim by showing the negative effects that modern segregation will continue to have in future years. In addition to this, Alexander observes the future consequences of modern day segregation. “One in three African American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue.” By providing information about the future consequences of our nation’s actions, Alexander provides an incredibly strong argument to her claim by showing the negative effects that modern segregation will continue to have in future years. 

The War On Inequality

            Alexander also highlights the War on Drugs and its effect on Black Americans. In the 1980s, President Ronal Reagan proposed the campaign for the War on Drugs to decrease the distribution of crack cocaine. “A few years after the drug war was declared, crack began to spread rapidly in the poor black neighborhoods” The cause of cocaine being spread in poor black neighborhoods led to the drug offenses of colored people to drastically increases. Alexander analyzes how the War on Drugs caused unequal crimination of Black Americans and contrasted with its original goal to eliminate the use of drugs. Alexander delivers a strong argument by providing statistics on how severe the convictions were against black people in America. “…around 300,000 to more than 2 million, with drug convictions accounting for the majority of the increase”, these statistics support the argument and the ethos of the text is strengthened because it allows the severity of modern segregation to be shown through the mistreatment of people of color by the justice system. Alexander depicts strong detailed claims of this major concern in the criminal justice system in our nation and how the inequality of crimination of Black Americans causes separation in our society. 

A Study of Survival

           The statistics are highlighted in Popescu’s text as she conducts an experiment on racial segregation. The study evaluates socioeconomic inequality and observes the survival gap between Black and White men and women between the ages of 35-75. The results that were found in the study depict the dramatic difference in modern segregation as well as the socioeconomic gap between Black and White Americans. “Black men and women had a 14% and 9% lower probability of survival from age 35-75 than their white counterparts.”. Popescu provides strong evidence and logos in the text to prove that racial residential segregation still exists and is an issue in modern society. If we bring Black socioeconomic status to the same level as White socioeconomic status, the gap for survival would decrease, aiding to eliminate the issue. 

            NPR further discusses the problem of racial residential segregation in cities. The text analyzes that all streets that are named after MLK are in distressed living areas. The people in these areas are unable to buy or refinance new homes outside of the area because new developments in the suburbs did not allow black people to buy homes (NPR). Even though the fair housing act began in 1968 and encouraged equal housing opportunities, the effects of residential discrimination already affected the wealth gap between black and white Americans. 

            The texts provided all strongly support a nationwide issue and bring awareness as well as a deeper knowledge into the effects of modern day segregation. To eliminate the issue of segregation today, American society must become aware that the act of discriminating against one group of people, drastically decreases any movement toward equality for all. We are living in a modern past, but by educating the nation, we will begin a new era of sight. 

References:

“Why Are Cities Still So Segregated? | Let’s Talk | NPR.” YouTube, 11 Apr. 2018, youtu.be/O5FBJyqfoLM.

Popescu, Ioana, et al. “Racial Residential Segregation, Socioeconomic Disparities, and the White-Black Survival Gap.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193222. 

Boyd, Danah. “Why America Is Self-Segregating.” Points, Data & Society: Points, 5 Jan. 2017, points.datasociety.net/why-america-is-self-segregating-d881a39273ab. 

Alexander , Michelle. “Legal Scholar: Jim Crow Still Exists In America.” NPR, NPR, 16 Jan. 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145175694/legal-scholar-jim-crow-still-exists-in-america.

“We Cannot be Silent” – R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Before the twenty century a rainbow was nothing more than a symbol of hope at the end of a storm. Today, these colors symbolize much more, in fact, they have become the ultimate figure for LGBT pride. Specifically, the movement of transgender’s has become more prevalent than ever. Ever since the Obama administration loosened the legal constraints for the LGBT community people are finding themselves standing up like never before. It is ironic that a culture so obsessed with self-love and positive talk has anything but good things to say about transgender individuals. The big question remains: why should an individual care about something that does not affect them? Whether being transgender is a means for finding one’s true self, in order to live a more meaningful life, or its simple existence in a world of religion calls for a new definition of gender, these differences are shaping the way our culture discusses a topic that was hidden in the dark for way too long.

Military and Gender Identity

Contrary to the way conservatives see gender, there is more than just two sides to a topic of this magnitude. The distinguishing values from both the liberal as well as conservative groups indicate the core of our differences as a society. Traditional views remain as they always have, relentless. In the traitorous winds of controversy Trump takes a step at this issue, specifically in the military. In What the administration’s shifting arguments against transgender military service reveal by Diane Mazur she recognizes the setbacks our country has endured as a whole. Mazur begins with pointing out the odd way that President Trump and his administration address this topic after implementing new policies. Trump begins highlighting the 9,000 transgender individuals who are current active duty members. Then, he pivoted to a smaller number- the 937 transgender service members who have come forward as individuals who intend on transitioning.

A common misconception, not every individual who is transgender intends on transitioning. Doing this, Mazur is utilizing the small numbers given by his administration showcasing the ridiculousness of implementing these laws when there was never a problem in the first place due to such small numbers. With this new policy in place, people’s abilities and attributes to the military are set aside, who they really are is forgotten about.  Mazur notes that “this is a ban on a defining characteristic of transgender people” (Mazur). She is making note that the option to transition is a big part of being transgender and to have that taken away from an individual is a disgrace at its finest.

Faith and Gender Identity

On the other hand, a view so polar opposite to Mazur’s that it seems reliant on its long-time believers and supporters. In a world that fiends off of religion this view is common among our society. Jeff Johnson, in his timely piece Transgenderism- Our Position suggests that transgenderism distorts God’s intentions. On the topic of sexuality, Johnson describes it as something that “is meant to be offered back to Him” (Johnson). Implying that at the end of this life we must return to God just as he left us. This ignores real feelings, suggesting there’s an on and off switch for these individuals. Johnson describes what might be his biggest concern; “This distorts His image and His plan for sexuality, marriage, family, and the just and proper ordering of society” (Johnson). A narrow religious view is prominent and a bias becomes present Being transgender is about coming out and being who you’ve always wanted to be and if one can’t do that than their image of life becomes distorted. Johnson’s argument becomes insulting, by saying implying that someones gender identity is un-proper and un-orderly . Our world is changing, its making strides like never before. Johnson fails to recognize the new era that has begun, an era that is more accepting than ever before.

Acceptance and Gender Identity

Not all conversations of transgenders stem from a group with just an opinion. First hands experience allows for a new perspective, in the sense that it brings forth a side that provides much more than an opinion based on prior beliefs. Laurie Frankel, in From He to She in First Grade, lays out why her and her husband chose to be open and honest about their child’s transition and why it’s important to do so in this society. Frankel values acceptance in her home, “My husband and I were never of the opinion that girls should not wear pants or climb trees or get dirty, or that boys should not have long hair or play with dolls or like pink, so the dress did not cause us undue alarm or worry” (Frankel). This suggests the importance of embracing those who are not like you. Our society is quick to judge but learning to embrace those differences can provide a positive impact for this issue.

Love is a prominent aspect in Frankel’s story when she states, “The question I couldn’t stop asking myself was: Do we love our children best by protecting them at all costs or by supporting them unconditionally?” (Frankel) This exposes a concern among many people, the fear of being different. The hate and cruelty that the LGBT community receives is enough for some to hide from who they truly are. Lastly, Frankel understands the power behind compassion and its ability to make a real difference in this world. Two years later, and her family is choosing to celebrate her daughter’s story instead of hiding it. Arguing the importance of openness and acceptance is something Frankel does tremendously in this short but powerful piece.

Science and Gender Identity

Addressing biological differences and what it means for a transgender individual is of many things we question. The search for the “transgender gene” is on, running the risk of finding it only to pathologize it. With rising questions for an epidemic far too gone, people yearn for an answer and will do anything to find it. In Biology is not destiny by Alex Barasch he argues that the growing desire to find an answer to someone’s gender is impossible. “There’s no such thing as a ‘100 percent male’ man or a ‘100 percent female’ woman – we all have some masculine or feminine traits” (Barasch). Barasch suggests that gender cannot be defined, its name itself struggles to have a meaning and trying to discover what isn’t there is ignorance at its finest. Waiting for an answer has been long and, so far, inconclusive. This piece glaringly omits how much science doesn’t support transgenderism. “If we trust the volume of the frontal cortex over what a person tells us about themselves, we deny them their autonomy and their humanity” (Barasch). Highlighting the idea of respect, Barasch notes that nothing can be done about transgenderism without it. Trying to medically determine someone’s sexual orientation is beyond a limit, as it’s a feeling not only in your brain but in your heart too.

With so many places to fall on a spectrum of opinion, transgenderism has become a highly discussed discourse in today’s society. Finding a common ground seems out of reach, but to even dream of that we must continue to talk about it.

Works Cited

Green, Erica L., et al. “’Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2018

Barasch, Alex. “Biology Is Not Destiny.” The Washington Post, 27 June 2018,

“Male and Female: Biology Matters.” Focus on the Family, 13 Aug. 2018,

Frankel, Laurie. “From He to She in First Grade.” “They Say / I Say”: the Moves That Matter in Academic Writing with Readings. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.