Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Why Humanist is The New Feminist




A friend posted this in response to France upholding its burqa ban. This about sums up the modern feminist movement, which usually brings to my mind Femen. Both of the women in this image have been called a product a male-dominated culture. Perhaps that is true, but that's only one side of a multi-faceted issue. It is not as simple as, "Men said so, so it is." This is an issue that I have a very clear, strong belief on. To tell any person what they can and cannot be is equally wrong. Blaming the other sex is wrong. Like many women, I have accused men of certain things. Well, there are some things that are the product of male influence. But there's just as much product of female influence. The issue is media coverage, it seems. Things that put down women receives exponentially more coverage than anything that demeans men.

I've recently become a fan of Jaclyn Glenn's channel on Youtube. She has a good video about feminism that sums up my thoughts almost exactly. The average modern feminist is often negatively aggressive, hypocritical, rigid in what being a feminist and/or woman means, and overall more oppressive than the original oppression.



(This is not to say that I don't think there's an equality problem between men and women. Women are paid less than men, women are still viewed as being less than men, and women are blamed for rape; but things are getting better.)



Typically, if asked, I just state that I'm a humanist. Because I'm much more than someone for equal rights between men and women: I'm for equal treatment of all sexuality, all genders, all races, everyone. I'm for equality between everyone. I'm for the fair treatment of everyone. I'm for everyone having the innate right to life. But also because I believe everyone has the ability to be good without god(s) (that's another discussion entirely). It is convenient for me to roll all this up into that single term if I must label myself. Anyone who understands the deep-seeded truth behind feminism will agree with me (except about the God thing, perhaps). The deep down reason behind feminism is that no one should be denied something based on who they are, no matter who they are. That sentiment can be applied to everyone in one situation or another throughout the world.

- C.A. Swaim

Hobby Lobby and Why SCOTUS Shouldn't Have Ruled In Favor

I've been watching the backlash of the Supreme Court decision on whether Hobby Lobby should have to cover Plan B and IUDs and I've finally decided to write a blog post about it. People seem to be missing the entire issue here. The issue is not that Hobby Lobby isn't covering certain birth controls, at least not in entirety because they still cover many birth controls. The issue is that the Supreme Court has allowed a company to finagle out of a law by claiming religious beliefs. 

I do not believe companies should be allowed to get out of anything based on religious beliefs, and this is why: Companies are not individual people, they are groups of people, and those people do not necessarily all share the same beliefs. Even if they did, only an individual should be able to claim religious beliefs. If the company is able to pay for the coverage, and it is required by law, then they should be made to cover it, end of story. It seems just absurd for a company to be able to claim a religion.


Now there's a giant hole for business lawyers to jump through. "Well, the founder was a Jehovah's Witness. We can use that to keep from paying for blood transfusions!" "The current CEO is a Scientologist, we don't have to cover psychological drugs anymore!" That's not to mention the companies that will claim fake religious beliefs to get out of certain laws now. If you don't think any of this will happen, well...I envy your positive outlook on people.

Everyone is entitled to their religion, but I'm tired of people getting special treatment because they're religious. I believe churches, synagogues, etc. should pay taxes. Can you IMAGINE what would happen to our deficit if places of worship paid a tax, even a small one? Yes, people should be allowed to dress a certain way if their religion calls for it; and yes, people should be allowed religious holidays off from work. But again, a company is not a singular person with a belief. 

I believe companies should be free of religion, a business is not the place for it. It would be a different issue entirely if the company simply could not pay for the birth controls to be in their healthcare plan. And while many people are screaming about their right to do this, they can't seem to provide a good explanation for why just Plan B and IUDs, when drugs like Viagra are still covered. It's picking and choosing, and that should have been a major red flag to SCOTUS.

Yes, these women can get the Plan B and IUDs elsewhere. The company cannot and has not tried to limit that. But Hobby Lobby has just been allowed to impose their beliefs on their employees. What was wrong with covering Plan B and IUDs, really? It's not like it's the equivalent of telling people they HAVE to use it, but they have just told them they cannot unless they pay for it themselves. That is an imposition.

I could have more easily agreed to something along the lines of Hobby Lobby only paying for one type of emergency contraceptive and IUD, as my boyfriend suggested when I was talking to him about it. Then they could still maintain their beliefs but also satisfy the law. I don't know if that was even a thought to Hobby Lobby or SCOTUS, however.

So, bottom line: I don't think for-profit corporations should be allowed to claim religious rights, I think SCOTUS's ruling
was a bad one, and people are hopping on a bandwagon of anger without looking into or thinking critically about the facts.


- C.A. Swaim



Update (July 3, 2014): The beautiful Jaclyn Glenn has released a video on the issue, and once again I find myself nodding my head in agreement with her. I don't see whose religious beliefs got violated in this situation as she says, but I believe she really meant freedoms. The women affected have had their freedom diminished by another's religion, and that's unconstitutional.
Update (July 4, 2014): And so it begins.

- C.A. Swaim